|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Yes, read Pullman
| Yes, read Pullman [message #297831] |
So, 09 Juli 2006 22:50 |
|
yst... [at] cs.com Wrote:
> The reader at this point will tend to assume that Lyra's
> attitude represents the attitude of the author, and the
> Lord Asriel has been revealed as a horrible villain.
> However, later developments, in the next two books,
> makes it increasingly unclear whether the author truly
> disapproves of Lord Asriel's actions.
In other words Pullman refused to make his characters all white or all
black. Lord Asriel is a monster, there is no doubt about that, but a
monster who nevertheless has some qualities that can only be admired,
just like in the real world. It's devilishly hard to do so thus when
an author can create a truly horrible villain that you are almost
embarrassed to admit you sort of like, you can only stand at awe at the
genius. Off the top of my head I can only think of 3 such profound
villains in literature, Hannibal Lector, Severus Snape and Lord Asriel.
> To my way of thinking, the "truth telling" mystical
> aetheliometer has just lied to Lyra
You don't think Will was a murderer and I don't either, but Will
thought of himself that way and that's why the aetheliometer said he
was. Will was a harsher judge of his own actions that you are.
> He [Pullman] seems to be saying (in effect): "See
> little boys and girls, murder is not necessarily wrong.
And he's right, murder is not necessarily wrong, in fact sometimes it
would be wrong not to murder, if what you call what Will did murder.
> Nor does Pullman ever gets around to suggesting any
> method by which his readers can distinguish good
> murders from bad ones.
Well of course he doesn't! Do you expect him to hand you a handy
dandy 100% foolproof test to tell good from evil? All you do is use
your judgment, it's notoriously imperfect but it's all we have and
better than nothing.
>From the book"
"A murderer was a worthy companion. She felt as safe with him as she
felt with Iorek Byneson, the armored bear."
> Well, that passage creeped me out.
It creeped me out too, it was supposed to, sometimes a good book should
creep you out; or do you think the very definition of a superior writer
is the one who can create the most virtuous hero?
> My sympathies with Will faded a bit when he resolved that
> he did not care that he was a murderer, and would happily
> kill any more of these mysterious persons if they came
> near him or his mother again.
It reminds me of Huckleberry Finn, Huck was convinced that helping a
slave escape is a very evil thing to do but nevertheless he helps his
black slave friend Jim escape even though he thinks he will be
eternally damned for it. Huck decides he will be "evil" despite the
hideous punishment he is certain will come after he dies. That is true
bravery and virtue.
> Coulter and Asriel end by nobly sacrificing themselves
> so they can destroy the evil Metatron, chief of the Evil
> Angels. One could say that Coulter and Asriel redeem
> themselves by this noble sacrifice
Yes it was a noble sacrifice, and yes sprinkled in among the horror
they did do some good in their lives, but were they redeemed? I think
not. If by some miracle they survived and I was on their jury I would
not hesitate to recommend them both for the electric chair. Yes I'd
feel some sorrow when they pulled the switch but I wouldn't tell them
not to pull it.
> what Pullman really has in mind is a far more fundamental
> questioning of Judeo-Christian style moral code
Right, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.
> while replacing it with a far more flexible moral
> utilitarianism of the sort that is popular with
> murderous political leaders
I've never understood why the word "utilitarianism" has such a
bad connotation to so many people when what it really means is
rejecting stuff that doesn't work and embracing stuff that does.
Sounds like a rather good policy to me.
Eggplant
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, read Pullman [message #297995 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 22:51 |
|
"eggplant" <eggplant107 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152478211.511953.54720 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> yst... [at] cs.com Wrote:
>
>> The reader at this point will tend to assume that Lyra's
>> attitude represents the attitude of the author, and the
>> Lord Asriel has been revealed as a horrible villain.
>> However, later developments, in the next two books,
>> makes it increasingly unclear whether the author truly
>> disapproves of Lord Asriel's actions.
>
> In other words Pullman refused to make his characters all white or all
> black. Lord Asriel is a monster, there is no doubt about that, but a
> monster who nevertheless has some qualities that can only be admired,
> just like in the real world. It's devilishly hard to do so thus when
> an author can create a truly horrible villain that you are almost
> embarrassed to admit you sort of like, you can only stand at awe at the
> genius. Off the top of my head I can only think of 3 such profound
> villains in literature, Hannibal Lector, Severus Snape and Lord Asriel.
>
Jesus, you need to read some more...
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, read Pullman [message #300282 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 03:42 |
|
eggplant wrote:
> yst... [at] cs.com Wrote:
>
> > The reader at this point will tend to assume that Lyra's
> > attitude represents the attitude of the author, and the
> > Lord Asriel has been revealed as a horrible villain.
> > However, later developments, in the next two books,
> > makes it increasingly unclear whether the author truly
> > disapproves of Lord Asriel's actions.
>
> In other words Pullman refused to make his characters all white or all
> black.
True. But I hope you did not mean to imply, by the phrase "in other
words" that you think that that is what I was complaining about. I am
sure you will agree that I made VERY clear that the focus was my
impression that Pullman seems, in the end, to be suggesting that
Asriel's conduct was not morally wrong. But just in case, let me
reclarify.
It is not that at all. As a counterexample, JKRowling is an author
who, to a FAR FAR greater extent than Pullman, refuses to make her
characters "all white or black". Most of her characters, even her
heroes, have enormous moral flaws. However, I do not get the
impression that JKRowling endorsed the moral flaws she portrays. Take
Sirius, for instance. He is by no means portrayed as a "monster" (and
is far more likeable, and IMHO far more "good" than any of Pullman's
heroes, much less his villains) but it is crystal clear that she
regards his immoral conduct as being, indeed, quite wrong. It is far
less clear with Pullman, which is what disturbs me about him.
> Lord Asriel is a monster, there is no doubt about that, [...]
Uh, okay. You said that, not me. I merely considered Asriel's act of
child-sacrifice/murder to be completely morally repellant. I have no
desire to call him a "monster" or see him portrayed as "all black or
white." It is the act, not the character, that I would like to see
condemned.
But I am unsure what YOUR basis is for condemning Asriel. In calling
Asriel's act immoral, I am applying traditional moral precepts. But
you have implied (below) that moral codes should be abandoned in favor
of a moral utilitarian calculus. It is absolutely clear, from
Pullman's book, that Asriel is no sadist, but feels his regretable act
is necessary for the greater good. He clearly believes his act will
result in the "Greatest good for the greatest number of people," and
while there is no way to prove he is right, there is also (rationally)
no way to prove he is worng. He is no different, in other words, from
many a stereotypical mad scientist from comics, movies or sci-fi
novels.
> [...] but a
> monster who nevertheless has some qualities that can only be admired,
> just like in the real world.
Asriel is strong, fierce, domineering, courageous and clever -
certainly admirable in a very basic, morally neutral, sense. These are
the same virtues (indeed the only virtues) the Milton gave Satan in
Paradise Lost, who Milton regarded as a villain, but whom Pullman
purports to admire. It makes sense, therefore, that these are the only
virtues that Pullman thinks to give his heroes, except for his females,
ultimately placed in a subservient role and endowed with some capacity
for compassion (which Pullman seems to regard as a feminine quality.)
> It's devilishly hard to do so thus when
> an author can create a truly horrible villain that you are almost
> embarrassed to admit you sort of like, you can only stand at awe at the
> genius.
It is not so hard as you think. Any villain who is portrayed as
consistently winning, and getting away with his selfish crimes, is
likely to end up being admired and envied by the reader, who
understands the villain's motives and envies his rewards. I have heard
of young girls who watched Dark Shadows who began to admire Angelique,
a result I am sure the authors did not even intend.
> Off the top of my head I can only think of 3 such profound
> villains in literature, Hannibal Lector, Severus Snape and Lord Asriel.
Well, Hannibal Lector is not children's literature, Lord Asriel should
not be children's literature, and as for Snape, he is clearly in a
different category entirely from the other two. It is not clear that
he is even a villain.
> > To my way of thinking, the "truth telling" mystical
> > aetheliometer has just lied to Lyra
>
> You don't think Will was a murderer and I don't either, but Will
> thought of himself that way and that's why the aetheliometer said he
> was. Will was a harsher judge of his own actions that you are.
If I agreed with your interpretation, there would be no problem. Will,
however, throws off his guilt pretty fast, and in doing so becomes
morally compromised, for he makes a resolution to perform REAL murders.
Moreover, I believe the voice of the aetheliometer ["truth-meter"] is
the voice of the author, and the author ends by endorsing Will's
judgment, not only that his action is murder, but that he should not
mind being a murderer.
His agenda, of course, is not to judge Will harshly, but to say "see,
traditional morality forbidding against 'murder' does not work, because
it results in poor Will condemning himself. Therefore, the traditional
morality against 'murder' must be thrown aside, lock stock & barrell."
This is my interpretation, of course, but there is evidence to support
it. According to this interpretation, Pullman's argument is an
argument based on a lie, because, of course, traditional morality does
not condemn Will's original actions as "murder."
At no point in this children's novel does Pullman ever clarify the
situation. He never explains why Will's actions were correct, and why
other murders remain wrong. He just leaves it hanging.
> > He [Pullman] seems to be saying (in effect): "See
> > little boys and girls, murder is not necessarily wrong.
>
> And he's right, murder is not necessarily wrong, in fact sometimes it
> would be wrong not to murder, if what you call what Will did murder.
Certainly, if "murder" just means "killing" then it is true that not
all killings are morally wrong. However, "murder" normally refers to
an unjustifiable killing (or a traditionally unjustifiable killing),
making murders immoral by definition (at least by traditional moral
standards). But you miss the point. If Pullman's agenda was (as I
deduce) to attack traditional morality, then it was wrong to call it
'murder' and therefore to imply that such acts are condemned by
tradtitional moral codes. He is pretending traditional morality has a
flaw that it does not in fact have.
> > Nor does Pullman ever gets around to suggesting any
> > method by which his readers can distinguish good
> > murders from bad ones.
>
> Well of course he doesn't!
Why "of course?" There are plenty of authors that DO say something on
this subject. And it would not have been hard, in this context, to
explain to his child readers why what Will did was NOT murder.
"Accident" and "Self-Defense" make up a total of three words. Instead
he says (in effect) "Don't believe your deluded parents when they tell
you murder is wrong; follow your feelings.")
> Do you expect him to hand you a handy
> dandy 100% foolproof test to tell good from evil?
I expect him to say something about it, especially in a book aimed at
young readers. Rowling manages to say a thousand times more than he
ever does, and certainly makes it clear that she regards murder as
morally wrong.
> All you do is use
> your judgment, it's notoriously imperfect but it's all we have and
> better than nothing.
You might try internalizing a moral code that forbids killing, with
reasonably narrowly defined and limited exceptions. Otherwise, you
have no moral limits to apply your judgment to. Without a moral code,
"use your judgment" just means do what you want.
> >From the book"
>
> "A murderer was a worthy companion. She felt as safe with him as she
> felt with Iorek Byneson, the armored bear."
>
> > Well, that passage creeped me out.
>
> It creeped me out too, it was supposed to, sometimes a good book should
> creep you out;
Sometimes, but I hope you are not suggesting that that, in itself, is
sufficient.
> or do you think the very definition of a superior writer
> is the one who can create the most virtuous hero?
Of course I was not saying that, and you know it full well.
> > My sympathies with Will faded a bit when he resolved that
> > he did not care that he was a murderer, and would happily
> > kill any more of these mysterious persons if they came
> > near him or his mother again.
>
> It reminds me of Huckleberry Finn, Huck was convinced that helping a
> slave escape is a very evil thing to do but nevertheless he helps his
> black slave friend Jim escape even though he thinks he will be
> eternally damned for it. Huck decides he will be "evil" despite the
> hideous punishment he is certain will come after he dies. That is true
> bravery and virtue.
Huckleberry has rejected the morality he has been taught because it
conflicts with the demands of his compassion. But if you really feel
that rejecting and throwing aside all moral restraint is "true bravery
and virtue" then your thinking is far too like Pullman's for my
comfort.
> > Coulter and Asriel end by nobly sacrificing themselves
> > so they can destroy the evil Metatron, chief of the Evil
> > Angels. One could say that Coulter and Asriel redeem
> > themselves by this noble sacrifice
>
> Yes it was a noble sacrifice,
Rather. But you snipped the end of my paragraph, before I could get to
my actual point. My complaint was not that Asriel was redeemed, but my
fear that, in the author's mind, Asriel did not even require
redemption. There is certainly no indication in Asriel's case (in
direct contrast with Coulter) that he ever regretted anything he ever
did.
> and yes sprinkled in among the horror
> they did do some good in their lives, but were they redeemed? I think
> not. If by some miracle they survived and I was on their jury I would
> not hesitate to recommend them both for the electric chair. Yes I'd
> feel some sorrow when they pulled the switch but I wouldn't tell them
> not to pull it.
You are far more bloodthirsty than I am. I have no difficulty with
murderers being redeemed in fiction. As I made clear, that was not my
issue.
> > what Pullman really has in mind is a far more fundamental
> > questioning of Judeo-Christian style moral code
>
> Right, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.
Boy, you are really being the butcher here. If you are not going to
quote a complete sentence, and give some idea of the context, then
please do not bother pretending to debate at all.
Of course it is a "bad thing" to attempt to negate all aspects,
especially the more fundamental aspects, of traditional moral systems.
A tweak here, a revision there, might be things reasonable persons can
agree on, but reasonable decent people cannot advocating throwing moral
codes entirely in the trash. Our discussion has been about the taboo
against the killing of human beings. If that's not fundamental, then I
don't know what is.
> > while replacing it with a far more flexible moral
> > utilitarianism of the sort that is popular with
> > murderous political leaders
>
> I've never understood why the word "utilitarianism" has such a
> bad connotation to so many people when what it really means is
> rejecting stuff that doesn't work and embracing stuff that does.
> Sounds like a rather good policy to me.
I will assume by "utilitarianism" you mean the altruistic idea of "the
greatest good for the greatest number of people" and not "the greatest
good for yours truly."
Okay, let me explain it to you. Moral Utilitarianism has a very
limited legitimate use as a marginally helpful analytical tool for the
scientific analysis of moral codes by people safely locked away in
Ivory Towers. It can (perhaps), with the benefit of hindsight and
prolonged reflection by multiple high-powered brains, help explan why
competing and different moral codes do indeed promote the "Greater
Good" of all, within the context of the particular societies that
produce these codes.
It is not, however, a substitute for a moral code. When an individual
decides that he is above moral codes -- that he is too sophisticated,
too elite, too superior in his understanding of moral utilitarian
precepts -- then he becomes (to use your words) a "monster." He ceases
to be human, and places himself above humanity, as someone to whom the
normal rules do not apply.
As a substitute for a moral code, Moral Utilitarianism has a bad rap
for the excellent reason that it never prevented anyone from doing
whatever it is that they wanted to do (which is the very purpose of a
properly internalized moral code). It did, for instance, not stop
Asriel from killing Roger. Anyone can say, "my actions serve the
greater good," and no-one can prove them wrong, because no-one can
predict the future or predict alternate futures with any degree of
accuracy. Traditional moral codes at least have the benefit of being
based on considerations that the individual actor is able to determine
before he acts.
It is perhaps true that, from the perspective of an infinite
intelligence with infinite foresight, Moral Utilitarianism and Morality
are one and the same. But human beings do not have infinite
intelligence or foresight. Either we follow moral codes, or we are not
moral at all.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:28:01 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03064 Sekunden |
