But of course fanatical Catholic Bill Donohue is furious about the upcoming movie, The Golden Compass, and is ranting and raving about it. Pullman offers a universally useful and sensible response.
“To regard it as this Donohue man has said — that I’m a militant atheist, and my intention is to convert people — how the hell does he know that? Why don’t we trust readers? Why don’t we trust filmgoers?” Pullman said. “Oh, it causes me to shake my head with sorrow that such nitwits could be loose in the world.”
It’s just a book and a movie, and it doesn’t compel the reader to like it — and we could say that about any of the overtly atheist books that have been published lately. Maybe Donohue should save the outrage for the day we have tax-exempt Pullman reading rooms, or when Pullman is required reading in science classes, or when politicians are elected on the basis of their attractiveness to Kingmaker Philip Pullman and his lobbying group, Fantasy for the Family.
First! :)
And nice to hear actors saying something sensible for once.
If the gasbag hadn’t started bellowing for a boycott, I probably wouldn’t have bothered with the movie — it takes a lot of promise to get me to a theater. $10 tickets, sticky floors, no ushers (which there were back when tickets were $1), and loud dumb drunk teenagers making noise, breaking things, and getting not-evicted by the no-ushers. Now I’m pretty much obligated to put my ass in a seat.
Thanks a lot, Donohue.
Off topic but here is a link for you http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7114722.stm
Apparently the Cypriot Arch Bishop is looking for some divine intervention to stop another drought.
I’m surprised The God Delusion didn’t make it and depressed not one science book, did. Hm!
I was just looking at the comment thread about this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, and I have to say that it’s pretty hilarious and disheartening to read posts written by people not very experienced in discussing atheism and religion.
It reads like a very dumbed down version of the conversations on Pharyngula and Panda’s Thumb: the fundie posters there make even the regular trolls here look like geniuses. And that takes some doing.
And the ones defending the movies and books aren’t being very articulate about their opinions either.
Philip, not Bill. ;^)
I second Dustin’s post. Hopefully it will come to the cheap theaters soon, but even then you have to cough up 5 bucks for pop-corn.
“Maybe Donohue should save the outrage for the day we have tax-exempt Pullman reading rooms, or when Pullman is required reading in science classes, or when politicians are elected on the basis of their attractiveness to Kingmaker Philip Pullman and his lobbying group, Fantasy for the Family.”
Friggin’ brilliant. It just so happens that my six-year-old son’s teacher, whose hubby works for Fockus, was recommending last week that parents not allow their children to read this book or see this movie.
Oh, bitch bitch bitch. You want customer service? Then start fucking paying the people who serve you a living wage.
Also? Inflation. And concentration of ownership. Both these things contribute to the price of things. So stop bitching about how “In my day, a blowjob was a nickel, and you could turn her around for half a penny more”.
And? You can take care of yourself – you’re not some drooling invalid. So stop your bitching.
stogoe: I agree with you my point would be that insted of spending 10 bucks on tickets and helping college kids in my comunity or living wage jobs for people of limited means, I pay 10 bucks on tickets and $9.95 ends up in the pocket of some super fat cat in LA.
I didn’t find Pullman’s reply very illuminating. He calls Donahue a nitwit. While I would agree, name calling isn’t much of a come back.
His other point about trusting the readers and filmgoers isn’t much either. If one hasn’t read the book or seen the movie, how would they be able to have an opinion?
Worrying about Focus on the Family or the Catholic league’s evaluation is about equivalent to worrying about a dog’s. The book and film may lose some audience but they will gain some too. People are sick of wingnut religious bigots and their wannabe book burning tendencies.
Can someone provide a quick account of why Pullman’s books are supposed to be atheistic. I did read them years ago, thought they were OK but missed the atheistic message. I thought it was an interesting fantasy, however.
Should be a great film, judging by the care and time and trouble taken during filming.
Dakota Blue Richards is a very peasant young lady – who succeded in getting a (fake, paper) snowball down the neck of one of the associate prducers at one point …
Yes, I was one of the “extras” – playing a “Gyptian” – and it was a very interesting few days.
Locations: The Magisterium is the Painted Hall at Greenwich, the docks are Chatham historic Dackyard, Jordan College is a real Oxford college (I forget which one) and most of the snow scenes are studio, with, at one point about a hectare of Surrey pine-woods, in late October, covered with fake snow – hence the snowball fight!
Fardels bear,
That would be because some loony (Donohue) discovered that the author of a popular children’s book is actually… *gasp* an atheist. So obviously he must have some agenda to indoctrinate the innocent children with his fictitious story.
I like to call that projection.
Having just finished the “His Dark Materials” trilogy, I don’t find it quite atheistic. The book accepts the existence of “God” (or the “Authority”), but he is old, decrepit, senile, non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, and the non-creater of the universe(s). Perhaps all that is worse than non-existent. :-)
In my view, the author doesn’t advance the atheist cause, and I’m skeptical that any fictional story could.
First of all, fuck you. Second of all you seem to be saying that rather than NOT patronizing a media conglomerate which, through that consolidation, has driven up the cost of a ticket all while doling out a pittance to the detriment of its service, I SHOULD patronize them. That makes me think that one of the two of us drools a lot, and you’ve already said it isn’t me. Third point: fuck you. Fourth, the boycott defiance thing was clearly a joke about Donohue’s boycott acting as free advertising for the movie, but we’ve already established that you drool a little too much, so I won’t fault you for that. And finally: fuck you, stogoe.
Donohue is an ass because converting others is what HE does, as his mission in life! Why the fuck does he get to bitch about anybody else doing what he does all the time??
Of course, nobody accuses C.S. Lewis of having a conversion agenda in the patently allegorical “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” (or “The Magician’s Nephew” or “The Last Battle” for that matter).
But when an atheist writes a children’s story he’s immediately accused of being a tool of Satan.
Mind you, given that Rowling (who professes to be a Christian, though I doubt many fundies would agree) is still attacked even when she includes Christian themes in her books, it’s a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Did Donahue get all sassy about the Hitchhiker’s Guide movie? I don’t remember any fuss, but I don’t really pay attention to what he’s doing most of the time.
As dumb as this? Found on, of course, Uncommon Descent:
Oh, can I jump on the fuck-saying bandwagon too? :D
Lest this post be completely devoid of content, let me steer your attention to this well-regarded scholarly linguistics paper: http://www.douglemoine.com/english-sentences-without-overt-grammatical-subjects/
Holy nothing, stogoe, could you use a little more misogynistic language to complain about PZ complaining? Maybe if you worked at it?
I don’t believe he did. Probably because:
(a) the movie wasn’t the blockbuster release the Golden Compass is supposed to be
(b) it’s not specifically a family / kid’s story.
(c) religion is only mentioned in passing as a couple of throw-away jokes (God disappearing in “a puff of logic”).
I suspect that if Donohue whined about everything atheists write, people would quickly stop listening. He’s better off keeping his powder dry for the high-profile target, so that is what he does.
Raven, I will respectfully disagree with you on this point. Given the volume of idiotic things Donohue has said, calling him a nitwit is not name calling. Calling him a nitwit is descriptive.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6685898/
I think nitwit is mild. Raving loon would be a polite way to put it.
“While I would agree, name calling isn’t much of a come back.”
But it’s perfectly necessary. I dunno, I think if there weren’t people out there calling gasbags like Donohue names then people might think they’re worthy of respect or something. Ridicule, it’s a great thing.
Of course, it might have been nice if he turned the whole “conversion” thing back on Donohue, and surely Pullman was thinking it. I suppose this sort of rancor doesn’t belong in the world of YA novels.
Because he’s being competitive, trying to win souls for God. If he doesn’t try to slap down the opposition, they might get ahead. Your argument is similar to saying “Hey that boxer is hitting back! Why is he doing that?”
Opening quote: British author Philip Pullman is an atheist, but denies a religious group’s claims he is trying to recruit children to adopt his beliefs through his books.
No, that would be C. S. Lewis. But then I guess that’s OK with the deluded fuckwits because it’s also trying to recruit children to adopt their beliefs through the books. Can you say “double standard” and “projection”?
I watched the cartoon of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and the BBC production of some of Lewis’ other books as a kid. I even re’d The Magician’s Nephew.
And I’m not suddenly a catholic. Le gasp.
In fact it never ever twigged that they were christian pastiche. This was the first I ever heard of it, in fact. (At the ripe old age of damn well near to thirty. Yes – I’m a bit thick.)
Well, no. Donohue is more like a boxer who thinks only he should be allowed to throw a punch.
Dustin? Interrobang?
I think Stogoe was using “bitch” to describe an action, not for name-calling…
Just saying.
I think you’re in good company. I have a friend who’s almost 40 and it was news to him too when I told him.
So, is the Christian and Catholic institutions SO brittle and prone to fall that one bad word against them will topple the whole thing?
These people act like if you say one bad work about the Church, It’s all going to go down in flames.
If only this were true.
Oh yeah. Also: Fuck.
fardels bear:
I agree – why do people call His Dark Materials atheistic in nature? When I read them (the militant atheist that I am), I was mildly disappointed by the overriding religious themes in the book. I suppose it might be classified as “anti-Christian”, but even that is a stretch. Maybe anti-Catholic or anti-Big Church, but atheist? I don’t think so.
Well, yeah, but I think the misogynistic part was this:
Additionally, fuck.
I think Donahue has been such a gasbag about this movie because it’s not *exactly* an anti-god movie, it’s an anti Focus on the Family Movie, blaming the capture of children and castrating the children from their souls on a group not too much unlike Focus on the Family.
Donahue is just scared it will cut into his financial future “investors” of focus on the family, ya know, since these children will be encouraged to “think” and “reason”.
I hadn’t planned to take the kids to this movie, but now I will. And we’ll talk about evolution on the way there.
Fuck. Just thought I’d throw that in there.
Spoilers follow, for those who want to read the books for themselves.
Let’s see – the big, overwhelming bit of “atheism” in the book is that while there is a being who calls himself “God” (or “The Authority” in the parlance of the book) and who claims to have created the universe, it’s all a lie. The Authority is just the first “angel” – who came into being and told his fellow angels that he had created them and everything else as they came into existence. In fact, since the substance that the “angels” are composed of is a substance created by human consciousness (“Dust” or “Shadows” in the book), none of the angels could have even been in existence before human consciousness arose – basically humanity “created” the angels and “The Authority”, not the other way around.
And, of course, “The Authority” is a senile, fragile, pathetic old thing who is on the verge of falling apart by the time of the book. His power has been usurped by his Regeant – the “soul” of a dead man that became an “angel” thousands of years ago and has basically taken over Heaven (which is actually a floating mountain/war machine for the angels in the book). Neither the Regeant nor The Authority are in anyway remotely “good” – they merely have good propaganda – and The Authority ends up accidentally getting killed by the children as they try to help him while they’re on their way to do something else.
That’s the big one. There’s also the fact that the whole promise of a Heavenly afterlife is a lie – the “souls” of the dead (again, composed of “Dust”, which is somehow related to human consciousness) were trapped in a parallel world at the mercy of horrible screaming harpies for all eternity. Until the children came along and changed the world by allowing the “souls” to escape their empty afterlife and disperse into oblivion.
There’s also the portrayal of the Church itself on Lyra’s world – a ruthless organization willing to send out assassins to make sure that its authority isn’t compromised. And one of the main characters from our world is an ex-nun turned athiest scientist, and she’s probably the smartest person in the whole trilogy.
I probably missed some things but that’s the general gist of it. The series is a fantasy series, so it’s still full of supernatural stuff (like the “angels” and the souls of the dead, and the “Dust”), so I know some athiests who don’t consider the book as atheistic at all. When I first read it I thought the book felt more Gnostic than athiestic, but on a re-read I can see where the atheistic label fits more – especially knowing that the book was written as a response to Lewis’s Narnia books.
Fuck! I forgot to add the mandatory swea….
Oh well…
It’s probably worth noting at this point that people like Bill Donohue and James Dobson are slowly but surely losing the fight against secularism and materialism.
There are five times as many non-religious young people as there were 40 years ago (around 20% of youth today) and even amongst the believers, the fundamentalists are seen as shrill and hateful, especially when they attack the rights of gays and lesbians.
The increasing hysteria of the religious right is a result of their fear that they are losing, and it is backfiring on them. So let Donohue and Dobson whine and wail. It can only lead to further rejection of their hypocrisy, and will only hasten the end of the right-wing religious power base.
Christians react strongly against atheist authors, because they know that shielding the kids from atheism and stigmatizing it is an essential part of indoctrination. If they don’t, smart kids will often choose non-belief, because it makes so much more sense. Non-believing kids don’t need the same level of protection from casual exposure to Christianity, like a C.S. Lewis movie, because once they recognize that Christianity is a fairy tale, there’s nothing about reality that suggests anything to the contrary.
Christians are correct to fear the many new atheist voices, especially on the internet. They are responding to the attacks on their weak message by going to their strengths — deception, manipulation, coercion and repetition.
IMHO, of course.
What you have to remember is that Phillip Pullman is a late middle aged English schoolteacher who knew he was going to be quoted. In his lexicon and in polite society ‘nitwit’ is seriously cutting stuff.
When you can listen to this radio show:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/clue.shtml?focuswin
And not only laugh like I did when I just listened again but know ‘why’ it is funny, then you will be some way along understanding the English.
Charing Cross
I just read the His Dark Materials trilogy for the first time recently (in my 50’s). Sublime prose, a beautifully realized alternative universe, grand adventure and a metaphysical challenge to a dualistic and authoritarian orthodoxy whose power is based on an original lie. The people who are shrieking around about it like headless chickens seem 1. not to have read the book, 2. not to have any conception of the nature of allegory and mythology and 3. seem to self identify with the concept of their church as an all powerful,all pure hierarchy that deserves by its very nature to rule in whatever fashion it choses no matter how oppressive or corrupt. But at heart they must realize that the institution is oppressive and corrupt and that there is something very unnatural about the duality of spirit and matter or they would not be so afraid to have their children (who must never question the dogma) exposed to it.
It makes no difference if Pullman says he is an atheist or not, he is skillfully employing mythic themes that run throughout human culture and about which we should surely be conversant. Along the way, Pullman espouses real ethical values like loyalty, friendship, trust, honesty and compassion. Daemonic, I say. Can’t let your innocent children dicover that ethics come from within our own compassionate hearts and rational minds and not from imposed authority.
“In my view, the author doesn’t advance the atheist cause, and I’m skeptical that any fictional story could.”
Posted by: Greg Esres
I find that the Monotheistic Bibles (ie. Jewish Bible, Christian Bible & Koran) all do a wonderful job of advancing the atheist cause. The “god” presented in those fictional works is a petty, destructive and evil entity that is worthy of contempt and unworthy of worship even if it did exist. In those works you find an “awful” rather than an “awesome” being represented as “god”.
Hear, Hear old chap SJN, well said. It even has good old fashioned, honest to goodness redemption well mixed in of course with those mythic themes. When Lord Azrael and Mrs Coulter finally combine to drag the Archangel into the pit in order to save their child. Even the worst baddies can come good, what better, more uplifting moral messages do they want?
ps.
I didn’t need to say any four letter words as I used an even more obscene three letter word.
“god”
.
re:24
WTF is the deal with these fundies and anal sex? I mean serious, where the hell did that come from? If it’s not gay bashing in general, it must be the specific penetrating act specifically. Do they simply all have some major ass fetish or am I just completely missing something?
Donahue is nothing but a self-promoting would-be ayatollah. It seems like just yesterday he was voiding his bowels into his trousers over the display of a chocolate sculpture of a nude Jesus in a private art gallery. I swear, the only reason he exists is to throw these temper tantrums of his so that he can land another 15 seconds of fame on CNN before he finds out that all of his pissing and moaning won’t get him an audience with his imaginary friend in the sky.
Has anyone ever heard of this guy in any context other than having a conniption over the fact that most of the world doesn’t agree with his beliefs? Has he ever done any good for the world at all? The guy contributes nothing to the human condition other than stinky blasts of hot air and bile.
Oh great. Pharyngula’s turned into a fuck-fest. Please think of the quote-miners.
“When Lord Azrael and Mrs Coulter finally combine to drag the Archangel into the pit in order to save their child.”
Ann Coulter is in this?
A few dozen F-bombs dropped over here is not going to lower the opinion creationists have of this place.
Bombs away!
FUCK!
FUCK!
FUCK!
FUCKITY_FUCK!
oh shit
Dan,
Quote mining?
As in:
Look, C’mon. Let’s look at this sensibly. Donahue claims Pullman is “trying to recruit children to adopt his beliefs through his books.” To which one has to respond, “so?” Isn’t that what writers are supposed to do; express a point of view and try to do it in a convincing and engaging way?
Perhaps the wording is a little strong in that writers maybe aren’t attempting to “recruit” people to their beliefs so much as simply present a point of view. But even so, “recruit” or “present” are really just a matter of degree. I believe it is a tacit consent in literature between author and readers that the author is going to present a point of view and the reader is going to be exposed to it. Certainly to complain that an author is going to be persuasive is a validless complaint.
Thus Donahues complaint must reduce to “the author is an athiest and his athiest views are presented in the book and in the movie” (or is his complaint that his athiest views are not presented in the movie?) Well, this is simply a statement. Unless one believes athiest points of views should be exempt and forbidden in children’s literature and main stream entertainment, this can not be considered a valid “complaint” or “accusation”. Of course, Donahue very well might believe athiest points of views should be exempt but even he realizes that this likes to believe it has a tradition of democratic expression in which others should be allowed to claim another point of view. At the very best his comment must be seen as a warning. “This movie is based on a book by an atheist who expresses an atheistic point of view through the book. It is my believe he is hoping his expression is convincing enough to recruit children to his point of view.” This warning is, I suppose, valid in much the same sense as “Warning, Henry and June is a sensual film” and “Warning, Saw III depicts violence and gore” and “Warning, Curious George dumbs down a classic to a cynical and uncharming modern mentality” and “Warning, A room with a view is a costume drama and not a remake of Rear Window”
Alright, warning given. Warning heard. And, in my case, warning ignored as irrelevent to my concerns.
“”When Lord Azrael and Mrs Coulter finally combine to drag the Archangel into the pit in order to save their child.”
Ann Coulter is in this?”
No, her first name is not Ann, I forget what it is though. See also my point about who and what Pillip Pullman is. I doubt he knows who Ann Coulter is. That may be a genuine case of ignorance being bliss…
Pullman has come right out and said exactly what his books are about. Even if he hadn’t, it’s obvious just from the synopses. He might not like the comparison, but Pullman is an atheist CS Lewis: using fantasy fiction to promote a particular view of reality (Christianity or atheism).
Nothing wrong with that. The funny thing is that most readers are just going to enjoy the fantasy and will not care a whit about the intended lessons regarding religion. The Wikipedia description of The Amber Spyglass sounds a little like Paradise Lost (I look forward to the movie version of PL) told from the point of view of Satan. Vertigo’s Lucifer comic book series must have been influenced by Pullman. Well, it’s all fantasy fiction – the Bible, Rowling, Milton, Lewis, Pullman, Left Behind – anyway, so why not.
I liked the Narnia movie and maybe I’ll like The Golden Compass too (I’ll wait for the DVD because audience behavior these days is intolerable).
But using fantasy to promote atheism might not be the best device for that purpose. If Pullman were plugging New Age or Gnosticism that would make more sense, but his books might end up getting kids interested in mystical silliness like daemons and magical objects rather than skepticism, rationalism, and anti-theology.
Pullman making a pretty direct statement: “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief. Mr. Lewis would think I was doing the Devil’s work.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23371-2001Feb18?language=printer
Well, good luck with that. Like I said, most readers and moviegoers will only care the trippy fantasy elements.
On the other hand, Pullman has also said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21595083/
“As for the atheism, it doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all.”
So much for my claim that he is an atheist CS Lewis, apparently. Pullman appears to care more about behavior than belief. But what the rebel angels being the good guys, heaven being a tyranny, good people trying to create their own republic of heaven, God being so frail he dissipates in a gust of wind? Is that just about oppressive institutions or is it also about belief? Well, the great thing about books is that they are subject to multiple interpretations.
Actually, Pullman’s themes seem to me on the whole to contain as much gnostic material as outright atheism – the war in heaven, the idea that what we are calling God isn’t really god but a usurper. The war in heaven is a classic motif that runs through both middle eastern and Indo-European creation stories. The usurption of power is a gnostic theme. If the ranters on the religious right weren’t so ignorant of any version of the literary sources but their own cherry picked versions of the Bible, they might know this.
Speculatively the correlation between Pullman’s dust, consciousness and dark matter is quite interesting, realizing that we can play around with ideas without having to declare them true or false but “what if”.
No relation between Ann Coulter and the Marisa Coulter character in the book except they are both pretty evil. I believe the name Coulter may have been chosen for its original meaning which has to do with the blade of a plough. There is a lot in these books that will completely by pass most children and a lot of adults, too, if they don’t have the background allusions.
But using fantasy to promote atheism might not be the best device for that purpose. If Pullman were plugging New Age or Gnosticism that would make more sense, but his books might end up getting kids interested in mystical silliness like daemons and magical objects rather than skepticism, rationalism, and anti-theology.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The sort of kid who picks up the Dark Materials trilogy and finishes them and gets their message is also, IMO, going to be the sort of kid who can tell fantasy from reality and know when to put the one aside in favour of the other.
And this Bill Donohue can be raped by demons for eternity for all I care – it’ll help him explore his obsession with sodomy a bit further…
Demon: Bill Donohue, I have given you demon AIDS, and the pustules, sores and other blights it will bring you are your designated punishment in Hell.
BD: Demon AIDS? How?
Demon: I wasn’t wearing a condom. Because… well, you know… you’re Catholic.
Well, many of my secular friends (and myself at times) have complained that it was blatently a biblical allegory. Of course, when one complains one has to take into context the purpose of the complaint. Very few of my friends believed in censorship so most of the complaints had a tacit “… therefore I do not like these books” rather than “… therefore we should burn down the libraries that loan them” implication.
I don’t think C.S. Lewis wanted to convert anyone but to express why he that Christianity was beautiful and joyous. Not that I think either would make a difference.
I’ve wavored back and forth on my opinion of C.S. Lewis and my disgust at preachy better than you christian gloating against, dang, he’s a really good story teller and I still haven’t come to a conclussion. Currently I think they are good books. My sister, who is a bit more opinionated and judgemental, rather surprised me by saying she believed they were much more pagan than christian and the christian stuff very mechanical than pervasive (Aslan tricked the witch into sacrificing him because he knew a deeper magic and knew this would win the war against the bad guys is completely different to her than Christ dying on the cross to save the *our* souls even though *we* are not worthy of licking his boots). O…kay, maybe but I’m not convinced…
I did have a friend at college who converted to Born Again Christianity with the Narnia books being the concluding argument. Someone asked him if Christianity could be like the Narnia books would he accept Christianity then. O…kay, I had another friend at college who converted to Christianity while jogging in a Los Angeles aquaduct under some freeways. He said he looked up and saw that everything in his field of vision was artificial and man-made and it looked like a scene in a science-fiction movie. He says it was as though God was saying to him, “Look, I can make things look like a scene from a science-fiction movie if I want to and if that is what it takes to you get you to notice.” Again, O…kay.
I tend to dislike the heavy-handers like Pullman and Lewis … but then they were both dang good story tellers.
But, yeah, this *is* an example of knee-jerk prejudice against atheists. It *is* hypocritical.
I never heard anyone complain about christian themes in her books. The usual book burning fundies complained because it contained magic and sorcery, but I never heard complaints about Christian elements…
What Christian elements? Oh, it had the usual love and forgiveness is more powerful than hate, and egotism and lust for power corrupt treacle, but I don’t thing those are particularly “christian” ideas. All I know of is Hogwarts observed Christmas (and Halloween).
“There is a lot in these books that will completely by pass most children and a lot of adults, too, if they don’t have the background allusions.”
Sure, but the same can be said in spades for Tolkein. You do not need to know a great pile of Old English and Norse myths and stories to enjoy it, or be able to get where he derived Elvish from. I certainly had no idea when I first read the Ring Trilogy. I think I had read a children’s version of the Odissye but not Beowulf and I didn’t bump into anything properly early until Chaucer at University.
Oh I was sorely tempted towards a career based on learning something like ancient Icelandic and deconstructing the sagas. I even talked to my English tutor about it. But science beckoned…
I suppose you could say it’s about belief in kindness, democracy, open-minded enquiry, etc.
HDM promotes humanism if anything – which, despite the protest of nitwits like Donohue, is neither synonymous with atheism nor a bad thing.
I really hate the Christian Crusade against Literature.
First of all, yes, His Dark Materials is distinctly anti-Christian, or rather, anti-Catholic, as his entire trilogy follows a Gnostic allegory. There’s a reason for that. Pullman is specifically responding to C.S. Lewis. C.S. Lewis not only wrote highly prostelytizing novels for children, but he also incorporated into all of his works pagan symbolism that he had appropriated for use in a Christian allegory. Pullman is doing exactly the same thing with Christian imagery as a response to Lewis. Pullman is not the only person who has drafted a response to Lewis. Neil Gaiman wrote a short story addressing one of the major ethical dilemmas of Lewis’s approach (albeit addressed to adults rather than children) and the recent film Pan’s Labyrinth is, in part, a vicious critique of Lewis’s world.
Now, we didn’t see any sort of major opposition to the making of the Narnia films, even though they were blatant Christian allegory. This hypocrisy concerning Pullman because Pullman might be pushing his atheist agenda is absurd.
If you don’t want your kids reading the book, fine, I’m a big fan of teaching children how to use a library.
As for the movie, it’s been made relatively clear that the film is going to differ somwhat from the book. Whether that means it’s going to have a much more subdued message, I don’t know. Instead of ranting and raving about it, these nuts should at least see the damned thing first.
That sounds interesting. What story was that and what were the “major ethical dilemas” of Lewis’s approach.
Actually, what I object to most in Lewis’ books isn’t the Christian allegory (which I merely disagree with) but the rather blithe glorification of war tinged with the romantacism of battles of knights of old, (Actually, I disliked the movie much more than I thought I would as I thought it was an an apologetic call to the justification of the war in Iraq. Wars are *always* nasty! Even when we are on the right side and war is the only option, wars are horrific, inhuman, ugly, and nasty) and the rather excessive display of patriatism bordering on glorification of the Narnians. Well, I guess the whole ball of wax (glorifying ones country, romanticizing one’s ethic, and worshiping one’s religion) go together.
I once wanted to write a childrens fantasy where hero-worshipping and willingness to die for a cause (and promoting a cause as worth dieing for) where portrayed as very bad ideas. Basically, an anti-zealotry even for good causes tract.
Hah! Dr. Locrian thought the commenters on Rotton Tomatoes were bad?
This is a thread from the paranoid minds of the Rapture Ready folks. The site is actually a spin-off of Rapture Ready. Apparently these folks felt that RR was getting to friendly to those who’d dispute the xian religion!
So, you can guess what the thread must be like.
http://www.prophecyfellowship.org/showthread.php?t=312660
I was probably going to go to this movie anyway, as the FX looks totally cool, and the costumes are well done, the actors are good, and it looked like a cool story. I love a good fantasy yarn.
I was planning on catching it for discount matinee, but now I’m paying full price for the regular feature, just to piss off Donahue, et. al. ;-)
I was another one of those clueless kids for whom C.S. Lewis’s Christian allegory in the _Chronicles of Narnia_ completely flew over my head. I moved from Narnia on to _Taran Wanderer_ and that whole series of books. I did try to get into the Shanara books, but by then I was in high school and getting interested in history books instead.
I remember those. Derivative fiction at its finest ;)
Interstingly, I think, a movie made from another atheist author’s book opens the same day: “The Atonement,” by Ian McEwan, to whom Christopher Hitchens dedicated “god Is Not Great.”
I always love what this kind of thing says about the Xians and their faith. If they had genuine faith then no work of fiction by an atheist could be a threat, no work of fact should be able to sway them. Real faith would see them through the temptation and what they see as lies and they’d come out the other side sure of their choice. But Xian leaders are always so desperate to make sure their followers don’t risk it, and that says everything anyone needs to know about their faith. Those leaders know their followers are largely brain washed and ignorant, and anything that suggests their delusion might be wrong could be all it takes to tip them out of the madness of faith. Xian leaders can’t trust their followers, because deep down they can’t trust themselves, they know their own faith is really a sham, and by extension so is the faith of all their followers. They all live in abject terror of the day the people with the money realize this and cut them off. Someone genuinely secure in their beliefs doesn’t have to worry about the beliefs and opinions of others.
From what I’ve read in a NY Times profile of the director recently, ‘The Golden Compass’ movie promises to be craptacularly watered-down with respect to its anti-religion message. I shudder to think of how emasculated the 2nd and 3rd books will be, after Hollywood’s through with them.
(Btw, is there a way to search Pharyngula comments? I’m trying to find a comment I posted awhile back and don’t see any way to do that, nor do I remember exactly what thread it was in)
Just go cheney yourself :-)
A few months ago, Rowling herself came out saying she had put Christian motives in there. Basically Harry’s victory over death.
Just go cheney yourself :-)
A few months ago, Rowling herself came out saying she had put Christian motives in there. Basically Harry’s victory over death.
Steven:
Yes. Google.
I’m not being snarky here – I’ve done it many times, and it works pretty well.
Re: Donohue-and-cry. Once again, a world religion that doesn’t stand up to a children’s story can’t be worth much. Pullman’s right, and the subtext of everything Donohue says is this:
“I don’t think people can think for themselves (so I will do it for them).”
Does Google find blog comments?
Does Google find blog comments?
Google search:
“site:scienceblogs.com”
and your name
Pharyngula-specific:
“site:scienceblogs.com/pharyngula”
Only click on those that begin “Posted by: “
Actually, it’s more efficient and sensible to have “posted by:[your name]” part of the search.
“Actually, I disliked the movie much more than I thought I would”
I rather liked it, mainly due to Tilda Swinton. I was rooting for her all the way even though I knew what was going to happen.
And the kids, they made them even more priggish and vile than they were in the books.
I read all the Narnia books in my twenties and missed the Christian allegory until much later when my son read TLTWATW and said, “Is Aslan supposed to be Jesus?”
When Pullman came along I was transfixed and my only regret is that he was not around when I was a young, impressionable teenager, but at least I can now recommend him to my youngest. Whether she listens is another matter, she seldom does, thank God, or rather thank fuck.
*Piffle* as a christian motif it’s trivial and borderline blasphemous (Potter is a pretty dang weak Christ character). As a non-christian motif, it’s … a plot device, and not an original one at that.
hell, I’ll go just to see Daniel Craig..yummy.
@68:
Yes, the first movie’s religious content is pretty well neutered, according to this unexpectedly large article in The Atlantic Monthly (behind paywall). But Pullman claims there that that’s because ‘my priority for now is to see that the next movies in the series get funded’.
Well, it’s not like there’s a terrible amount of anti-religion content in the first book. Just the mentions of the Church, and the growing realization that they’re Bad. Could be any church, really. If it were to please Billy, he could pretend that it represents the Mormon church! :D
Except that the Mormon church doesn’t rule the world, so the comparison might fall flat. Who was it that brought up Billy’s complaints as tacit acknowledgment that the Catholic church is as bad as the Church in HDM?
There is something nicely subversive in the powerful sort of religion Pullman describes– In some ways, it’s the experimental theology (as something like physics) that is the sharpest cut of all in Pullman’s books– not that many like Donohue would get it. If religious ‘technology’ really worked as advertised (once you’d done the right experiments and built the right devices) the status of religion would be utterly different. Towns with the right sort of cathedral would be protected from floods or plagues; the right sort of rituals would cure illness; etc. (Of course the suppression of heresy is, as it always was, a losing game in the long run: once you actually expect something to work, you can tell when something else is better even if it isn’t the accepted view. So the anti-authoritarian message comes through loud and clear as well on this point.)
Exactly. Pullman isn’t the one with $90 million on the line, the studio is, and they know that if the first movie is a hit, the sequels will likely be so too. So they had no interest in alienating the paying public, the majority of whom are Christians. A little bit of controversy is good, too much will kill the box office. As long as Donohoe is seen to be reaching in his condemnation, then they have little to worry about.
Of course, the funny thing is, Donohue and his ilk believe that this is all part of Pullman’s subversive plan: to get the kids hooked on the movies so that they’ll want to read the books which will turn them all into evil, bile spitting spawns of Satan.
Venger, comment # 67—you are so right! If their beliefs were true, there’d be no need to defend them. Since they are defending their faith, their god must not be as strong as they say he is.
About Christian parents: I don’t think its fair to say that they are preventing their kids from exposure to things due to a desire to indoctrinate them. I used to be a Christian, and the motivation of most Christian parents is to have their children “born again” so that their children don’t go to hell. The conservative Christian religions are big on promoting the fear of “spending eternity in hell” and its very effective. Now, the Christian leaders are probably heavily driven by the desire to increase the number of their followers, so there’s a definite power play there.
As to children who profess to have already been “born again” the parents who oppose exposure of those “saved” children to contrary viewpoints are fearful of losing influence over their children, so that becomes a true power issue. Also, a fear of the unknown.
#62 Gaiman’s story is called The Problem with Susan and you can read it on line here:
https://webfiles.berkeley.edu/xythoswfs/webui/SrAndrea/narnia?action=frameset&subaction=print&uniq=gljjav
Have you seen Pan’s Labyrinth? It replaces Lewis’s cavalierism in regards to WWI with a pretty dark approach to the Spanish Civil War.
re post #63
OMFSM, christian message boards are dull. No one ever seems to have a novel viewpoint. Just a bunch of rhetoric and nodding. Is the only place you’ll find a fairly reasonable (by theistic standards) theist on an atheistic blog?
I don’t know…
“If this evil deception/atheist propaganda can be produced now, imagine what will be produced after the Rapture. When the restraint against evil is removed…” made me laugh out loud. Of course, it probably wasn’t the poster’s intent.
But Pullman’s Magisterium is not the Catholic Church. It is based in Geneva and is a Catholic/Calvinist hybrid. And remember that most of North America is part of New Denmark, a nation of mixed Viking and Skrayling (Native American) cultures. New France is Mexico, and somehow a conflict between France and Denmark at the Alamo helped establish a small independent English-speaking nation of Texas, which is where Lee Scorsbey is from.
EXCELLENT!!!!
@Peter Ashby in post #41.
Charing Cross eh? Are we using Stovold’s fifth diverticlum? Are diagonals allowed?
If so:
Fairlop.
Be careful, the next move could put you in Nid.
Louis
P.S. To stay on topic: Movie doesn’t fete Jebus in every line, certain fucking idiots bloviate and whine? Big whoop! Film at eleven.
P.P.S. Fuck.
P.P.P.S. Fuck
Stovold’s fifth diverticulum huh? I think diagonals are allowed, but only leftwards. Kings Cross is out of bounds as being too ubiquitous.
Mill Hill East
Hah! try going somewhere from there.
Well, Dagenham, obviously. And I am declaring Double Huff.
Belatedly, because it hasn’t been mentioned for a few dozen comments, but I never realize the Chronicles of Narnia were supposed to be Christian allegory either until LITERALLY the final page of The Last Battle.
(In my defense, I was like 10, and at that age I was still idealistic enough to believe that nobody REALLY believed in the stories in the Bible anymore than they believed in Mother Goose. I mean, it’s just silly – people don’t walk on water…right?)
Double Huff eh?
I see you have both fallen netly into my trap.
Hainault!
Louis
You will also note that you have fallen neatly into my trap too.
DAMN!
Louis
Hainault eh? you devil sir.
But at risk of a torticolis on the diverticulum I think I can squeeze out to
Wembley Central.
You will find it is allowed as I have double huffed to the trains.
Wembley Central?
That puts you in Nid. Stovold’s FIFTH diverticulum, FIFTH, not fourth. Which means of course you miss a turn. In that case my two moves are:
Green Park and Cockfosters.
Have at you!
Louis
Louis:
What unimaginative play. I move to Wimbledon and place the District Line in Womble.
On the subject: I think the more the Christian right howl about this film, the better. It’s not being billed as the next Passion of the Christ; it’s a kid’s film and when all this is over they will look foolish for having worked themselves up into such a lather.
Unimaginative play eh? This from someone obviously following basic Crabbit’s Rule and an utterly naive Obolensky Opening.
Are elevators wild? I think so and thus:
Stratford!
Louis
One can only hope. :)
—————
SPOILERS FOLLOW
—————
The films will be toned down, but upon reading the books, viewers will find the extent of Pullman's criticism. The Magisterium - cynical, power-hungry organization that it is - seeks to control or excise the very essence of human nature, and will kill children to do so. The afterlife, far from being as described by official dogma, is a bleak hell of endless milling about with the occasional torment by harpies, where the only freedom from it is oblivion. And, in the end, two children (who importantly come of age in the process) have the courage to set things right, partly in spite of their humanity and party because of it.Hmmmm… That has put a scupper on my plans to place you in Rucksack. So for now I shall use the inverse diagonal and reverse bump into CANADA WATER whereby I activate Stollit’s Thames Defense.
Tut, tut. You know a thread is in trouble when the Brits start playing Mornington Crescent on it.
Oh that is staggeringly good play, Maxi. Worthy of Humph himself. You’ve totally blocked my laterals. The Thames Defense is a masterstroke.
I’m afraid though you did leave me one or two options from Bartemius’ Bumper Book of Cross Rail Cuttings, and so:
Hammersmith.
Louis
I am… in awe!
Louis, Peter Ashby, ajay, et al: What the hell are you guys on about? If this turns out to be some new contagious strain of lunacy contracted from one of the wingnut forums you people insist on subjecting yourselves to I’m out of here and going to by canned goods…
What just happened here?
Chris: I can only refer you to: http://www.amazonsystems.co.uk/data/morn.htm
Louis: You are too kind, it was merely the first move I could think of to secure my future in the game! But now having a chance to collect my wits and catch my breath I’ve realised that Stovold’s Fifth amends article 93, allowing me to proceed to Oxford Circus and set up the Big Top Play effectively stopping movement north of the Central Line. I also collect 7 nifty silver tokens. Hurrah for me!
PS PZ, you should be happy. Mornington Crescent is a sign of discerning taste.
PZ, are you not a Player then? For as an American you most certainly cannot be Gentleman (See: Stovold vols 1 to 253, vols 288, 289 and 6453, and obviously the special International Bigotry Supplement part 29: Colonials).
The thread is fine, but let’s be blunt, the kooks, loons, whackos, fuckwits, assorted fruitcakes, whiners, fake persecution victims, war on Xmas lovers, pundits, puppets, priests, parishoners, confused, and the simply de-fucking-ranged (see I can be on topic!) were ALWAYS going to have a pop at Pullman. After all the horrid horrid man doesn’t frig himself silly over Jebus, Jesus, that Mexican chap Jesus, Yahweh, Jehovah, God, Allah, The One, Brad Pitt, El Chupacabra, Zeus, Tiamat, Bum-Bum the InWINcible or Lord Vishnu (who’s got a tough old job I can tell you).
How dare this vile British excresence write a successful series of books, which then go on to be optioned as films, that in no way honour, worship, praise, proselytise for and generally go all pink and gooey over any of the above? Isn’t it therefore right and proper that he, his friends and family, and indeed anyone who has ever even seen someone who has walked past a bookshop that may or may not contain the books in question, and all their descendants unto the the speciation after next be beaten, killed, flayed, burnt, buggered and morally cornholed for all eternity?
OF COURSE IT IS!!!!! (I said it in caps therefore it’s true)
Don’t you know that this is because the very existence of these books, this film and their author is a gigantic foestering turd in the mouth of every believer everywhere and at all time? That they and he represent the persecution foretold by all righteous prophets, seers, soothsayers and oracles since-a-dawn-a-time-a?
Come on PZ, why do you have to persecute these innocent little lamb like people so very very much by even acknolwedging the existence of this suppurating sore on Satan’s scrofulaic scrotum?
Shame on you!
Louis
Hey, I frig myself silly over Tiamat.
I mean, for the Babylonians, Tiamat was simply the sea. All things considered, I rather like the sea.
Oh dear! Big Top Play AND Wild Elevators? We haven’t seen that situation since the Lyttleton vs Garden 1982 World Cup Final. And Garden was stretchered off! Be careful people! So with that in mind, I’ll play safe:
Balham!
Louis
Hmm nothing north of the Central Line is it? Well we shall just have to satisfy PZ and get some relevance back into things:
South Kensington
PZ, the problem with trying to play MC in the proper places is there are always too many other players. Besides, we shall only cease if you can tell us the rules, including ALL the variations…
Fear not! As you shall see I am a fairly vigorous player of the beautiful game, having my formative training with RCL Dunfay and his own Little Known Rites and Plays of Mornington Crescent.
Anyway, I’m glad my Big Top Play has been so effective. I shall maintain it for 2 more turns by moving to Picadilly Circus.
JDP,
I love the sea deeply too, but we’re just friends. Whatever floats your boat!
Frigging yourself at sea reminds me of a song:
‘Twas on the Good Ship Venus,
……
Second thoughts, even though this thread has got the word “fuck” in it a few times, perhaps not.
Louis
P.S. Rugby songs? Mornington Crescent? Gratuitous use of the word “fuck”? Chuck in a few ASBOs, an inordinate fondness for tea, a discussion about the bad habits of foreigners and we’ll have seized control of Pharyngula for Her Majesty! Go to it my fine fellow folk from Albion! Cry “Bollocks!” for Prince Phillip (A racist, Greco-German), Queen Elizabeth (A German) and England (Not German….much, well Southern Water is German, but….oh sod it)
Picadilly Circus? Straight after South Kensington? With Wild Elevators and almost all lateral moves blocked? There’s nothing for it but:
Mornington Crescent!
Louis
P.S. I love you Jeremy
Curse you Sirrah!
I shall set my daemon on you. I have been to http://www.goldencompassmovie.com and found myself a tiger daemon called Sirion.
That was my attempt to keep the thread on topic. Apparently making daemons for yourself is ungodly.
Um Louis, I’m terribly sorry but once Canada Water has been invoked I don’t think you can get to Mornington Crescent without visiting Mudchute, at least not without solving Sponson’s conundrum!
Oh dear Huwp, you’re quite right. Excellent work. I am therefore in Spoon.
Maxi I’m afraid that as you wrongly granted me an erroneous victory you are stuck in the Dollis Hill Loop for three goes. I see that Huwp or Peter could acheive Mornington Crescent in 3 possibly 4 moves.
Unless of course someone appeals, removes me from Spoon, and invokes the Finsbury Rules. Then it would be an open game once more, with of course Clause 7b applicable to all players within a fourteen mile radius of Paris Charle De Gaulle airport.
Louis
Brits? There goes the neighborhood…
:)
Heyyyyy! No fair. We’ve got soap now.
Most of the time.
Louis
I wish to play my joker and so move to Ravenscourt Park.
Hah!
Stop it! This has gotten way too silly!
Assuming my invocation of the double huff earlier counts as my joker I have little choice. I shall dive headlong south of the River and wielding my spoon arrive at:
Elephant and Castle.
And I shall have you know Chris that I showered today!
Janine – are you playing the “tidy-up” amendment or genuinely asking us to stop. It’s just that the “stop it and tidy up” flanking manoeuvre is a well known ploy.
Peter – what a lovely move! Always nice to see a true player at work.
Is it Louis’ go yet?
Anyway – Euston Square!
Huwp it could be that Janine is fact being cleverly complementary. As all should know it is a practical impossibility to be too silly.
Peter, it was just that I’d reached the semi-finals of the North Kent regional qualifiers a couple of years ago and I was badly out-flanked by the “stop it and tidy up” manoeuvre, admittedly done in reverse (I’m not a complete novice) and got knocked out. Just wanted to be sure really.
Balham
“–Gateway to the South. We enter Balham through the verdant grasslands of Battersea Park, and at once we are aware that this is a land of happy, contented people.”
I have no idea what is going on here. Just pushing prodding to see what happens. Plus, that was a bit of Monty Python.
I was wondering if any of you Mornington Crescent players could point me to a place I buy a rulebook.
It seems that it has been out of print for a while and hard to come by.
I did see a copy in windows of one of the second-hand bookshops in Charing Cross road a few months ago but I couldn’t stop. By lunchtime it had gone.
I’m going to move to Aldwych now – I know it’s dangerous but sometimes you have to be bold.
oops “I can buy” not “I buy”
Remember kids always click the preview button.
I am torn now, Since being restricted to Not North of the Central makes circling the target a tad difficult I shall do what I can.
Fenchurch St.
You should always be careful Janine, there are many false rulebooks out there. The cognoscenti can tell though, by how the author handles Samantha.
Sorry, I was in Spoon. I see you all escaped the Dollis Hill Loop easily, well done. I enjoyed playing with such seasoned veterans of the great game. That rule book in the Charing Cross window was a fake by the way, as an Pending- Member-In-Applicant of the IMCS I was duty bound to have it destroyed. Proper copies of the rules and amenments can of course be obtained from the society at the usual address under normal circumstances. Sadly though we are awaiting another print run, as the rules are at the moment out of print. As Spurge notes.
I was disturbed to also note a request that we stop because we’re being too silly, but then gratified to note that it was an exploratory move in the manner of Graham Chapman Esq. Well no one likes a joke more than he does. Except perhap his wife and a few of her friends. Excellent player and a Gentleman to boot. But I digress.
Fenchurch St eh? Very cunning. You almost had me there with a non-Standard Inverse Return. Last used in the 1957 All-Comers Play Offs and Naturist Weekender by Arthur Worplsedon, if I remember correctly. That frees up a few of my laterals, gives me free rein over the turnwise diagonals but as experienced players will note restricts suburban bidding to below the A40. Lateral shifting now would be an error on my part of course, although luckily I have a strong outer square and have created the standard Stovold Triangle of Enlightenment. Tricky….tricky.
Finchley Central!
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Louis
Curses, I was relying on holding you at or below the Central Line, but your masterly invocation of the STE has you roaming free to The North again. Finchley Central, I know it well as that is the business premises of my bankers, there is a good Korean there too iirc. Whch of course brings me to the obvious move, I learned this from the knee of Sven himself as a nipper:
Bank
Oh and Peter is right about a Litmus test for MC rule correctness being the author’s handling of Samantha. She’s a very bright girl, and ever so helpful. She’s off this week to help a gentleman friend of hers who is a blind fruit farmer. He has a special technique for determining whether his fruit is suitable for market or jam making which involves careful feeling of the fruit to check for bruises and skin imperfections. That dear girl told me she’s whiled away many hours with his plums in her hands.
And as for the game she’s so industrious. She always gets her head down when the team’s points are up.
Louis
Bank, eh? Very nice, but I can see an opening.
Tottenham Court Road!
Louis
Sorry, Peter, I have no interest in the cognoscenti has to say. I want to be part of the obliterati. And Roxy Music came to save the world and all I got was this lousy T-shirt and I’m haunted by the freakish size of Nancy Reagan’s head.
No way that thing came with that body!
Cripes, you are getting close old chap. I can see I have a Knight Tilter at Things Arcane on my hands. My only recourse is to fling myself down that left diagonal in a move you will not have seen coming.
Tooting Broadway
‘Twoud have been Mordern, but I have a cold and got puffed.
In all seriousness Janine, I should point out that we are not merely being Python-esque or surreal or funny or silly.
Mornington Crescent is a real game with real rules that Peter, Maxi, Huwp, myself and others are really playing. The BBC Radio 4 game show “I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue” is currently airing on BBC Radio 4, you can listen to the latest episode as a podcast on the Radio 4 website, I strongly suggest you do. ISIHAC often contains small games of Mornington Crescent, and you’ll be able to work out what the rules are if you listen carefully. Obviously the game that we are paying in text is more technical, complex and nuanced, but the audio version is easy enough to pick up.
Good luck!
Louis
Thank you Louis. But I have started playing Calvinball with you. Just say that it is an other world and an other girl.
TOOTING BROADWAY!! Damn! I thought I had you there, it was Mornington Crescent in 2, via Redbridge of course (Glibwrangler’s Fourteenth bilateral shift, I was gambling on it, quite sweet as I’m sure you know).
Although I would normally appeal to the Chairman over your quite blatant use of the Sligoe Impediment, I’ll forgo my inevitable win by default and plub for Rushton’s Gambit:
Knightsbridge!
Louis
Oh Mornington Crescent is nothing like Calvinball, although I have enjoyed a game or two of it whilst on the other side of the Pond. I am serious Mornington Crescent is a real game with real rules. Seriously! Look them up.
Louis
Fucking limeys.
Ummmmmmmmm you said “Fuck”! I’m telling.
Miss, miss he said “fuck”.
Louis
That move comes close to a torticolis of the diverticulum there, but since you are using Rushton’s gambit that would seem appropriate. After the cold spell I feel like some roast chestnuts so that makes it Mate in 2 and 3/4 if you go Widdershins around the Cross:
Covent Garden
It does indeed but as we both know Ruston’s Gambit avoids many problems, and as we both equally know to complete Rushton’s Gambit only one destination will do:
Ongar!
Louis
Here’s looking back at you, from
Goodge St.
Oh dear Peter that puts you in Prig. You can do nothing else but leave on your next turn and go to Charing Cross.
I’m going to invoke the Imperial College Rugby Club Rule and run naked down:
Regents Street!
Louis
Your match of MC is starting to rival the great cross Atlantic grudge match between Arthur Conan Doyle and Harry Houdini.
I can’t go straight to the Cross now, we haven’t finished going widdershins around it yet. I shall visit my friend at the new Kings an see if he is still in the lab
London Bridge
Big mistake! Elephant and Castle.
Louis
Mind the gap.
Aha, I have you knotted now! Not only have we already been to Elephant and Castle but we were going around the cross and by diving there you have pulled the knot tight. Really, and I thought you a real adept… Wolpert’s sliding topological move is the only way out.
Bermondsey
(Didn’t Houdini have to go through contortions to neutralize Doyle’s holmes-field advantage?)
Spurge,
Perhaps so, but we are both on the same side of the Atlantic AFAIK.
I prefer to think of it as the epic tussle between Brooke-Taylor and Fry of 1999.
YMMV
Louis
Bermondsey? BERMONDSEY?
I thought you knew how to play this game! Far be it from me to call this off so I can go and make dinner, but I am tired of toying with you. I’ve checked and double checked the rules applicable, I’ve phoned Humph for a ruling and I’ve even used the Online Stovold Resource to model the game in real time. It has to be:
Mornington Crescent.
Louis
Well I knew Aldwych was a dangerous move, but I must admit it had unforeseen consequences and by the I was disentangled Louis’ gone and won.
Well played all, perhaps Tudor Court Rules next time?
Toodle-oo!
Huwp,
Tudor Court Rules?
Oh definitely? Ye Cross of Charing….DAMN! I’m addicted.
{stands on chair}
Hi everyone. My name’s Louis and I’m addicted to Mornington Crescent.
And crack. But mostly Mornington Crescent.
Louis
Pardon me for butting in, gentlemen, but I my interest waas piqued by hearing of the fair Samantha’s current beau.
Would this by any chance be the same pomonologist who was planning to move into scrumpy production? I seem to recall her mentioning something about his being big in cider.
PS. Does Stovold Online have the latest ruling by the queen of Markesbury? I was sure that that Bermondsey to MC was impossible when the North was blocked. I mean otherwise it’s much too easy to win when elevators are wild under the fith diveticulum. Of course, if this had been the fourth, I’d have no qualms, but as it is, I feel uncomfortable.
PPS. Bollocks.
Argh! How foolish of me not to have noticed that Louis’ move was invalid! I was sidetracked by cake in the next office, I think.
I will bow out of this next game, however, I feel I am out-played. Farewell, fellow Morningtonia aficondos!
I was sidetracked by cake in the next office, I think.
The cake is a lie.
I’m afraid Louis’s MC move was a foul. He called Bermondsey twice after Elephant & Castle and under the Dockland Light Railway variant of the Dollis Hill loop he has to go down The Drain twice before any other move.
Chalfont & Latimer.
Re: #49
Gentlemen,
I understand your qualms with my Bermondsey to MC move, and in part you are right. However you have forgotten that I had made Stovold’s Triangle of Enlightenment which opens up the Northern Approach and allows Contract Bids for players who have been in Spoon during the game.
Granted, under normal circumstances Dr Spedding would be correct, I have to spend two turns in the Drain before my next move, but upthread the Thames Defense was involed which modifies the status of the Drain, i.e. it is now blocked. Sadly the queer old Dean of Markesbury…I’m sorry…the dear old Queen of Markesbury is inapplicable under these circumstances.
As I said I have checked with the Chairman and his word is final. He said “Oh God do we have to go through all this again? They simply aren’t paying me enough.” which is as clear an endorsement of my victory as one can get.
Louis
woozy: The psychologists can correct me, but isn’t there a psychological disorder which has the “everything looks artificial” as a symptom?
There’s a term for that specific cognitive phenomenon: “Derealization”. It’s a form of psychosis.