The Golden Compass: The Godly Contest

With all the hype surrounding the December premier of The Golden Compass I decided to give the book a try. I was especially interested in the series after I heard the author was an extremely outstanding writer.

So I did what any good reader would do . . . I looked the book up on-line. What surprised me was that I found more than I bargained for. Apparently a whole bunch of people are up in arms over the His dark Materials trilogy. Well, like any good reading/writing/discerning/human being, I’m going to read the The Golden Compass and come to an intelligent conclusion for myself. Not that I discount the opinions of others, quite the contrary, but no one should talk about an issue unless they know what they’re talking about. I plan on knowing what I’m talking about.

I did the same thing when Harry Potter came out it; the books were shrouded in controversy and people were saying a lot of insane things on both side of the issues. On one front people supported real-life witchcraft (stupid) and on the other they wrote books called Harry Potter and the Bible, which was a “theological” essay on the sin of Harry Potter (not all that good of an idea concerning their arguments weren’t the most biblical).

After reading the entire series . . . three times each . . . and once I read the entire thing out loud (all 7 books), I made my final conclusion.

Drum role please. 

I don’t have any serious problems with Harry Potter. The biggest disagreement I have is with Rowling’s recent un-literary addition of Dumbledore’s sexuality. Other than that it’s all debatable, and I won’t take the time now to debate them . . . we’re talking about another children’s book

I’ve read the first two chapters of The Golden Compass and I’m starting to see two things. 1. The author is an amazing writer, and 2. I know why everyone’s up-in-arms. Sure, Phil Pullman’s an atheist, and though everything he does will be colored by his beliefs, that doesn’t mean all of his works will expressly deal with his atheistically philosophical bent. As far as I know J.K. Rowling doesn’t believe in God either but her books don’t broach the subject in any degree. Yet, it’s very obvious from the first chapter, that Pullman’s anti-organized-church-predisposition is a main character in his series.

So I did some more research on-line this morning and found this . . .    

“http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp”

Though sites like this can be a dime a dozen, this particular site is well represented. I wish the information this site was untrue, but I’m pretty sure it holds more than water. What this doesn’t mean is I’m not going to read the books, but- like Harry Potter- it’s good to know what you’re looking for. In short, I still plan on giving the series a chance. If I can support it I will, but if I can’t, having read the books, I’ll be able to fight against it better.

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but my opinion is that no atheist should be spreading lies to a generation of impressionable children; especially when they put out a high-voltage, watered-down version of it to get kids to buy the trilogy only to find out the books hold a blatant message. I say to Pullman the same thing I said to Rowling . . . if you have a belief system don’t hide it to sell books/movies.

Pullman, at least be honest about the fact you want to kill God when they make your movie. Don’t shroud the film in innocence so you can sell your books.

Busy, busy, not writing

Wow! I’ve been so busy reading everyone else’s blogs I forgot about mine.

Okay, so it really wasn’t that simple, but I have to say there’s a lot of good stuff out there.

I’m looking for some quality writing to add to my blog list, so if you think your site deserves a link let me know. I love to promote good writing.

The Amazing Spiderman Franchise

So Spiderman III has slammed into the video store. Even though I saw it twice in the theater I still had to rent it the day it came out.

With the exception of The Lord of the Rings, the Spiderman saga has become the most well-developed, well-rounded, and the best cross-genre trilogy ever.  It hits every tone with a pitch-perfect performance. It deals with morality in a real world way. It displays a stunning cross-section of love, action, didactic lessons, drama, suspense, the battle between good and evil, mystery, and superb acting.

From a plot standpoint (with the exception of Do. Oc. and his less than believable, A.I., tentacle-dictated motivation) the trilogy has always been very grounded in realism. Even the sub-plots have risen to almost Rowling-like complexity. What with the Hobgoblin losing his memory and regaining it, and Flint Marco’s involvement with Uncle Ben’s death, the story keeps swinging forward. Of course the main plot points have every eight-legged fanatic totally psyched. Even though Eddie Brock’s physic is scrawnier than expected, the introduction of the vengeful, symbiotic Venom made me soil my proverbial knickers.

In the first film, Mary Jane’s lines were obviously written by a man. But as the franchise has matured, so has MJ’s conversations and internal monologue. She’s speaking like a woman and, though her femininity can be occasionally cliched, she’s much more believable. As always, Peter’s lines are right on; especially in III where his character goes through so much flex and turmoil.

One thing that’s remained consitent since the genesis of the project is the caliber of acting. Toby McGuire is solid and will always be solid. And we must thank Spiderman for introducing us to James Franco who’s acting style has grown dramatically through the series. The same is true for Kirsten who, though she suffered a little from poor-writing-syndrome in the first two movies, is finally getting lines she can work with. Her dumping-Peter-on-the-bridge-bit was outstanding! And welcome newcomer Topher Grace who was able to distance himself from the 70’s and create a wonderfully believable character who did true justice to Eddie Brock. He was given a big break and he broke it well (muscle-less or not). And of course I couldn’t not mention one of my personal favorites . . . Bryce. Miss Howard, daughter of the film icon Ron Howard, is definitely making a name for herself. Her role was played with the grace and passion that ony Bryce Dallas Howard can bring to a scene.

The cinematography, in short, was very well done. It didn’t get in the way of the story but did a wonderful job making the plot-points come alive and drive the movie forward.

What can I say about the action? The special effects were phenomenal. The digital artistry and the practical stunts deserve a round of applause, a cacophony of whoops, and random high-fives. It’s also cool to see how Spidey’s agility and skills have been improving over the three films. Someone thought that one through.

Lastly, the theme is unlike most blockbusters in that it promotes cleanliness and upright living. Its success proves the American people do have a core value system. The franchise fights as strongly for love, redemption, forgiveness, the destruction of bitterness and revenge, hard work, friendship, promises, and good communication as Spiderman did in the epic finally against Venom and the Sandman.

For Spiderman III the Olsen Rating is a solid A:
Plot: 10
Writing: 10
Acting: 9 (hey, not everyone’s perfect)
Cinematography: 10
Special Effects: 10
Theme: 10
Total: 59 out of 60 = 98%.

With a bonus point for having the spinnerets to write a morality-tale in a post-modern world . . . I give it 105%

 Watch it. Buy it. Love it.

Poetry

Real men write poetry.

I believe the stereotypical “differences” between men and women need to be burned at the stake. Some of the greatest poets of all time were men, and I would venture to say that the greatest poet of all time was a man.

For these reasons and more, I will feature some of my own poetry in “The Occasional Poet” section of my blog (http://kevinolsen.wordpress.com/poetry/). I hope to start a blog dedicated entirely to my poetry, but the time for that is not yet ripe. Until then, feel free to enjoy my articles and peruse my poems.

Kevin’s Response to “A Hero is Fallen”

Let it be known that all writers write from a certain world-view. No one can escape their own belief system. To write against ones beliefs would be to prove they didn’t believe it in the first place. I believe homosexuality is wrong. I don’t preach it, I leave that up to my friends, but I do stand against it when it’s thrown in my face.

What Rowling did was completely unnecessary to the character. It was a political move completely unrelated to the purpose, style, audience, and theme of the books (though some would argue it fits the theme of acceptance and tolerance, it in fact does not). That is why I’ve chosen to write about it.

From a literary standpoint, and a heaping cup of personal beliefs, I think Rowling was wrong to do what she did. As a fan I was upset, let down, and mildly offended. Had I known Dumbledore was gay I would have stopped reading the books out of principle. I believe homosexuality is wrong (and you are free to disagree).

The problem is she tossed it in at the end. It’s like a woman marrying a man, having kids with him, and developing a deep, intimate relationship and then having him leave her for another man. It’s personal. It hurts. It’s offensive the way she ”added” it in; extra-textually I might add. It’s like she was trying to hide it from people who would be offened, and then only after all those people were finnished reading (and falling in love with the character) she slaps us in the face with it. In some cases, breaking our hearts. 

That’s not writing, that’s pandering.

A Hero is Fallen: The rise and fall of Albus Dumbledore

Albus Dumbledore.

For any mature student of storytelling, his name joins ranks with Obi-Wan, Merlin, Gandalf, Yoda (2 points for Star Wars), and even Willy Wonka. For Harry Potter he fills the ever-so-necessary archetype of “all-wise-and-formidable-super-old-but-cosmically-capable-mentor.” He’s the one with the answers, the only one who can equip the protagonist and fit him to fulfill his mission. He’s he moral compass, the leader. From The Sorcerer’s Stone on we grew to love the greatest wizard of all time. His pithy words of advice, his sage-like grasp of the mysteries of life, and his incredible skill drew the humble and intimidated the proud. He was an example to be followed, a beacon to be mirrored, and a banner to be rallied behind. Then book seven was released and everything Dumbledore stood for was questioned.

Rolwing crafted a real, multi-faceted man. It may have taken thousands and thousands of pages to finally get around to it, but her character was real nonetheless. But how real does a person need to be? In the answer we find the “fall” of Dumbledore. Most sagely types are placed on a very high pedestal. Gandlaf would be a good example of this; his list of faults and poor decisions wouldn’t fill a Hobbit-sized shot glass. Even Fagan (from Oliver Twist) exhibits a one-dimensional moral compass. Though he’s basically wicked, he doesn’t stray from that path. Let us now consider Obi-Wan Kenobi. He had his faults, but those faults were regretted and eventually recompensed. What about Dumbledore? Throughout the last few books we learn about the weaknesses Dumbledore faced. He informed us of his mistakes but, in true “mentor-archetype” fashion, he regrets them and works to undo their effect. In point, the mentor stands for something. The mentor is the one who helps the hero down the chosen path. The mentor can’t be switching paths on the protagonist! If mistakes are made (and they often are) the mentor distinguishes between what was done and what should have been done and helps to re-focus the hero.

In The Deathly Hallows Rowling injects even more anti-sage qualities. By the end of the series, though Dumbledore is still to loved and admired, he’s lost a cauldron-full of respect because the success he had grew out of the monumental mistakes he made . . . mistakes he isn’t around do apologize for; which in turn leaves the audience assuming that if Albus were alive he wouldn’t have regretted those mistakes. In the end his faults were the foundation of his fame. This is not an honorable role-model.

So at the end of the series our wizened hero has come off of his pedestal and chosen one slightly more “grounded.” That’s a worse case scenario for anyone who’s read the books. But the scandal comes, not from Rowling’s pen, but her mouth . . . .

During a public reading, after the final chapter is printed, Rowling announces that Dumbledore is gay. There are 3 fundamental flaws here.

1. This information is entirely impossible to deduce from the stories themselves. Therefore can it actually be said to be true? Anyone could say that Yoda was gay. Everybody is free to write fan fiction about Willy Wonka being a pedophile . . . but is it true? The answer is no. All you know about a character is what the author gives you over the course of a story. Though there are things about the character the audience will never know, none of those things are important and could be added or subtracted without the character being changed at all. For example, to say that Albus had a cat as a child is no different than saying he had a dog since it has zero bearing on the story. Therefore you will never hear Rowling wasting air-time telling us Albus loves dogs! What an author doesn’t tell you really isn’t important to anyone other than the author.

But sexual preference, in the day and age in which we live, is very important to everybody. That’s not a pet preference. That’s not a favorite color or a child’s hobby. That’s a big deal.

2. The second problem grows from it’s revelation. If it was important enough to be in the story she would’ve written it into the story. But she saved the revelation for after the books were sold. Hmm. Makes a guy wonder if she was afraid it would effect her book sales? She didn’t write him gay, but she announces he was after the fact. Sounds like pandering to both sides. It’s like she’s thinking, “Since most of the people who buy my books wouldn’t openly associate with the gay-lifestyle I’ll avoid it. But hey, now that all the books are sold let’s sell a few more copies by causing a scene!”

If a character isn’t written gay can it be said that character is gay? If it really had anything to do with the story she would have written it in the prologue. This was a publicity stunt.

3. Dumbledore the sage, the mentor, failed in his archetype. The hero has fallen. Who can follow a man with conflicting morals? And here we get into choppy waters. You’ll either agree or you’ll disagree with me on this point: Homosexuality is wrong. It goes against the natural order, it’s condemned by God and most of the US is uncomfortable with it. The funny thing is, Rowling agrees with me. If she didn’t agree with me she would have made it obvious from the beginning that Dumbledore was gay. But she knew she was playing with a taboo. How can you create a character with every quality of wisdom, grace, wit, a strong moral compass, and solid values and then toss them casually into a role that undermines the character’s character? She could’ve written it as one of his “mistakes” which he later overcame, but no, she lists it (in retrospect) along with his virtues.

Dumbledore has fallen. He’s fallen in the eyes of millions of fans.

Or has he?

To be honest, Rolwing’s revelation doesn’t hold any more water than if she tried to convince me that Snape was a cross-dresser or that McGonigal had sexual relations with cats. It’s so far-fetched and unbelievable you’d expect to hear it from a Harry Potter Hater.

Dumbedore isn’t gay. He hasn’t transgressed his character and archetype. He’s who he was written to be. On the other hand, Rowling has fallen. She’s poured the potion, lit the fire, and has climbed into the rolling froth of the cauldron. “Double, double, toil and trouble.” The funny thing is, as a writer she didn’t do anything wrong. But as a poor lobbyist she smeared her own character.

People told the Dixie Chicks to shut up and sing. I say to Rowling, “shut up and write.” If homosexuality is that important to you, include it in the manuscript. Don’t use your fame as a springboard for a pet-sermon if you need to mislead the audience to do it. If you’re a writer than write. If you’re an activist than activate. Mix the two if you want, but don’t write a story that has nothing to do with sexuality and then claim it does after the last paycheck is cashed.