There seems to be a trend in children's literature that the book's protagonist must be somewhat of a spy. We saw this in Harriet the Spy, Eloise, and yet again in this week's novel The Golden Compast. Children are and must be naturally curious, they need to explore their world to better understand it. However, when natural curiosity turns to spying, I begin asking questions. Although Lyra saves her uncles life when she hides out in the closet and observes the master putting poison in the canister from which he would drink, Lyra was somewhere where she shouldn't been. Are we then teaching young people that all adults are untrustworthy? That spying is okay because the possibly of overting danger may be the benefit? Are we teaching our children that bounderies are non-existent as long as they are not caught?
Again, for the record, I am not a fan of the fantasy genre. I don't like witches, the supernatural, ghost, gobblins, and especially the idea that the soul exists apart from the individual in what is termed a daemon. I am not sure why it was necessary to refer to the soul as a daemon. I get that the author was suggesting that the person is the only human that truly knows his or her own inner thoughts and motivations. I get that the author was affirming that part of the self regulating process, self discipline process, requires us to talk to ourselves as it were, and figure things out. I just disagree with the terminology used to refer to the human soul. Perhaps, this fundamental difference has everything to do with my Christian faith, and how Christians view the existence of demons. I would not want to be associated with one, neither would I want my child reading a book that suggest that an animal that accompanies them everywhere, can be an extension of their internal self. I believe that the human soul is the individual, nothing more, nothing less. I believe that when I die, my soul dies. It does not survive and exist apart from me in a separate form. I couldn't get past the idea of the external soul personified as animals to really analyze the novel for its literary value, I must admit. I understand however, that the novel has more to do with free will and very little in common with religion. I just find it difficult to talk about one aside from the other.
Lastly, I found this novel a little scary (I don't like horror either). A parent's biggest fear is for a child to be stolen away, kidnapped, or missing. It makes no difference, we want to know our children are safe because they are so very precious to us. I didn't like the storyline where the children are taken by the Gob's and used to conduct experiments on. In the back of my mind, I kept thinking about the Holocaust, and reacted deeply to the abduction plot-line. Although this novel is extremely well written, and the characters are fully developed, it was problematic for me in a number of ways. The Golden Compass, though not my least favorite this semester, has truly been a challenge for me to read. I enjoyed the parallel universe, journeying to the north and the dangerous adventures by necessity, I just found it difficult to get beyond the idea of the soul being in the form of an aminal, existing outside the physical body of the individual. I subscribe to the Genesis account "He blew into his nostrils and he became a living soul," for me any other explaination is a contrary explaination.
I really find your first paragraph intriguing concept. While I don't think books are trying to teach our children that all adults cannot be trusted, I do think they are reminders that not every adult is trustworthy. There is constantly a set of trustworthy adults in most of these books and a counter adult who cannot be trusted. Personally, I think this is helpful in garnering a helpful wariness of the world. If we do not learn that some people just cannot be trusted, then we can continually fall into traps others lay for us. While the innocence of children is something cherished, there is a reason it is not long-lived.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with both of you I also think there is a time and place and way to teach these things to our children. When, where and how? I am no expert on that. I am currently experiencing this with trying to teach our daughter about "strangers" because she keeps opening the front door on her own. But, I also don't want her to fear meeting new people or have mistrust in adults. It's an interesting view point in these books though to wonder if the author's point was to teach children to trust their "instincts" and know that not everyone can be trusted in life. This innocence topic is a touchy topic for me (I am guilty for wanting to keep our daughter sheltered too often) but also a learning experience analyzing this literature over the semester.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really like your question: "are we then teaching young people that all adults are untrustworthy?" It instantly reminded me of "Harriet the Spy", where in exception of Ole' Golly, all of the parents remain in ignorance to understanding there own children. There is a definite implicit critique of parents in the more modern children's literature we have read, from Sport's father that involuntarily domesticated his son through his own helplessness, to Harriet's own career driven father, to the Cat in the Hat's mother who abandoned her own children in the hands of a "perverse" cat.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Pullman is trying to so much teach that adults are untrustworthy as much as to display that sometimes they're wrong about things. That's one of the toughest realizations I faced as I came of age, at least. Besides, it fits with the novel's big theme of questioning authority. Throughout the young lives of most children, adults are presented as authority figures despite their failing. I think Pullman wanted to remind his younger readers that sometimes it is not only natural but proper to step out of line when authority isn't doing a proper job... of course, I might also be projecting my own beliefs onto him, but hey.
ReplyDeleteDaemon doesn't necessarily refer to Judeo-Christian demons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_%28classical_mythology%29
ReplyDeletePullman is using this device to encourage people to consider the relation between words, meanings, and the readers interpretation, as well as encouraging people to read about comparative religion so that they can understand the way religion evolves and the historical and narrative context in which Abrahamic religion developed. Just as Abrahamic religions named their badguys and devils, such as Beelzebub, after the Gods of other tribes, non-abrahamic supernatural creatures like Daemons were redefined as evil in order to eliminate non-abrahamic beliefs and customs.