Real Book

The relief felt across the world when Barack Obama was elected the next President of the United States was palpable. Not only do we finally get rid of George W. Bush and his negative influence on world affairs but we also get a progressive and intelligent politician with a black African father and a white American mother coming in. The expectation level is huge and Obama looks potentially well placed to bridge the racial divide in the US and repair the national reputation which has been so badly tarnished by Bush.

Like many people I knew very little about Barack Obama, as the democratic choice and opposition to McCain and Palin it wasn’t necessary to know much about him in order to decide he was the better option. Since he won the election I was given his autobiographical book Dreams from my Father as a present and have been pleasantly surprised at what a great read it is.

The book was first published back in 1995 and recounts Obama’s life up to his admission into Harvard Law School. Although he had spent some years in Chicago working as an organizer amongst an impoverished community he clearly had no idea what shape his political future would take. This is an honest look at his family life growing up in Hawai and Indonesia and then living and working in Chicago before visiting Kenya in search of his roots.

His father was absent for most of his life and he talks openly about the various characters that helped to shape him and his own difficulties in finding the right path. He has an eloquent and humble writing style which paints a descriptive picture of the landscape and the people who filled it. He admits his weaknesses and discusses his understanding of racial issues at great length as well as his struggle to find purpose, spending some time listless and directionless before finding rewarding work.

It is surprising to find a politician who is able to articulate his experiences and weave them into a compelling narrative so skilfully. The honesty on display here defies criticism and it is deeply refreshing to see such an approach from a member of the political class we have come to distrust so fervently. Of course he wrote this before he knew he would be President and that may in part account for the open and frank nature of it.

The book was republished in 2004 after Obama gave a rousing speech to the Democratic National Convention in Boston and while it had struggled to sell first time around his profile had now grown large enough to make it a well deserved success.

Whether he stills feels the same way he did when he wrote this book remains to be seen, does he still feel the racial divide so keenly or detest the struggle of poverty and political corruption as much as he did in his youth? When he finally gets into a position to change things will he be able to? We will have to wait and see. What I can say with certainty is that this is an interesting and well written autobiography and it is well worth a read whatever your personal politics.

Let me just say this right off the bat that I prefer to shop at one of the many quaint and locally owned book stores that dot the greater Seattle area. Nothing will ever change that. But I’ll be damned if there is one thing that draws me to Barnes and Noble on occasion and that would be their excellent and reasonably priced collections of classic literature in hardcover. This year saw the release of a complete and unabridged collection of one the favorite authors of my young adult life: the great Cosmic Horror writer of the 1920’s, H.P.Lovecraft.

For those who don’t know of this, the most unusual of writers, Lovecraft was an American author of Horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy who wrote primarily short stories for pulp magazine and publications in the early 1900’s. As seems to be common with some of artist we now regard as classic, his following was slight during his life and it has only been since his death that his fame and reputation have multiplied. His stories were of an odd sort and immensely fantastical, featuring demons and monsters of incomprehensible scope and dark, tortured characters such as drug addicts, grave robbers and cat slaughterers.

Most of his works were based on his belief that the actual concept of life is something so alien and beyond the scope of our fragile human minds, that there is no way to truly grasp it and that the knowledge of the universe itself will always be just beyond our grasp. This was brought into being by protagonists who dabbled in forces that were well beyond human control, ultimately either being destroyed by the results of their meddling. Others find themselves descending into complete and utter insanity as their wish for knowledge has been twisted and cruelly granted, turning their minds turn into husks, unable to face what they have unleashed. Quite obviously, the theme of forbidden knowledge is heavily explored, as are the themes of fate, guilt and the risks of the scientific era. Needless to say, Lovecraft was very bleak and pessimistic and it shown very brightly in his wicked tales.

Lovecraft is perhaps best known for his “Cthulu Mythos.” Call it his “Lord of the Rings.” It is broad in scope and “pseudomytholgy” as he called it and serves as a backdrop to many stories, even numerous others that are not written by Lovecraft himself. Cthulu refers to the giant demon God that rises from the ocean in the short story “The Call of Cthulu,” and wreaks havoc upon the protagonists. The character has since then entered into pop culture in many forms, being used by other authors of the genre and developing a cult following of sorts who refer to themselves as “The Cthulu Cult.” Some have even gone so far as to mae a case for Cthulu actually existing, crediting the demon as to the cause of the mystery known as “The Bloop.”

I was first introduced to the work of Lovecraft as a teenager through Stuart Gordon’s film Re-Animator. My young eyes had never seen such casual carnage and I immediately set out to discover the source of such things. What I discovered was something much deeper than mere blood and gore, finding an interesting and far more horrible take on the Frankenstein story. I had to have more, but try as I might, it was always difficult for me to find a definitive collection of his many short stories but now finally I can enjoy all of the otherworldly horror in one massive volume. Containing his three novels and his scores of short stories, “H.P. Lovecraft: Complete and Unabridged:The Fiction” will make sure my dreams are haunted and wicked for many nights to come.

Milton was born 400 years ago this month, specifically, on December 9. In terms of English literature, Milton is generally considered one of the “big three,” the other two being Shakespeare, of course, and Chaucer. There have been times in the not-too-distant past when Milton surpassed Shakespeare in the minds of many. Indeed, just a couple months ago, in May, Princeton professor and Miltonist Nigel Smith published a book entitled is Milton Better than Shakespeare? Smith’s answer is a resounding “yes,”— he asserts that “Milton’s interrogations of free will, liberty, and the threat to it are more riveting” than Shakespeare. You can, if you’re curious, explore the argument yourself by reading the introduction to Smith’s Harvard University press book here.

Another recent Milton book, even more controversial than Smith’s, is Dennis Danielson’s Paradise Lost: Parallel Prose Edition, just out in November from Regent College Publishing. The book is exactly what it sounds like; Milton’s text of Paradise Lost, generally considered his best, most important work, is presented on one page, with a prose “translation,” or paraphrase, on the facing page.

It’s not as outrageous an idea as it might at first seem; Milton is extremely difficult, and Paradise Lost is arguably not only Milton’s most difficult poem, it is one of the most difficult poems in the English language. Milton in fact wanted to make the poem not only be worthy of long contemplative study, he wanted it to require it, on the grounds that worthwhile knowledge, particularly in a Christian context, is by its nature difficult. Stanley Fish, literary critic, theorist, and Miltonist blogged about Danielson’s book in the New York Times. Fish is himself not sure that Danielson’s translation is the right approach, since Danielson must pick one of the several possible meanings for a given passage. Fish notes, however, that

[Danielson] knows as well as anyone how Milton’s poetry works, but it is his judgment (following Wesley and Bloom) that many modern readers will not take their Milton straight and require some unraveling of the knots before embarking on the journey.

Fish concludes that whether or not Danielson succeeds in terms of literary merit, his translation is a boon to pedagogy in that it opens Milton’s poem to questions regarding the nature of literary meaning and translation, and notes that while Milton’s original text is preserved, there are no glosses or notes or other editorial additions, making it more of an adjunct to an edition of the poem, than a stand alone work. Interestingly, most of Fish’s readers are firmly opposed to the idea of a translation, as you can see from the comments.

Danielson is not alone in his desire to make Milton’s Paradise Lost understood by modern readers; screenwriters Philip de Blasi and Byron Willinger reduced Milton’s poem to a screen play. Eventually, independent producer Vincent Newman bought the screenplay. After some rewrite requests (less Eden, more about the war in Heaven), Newman arranged for financing from Legendary Pictures, distribution from Warner Brothers, and direction by Scott Derrickson. Paradise Lost is scheduled for release in 2009. On the other hand, you may be interested in Joseph Lanzara’s Paradise Lost: The Novel, based on Milton’s work.

The Graveyard Book tells the story of a toddler whose family is slaughtered by a mysterious assassin. The child finds refuge in a nearby graveyard, where he is given the name of Nobody and raised by ghosts. The book follows Nobody through his youth, and each section takes place at a different stage in Nobody’s young life. It’s chock full of the quirky characters and clever turns of phrase which are the hallmark of Gaiman’s writing.

I can’t pretend to be unbiased on this topic. Neil Gaiman is on my short list of “authors whose books I allow myself to purchase brand new, in hardcover when necessary.” (It’s a very short list. Have you seen the price of a new hardback book lately?!) Even so, I love some of his books more than others. As a rule, his Young Adult fiction leaves me unmoved. Therefore, I was unprepared for how much I would end up liking The Graveyard Book.

For its intended audience (ages 9-12), The Graveyard Book is an engrossing tale of adventure and mystery - albeit one where the pacing occasionally falters. Nobody is resourceful, clever, kind, and inquisitive, the perfect protagonist. The book’s morbid setting is eerie and comical by turns, and never too much of either.

For an older audience, the book is about the inevitable process of growing up, and what happens as you slowly learn to “put aside childish things.” Although Nobody is a normal human boy who grows at a normal human rate, the members of his extended family (being dead) are essentially frozen in time. Unable to learn or change, they offer a poignant contrast to Nobody’s own development from toddler to young man. As he ages, he leaves his childhood friends behind in the emotional sense, but they remain in the literal sense, and they can’t understand why he has lost interest in playing with them.

I had the funny feeling, as I read the book, that it was designed to grow up along with the reader. If you read it for the first time at age nine, it would seem an entirely different book if you read it again at age ten, and so forth. The structure of the book is such that it will avoid the fate of Nobody’s deceased companions. That’s a pretty clever trick, given that a book (much like a dead person) can’t change once it’s finished.

My only complaint is that The Big Twist (which I won’t reveal) was, in hindsight, glaringly obvious. I say “in hindsight” because when I read The Bit Where Everything Changes, I literally gasped aloud. You’d have to be a pretty big chump not to See It Coming, but I really didn’t.

In the wake of Harry Potter’s popularity, the Young Adult market has seen an uptick both in sales and in the quality of books being published. The Graveyard Book recently hit #1 on the New York Times Young Adult bestseller list, and made Time Magazine’s Top Ten Fiction Books of 2008 list. (Not “Young Adult Fiction,” but plain old “Fiction.”) Quite an accomplishment, and every bit of it is well-deserved.

Hunter Thompson released two enormous volumes of his collected letters during his life, each concentrating on a different portion of his life. There were letters from his time in the Army as well as much latter in his career after he’d achieved relative fame.

The simple idea to collect all of you correspondence from the time one is about twenty five years old seems odd at best. So, what kind of self absorbed man does that? HST does.

Since his death a few years ago, there have been a number of film related projects that have surfaced and now a cd set of his notes and ramblings.

The Gonzo Tapes: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson can be looked in a few ways. First, it can help lend valuable insight into the manic workings of a man who clearly had issues with substance abuse and personal relationships. Or it can be seen as a crass commercialization of a unique American life. But, a family’s gotta eat.

Covering five discs, the set serves to go inside the process that HST worked in while inadvertently helping to create what is now thought of as “New Journalism.” Along with Tom Wolfe, HST brought subcultures and miscreants to the general populace. Portrayed in the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, HST spastically runs through any event he’s set to cover, always startling the subjects that he needs to interact with. These tapes will no doubt end up being rather hilarious, if not greatly insightful.

The amount of work this man produced in his lifetime, including his ESPN columns, is pretty staggering and these recordings will entertain while explicating his canon as well as American history through the last few decades.

“You’re thirty years old and what do you have?”

“Nothing.”

“Is that what you want?”

“It gives me very little to worry about.”

Focusing on the inability of a group of men to obtain gainful employment during the (first) depression, the Goodis’ novel uses curt phases and direct, plain descriptions of scenes to explicate mood and intent.

Everything is spelled out, nothing is left vague. This isn’t necessarily a device only utilized by Goodis, but it does fit a broad description of pulp/crime/noir fiction coming out of the ‘40s.

Goodis would go on to work in Hollywood, as did many other authors of his generation. But any adaptation of his work – even with Bogart – was just that: an adaptation. Of course there are always arguments about what’s better? The book or the film?

The Blonde on the Street Corner won’t solve that question, but it does lend a very personal look at the live of friends, what they’re willing to do to have a good time, find a girl and make a buck.

Goodis’ work is rife with filmic descriptions of dark alley ways, people on street corners and debilitating, stifling work scenes. And in the economic times that we now live, perhaps his work will now ring true with readers. It’s odd reading about the struggles of men sixty plus years in the past and thinking that the agony depicted in these pages is again being played out in real life.

Even disregarding these real life applications of fiction to real life, Goodis provides clear prose, refuses to be wordy and is given to long descriptions of the female figure. Which all makes it somewhat surprising that this hasn’t become a film as of yet. At least we have Dark Passage, Don’t Shoot the Piano Player.

Dead Souls was the signature novel from Nikolay Gogol, a Russian born in the Ukraine, written while living in Rome. It was first published in Russia in 1842, and was the book that established Gogol as the greatest Russian prose writer of his time. Gogol wrote many significant works, including Mirgorod, and the play Zhenitba, before supposedly burning his sequels to Dead Souls and then dying at the age of 43.

Nozdryov, his “Dead Souls” lead character, archetypes the utterly selfish man, the man who has unlimited fun but zero love.

Literally everything Nozdryov does, without exception, he does for his own amusement or pleasure. His defining character traits are lying and gambling. When he lies, he does so to amuse himself. When he gambles, he prefers to lose other people’s things.

Nozdryov has the narcissistic need to be at the center of everything, has to be involved in everything he sees, and his selfishness has no limits. He has no conscience. He has a dead heart.

“Nozdryov at the age of thirty-five was exactly what he had been at eighteen and at twenty: he loved having a good time.” (Pg. 76)

With this, Gogal satirizes Imperial Russia and foreshadows by some 70 years the revolution in Russia.  He also self-satirizes the ironic leftist complaint that *other* forms of government are too intrusive.

…………………….

Nozdryov does love a good time, and like many hedonists has his charm, but the moment he sees something that he can take out of a relationship, he does not hesitate to extract it.

“Nozdryov’s type… friendships appear to be for life, but it almost always happens that anyone who becomes friends with such individuals will get into a fight with them that very evening at a friendly gathering.” (Pg. 76)

Nozdryov has no problem making a public scene — flashing his unpleasant and obnoxious side, as the Tsarist nobles often did theirs — where it suits his purpose. He likes attention and he likes to fight, especially (but not only) if it is for something he wants.

“Some event would inevitable occur: either the gendarmes would lead him out of the hall by both arms, or his own friends would be compelled to toss him out.”(Pg. 77)

Sobakevich, befriended by Nozdryov , becomes the immediate target of mean-spirited insults, when it is clear that is what it will take to induce Chichikov to visit Nozdryov’s home. These imperialists are so fickle, aren’t they, comrade?

“’Dump him! Let’s go to my place… You’ll rue the day you were born as soon as you get there.’” (Pg. 73)

Yet later on, when Nozdryov cheats at checkers, he turns against Chichikov as well.  For a moment we think it will come to physical conflict.  Alas, it’s not 1917 quite yet, so the violence is latent ….

“’So you don’t want to play out the game… beat him up!’ he shouted in a frenzy.” (Pg. 95)

Later, Nozdryov, when questioned about Chichikov, rats out Chichikov without a qualm.

“The closer anyone got to him, the more readily would he play a nasty trick on this person.” (Pg. 78)

“Nozdryov had sat down on the floor and begun grabbing at the skirts of the dancers, which was ‘unlike anything imaginable.’” (Pg. 196)

Of course, Nozdryov only shows his ugly side when his own interests are in unusual peril. Otherwise, he’s funny and entertaining. And his love for gambling personifies his love for taking that which he has not earned.

“’As for me, my friend, I’m on my way back from the fair. Congratulate me, I’ve lost my shirt playing cards.’” (Pg. 69)

He gambles when he lies, when he cheats, and even when he befriends someone. The gambler is a selfish man, and this is the epitome of who Nozdryov is as a man.

“’I could have broken the whole bank.’ ‘Still, you didn’t break it,’ said the fair-headed fellow. ‘I didn’t break it because I doubled at the wrong time.’” (Pg. 70)

He even loses his beloved horses, so it is clear also that he can’t control himself when it comes to gambling.

“’You know, he’s prepared to sell his own father, or rather to lose him at cards.’” (Pg. 211)

Nozdryov not only enjoys his own lying, but enjoys accusing others of the same.

“’Now I’ll take you… to see the boundary line where my land ends… everything you see on this side… and even on the other side… and everything beyond the forest, all that’s mine.’” (Pg. 81)

As so often, there is absolutely no good reason to lie about this, so he does so with alacrity. And nobody is quicker to charge a lie than a liar…

“’You’re lying, you’re lying, you had no intention of combing him…’” (Pg. 74)

It’s comical to what extreme his lying is taken. After Nozdryov almost beats Chichikov up for calling baloney on his cheating, Nozdryov says:

“’You really did treat me very shabbily… when we were playing checkers… I just can’t stay angry.’” (Pg. 243)

By this time, Chichikov doesn’t even bother arguing with him. These soulless types are a waste of time.

Yet, even though Nozdryov is selfish, or maybe because he is selfish, he is great fun, and this tension prevents Gogol’s novel from sinking into a dreary Orwellian navel-gaze.  Uncompromosingly selfish people are often fun to watch, at least in the short term. He takes Chichikov for all he’s worth, loses everything at gambling, extravagantly claims the whole county is his land, and starts grabbing girls’ skirts. He has a dead heart, but he does manage to make your own heart laugh. And finally, in the concluding quote, Chichikov thinks about Nozdryov,

“’In what way is he different than the others? He’s a man just like them.’” (Pg. 75)

Nozdryov is a dead soul, with a dead heart, living on impulse only.  Yet Gogol seems conflicted as to whether to give his lead a pass for the entire melodrama…

…………………

The book has a somewhat lighter touch than many of the anti-establishment tirades from the classic era, and is no doubt a friendlier read.  Dead Souls would be a worthwhile read if written today. But, anticipating the revolution by 75 years? Not bad, comrade Gogol. Not bad.

Cheers,

jemanji n j

image: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/c0/c3340.jpg

Dickens’ A Christmas Carol was first published on December 19, 1843. Written in a feverish haste during a time when, despite his best-selling author status, and the on-going sales of the serialized Martin Chuzzlewit, Dickens was terribly short of money, Dickens managed to write the entire work in six short weeks. The book was an immediate success. Dickens commissioned noted artist John Leech to create four hand-colored etchings and another four black and white wood engravings as illustrations. Dickens also saw to it that the book had an elaborate binding and gilt-edged pages.

A Christmas Carol was an astounding success. The first printing of 6,000 copies sold out in days, and a subsequent printing of 2,000 copies was sold out by the 6th of January. Although the book didn’t make nearly enough money to alleviate Dickens’ financial problems, its social impact inspired Dickens to write special “Christmas” books for several years, most notably The Chimes and The Cricket on the Hearth.

Despite the absence of immediate commercial success for A Christmas Carol, Dickens did have a very salutary, and ongoing, impact on English society and custom. Dickens began to read his work publicly, using a special version he edited himself for dramatic readings. In fact the initial popularity of the book was such that there were eight stage adaptations in production within months of the book’s initial publication.

Dickens, a child of poverty himself, seems to have modeled the Cratchit family’s “two up and two down” home on his own childhood home in a Victorian tenement. His social goal in A Christmas Carol was particularly to draw attention to the plight of poor children— allegorically identified in his novel as “This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want.” Dickens was a staunch supporter of education as the surest way to end poverty, to the point of being one of the major advocates of the “ragged schools,” free schools for poor children.

The long term cultural effects of Dickens’ little Christmas book have been profound, so profound that more than one writer as identified Dickens as “the man who invented Christmas,” in terms of social customs, and associations about Christmas traditions, ranging from a Christmas turkey, instead of a goose, Christmas games (and caroling) and the perhaps popularizing further the German tradition of the Christmas tree, begun by Queen Victoria.

If you want the Christmas Carol experience for yourself, why not print a copy of the dramatic reading version Dickens himself used, for a family reading? Alternatively, you can read the book— and see the original illustrations here, or listen to Jonathan Winters reading Dickens’ dramatic version.

For some reason, the theatrical release of “Golden Compass” created a strained argument over whether Philip Pullman argues against C.S. Lewis’ God.

The argument was monumentally silly; of course Pullman is an atheist, and of course he “hates” Chronicles of Narnia “with a deep and bitter passion,” as he put it. Of course “His Dark Materials” shadow-steps Narnia in plot mechanics and in photo-negative thematics. When children are in over their heads, they need (or need not) turn to Help.

What I don’t understand, is why the argument wasn’t simply about whether Dark Materials, or Narnia, present the more helpful worldview.

In any case, this mini-overview isn’t intended to rebut Pullman, nor to demonstrate the vapidity of his worldview. It’s offered more as a quick-scan of a few plot elements for those who perhaps have not read the books, so that such readers might decide whether Dark Materials is likely to be worth their time.
……………

The New Formalist Criticism interprets the text, concerned with the text itself, not the history or social groups that arise from the text. It finds the meaning of the text through aspects such as plot, character, and style.

According to Tim Spurgin,

“New Criticism… stresses close attention to the internal characteristics of the text itself… concentrating on such formal aspects as rhythm, meter, theme, imagery, metaphor, etc.”

New Criticism was created by a group of American critics from southern universities, following the first World War. They wished to avoid Social and Historic criticisms, so they developed a criticism which is dedicated to the study of the text itself.

When applied to The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman, and the rest of the series, His Dark Materials, there is an insistent underlayer of sermonizing in what superficially presents itself as a harmless children’s book. The plot and the choices of the character, and even the settings, when closely examined, all contribute to the not-so-hidden-intolerance of the series.

Moral questions and ideas are thoroughly explored in the books written by a militant atheist; and Pullman doesn’t pretend that Deity is irrelevant. Again and again he attacks the questions: Is there a God? If so, is that a good thing?

With heavy-handed plots like the Church trying to rule the world and having to assassinate the Archangel, His Dark Materials gets across the idea that our Authority, God, and His Kingdom, Heaven, hurts the world a lot more than helps it. In this, of course, he leads the common atheist complaint that religion is a pox on the planet.

From the Formalist point of view, Pullman’s word use is unsubtle. Lyra, the heroine, says in The Golden Compass,

“Dust… the Church and… Mrs. Coulter… want to destroy it too… if they all think it’s bad, then it must be good. We believed them, even though we could see that what they were doing was wicked and evil and wrong.”

Lyra clearly states that the Church was wrong, and what they must think was wrong must be good. Throughout the book, the Church and the Magisterium are shed in a terrible light; they not only lust for the domination of the world, but enthusiastically subject children to cruel, torturous experiments when cutting their daemons away.

In casting the Church as the hand to administer the cruel deeds, Pullman forms a thread in the meaning of the text, which in his last two books, just keeps growing more thick. A quote from The Golden Compass:

“Ever since Pope John Calvin had moved the seat of the Papacy to Geneva and set up the Consistorial Court of Discipline, the Church’s power over every aspect of life had been absolute.” (27)

Throughout the books, Mrs. Coulter’s character is a point of interest. In The Golden Compass, she can only be described as evil, as she tries to capture and even kill her own daughter, while becoming a force against all good in the world. It is not coincidental that it is while she is allied with the Church, that she is the instrument of harm.

Moreover, throughout the next two books, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass, Mrs. Coulter slowly turns back to good as the love for her daughter redeems her; she becomes a well-loved character precisely to that extent to which she is turning against the Church and ultimately dying in a “sacrifice” with her Asriel — to actually kill the Archangel.

Her alignments are simple; while she is allied with the Church, she is the personification of evil; when she is persuaded to right the Church, and the Authority, she is a soldier for goodness.

In The Subtle Knife, there is a setting that, while not so blatant in its meaning, cannot be overlooked. Lyra comes to almost a shadow realm of our world, where there are Specters who eat adults’ souls, but who leave children alone. It is implied that it is because the children are innocent- not grown up yet.

From a Formalist outlook, it might be said that this is because adults have decided on religion, on their view of right and wrong, and that their convictions are solidly made.

But the children do not know (at least in the books) and they change their viewpoints quite often. They see things openly and from a completely open perspective. To quote The Subtle Knife,

“This is as the heart of everything, this difference between children and adults! It contains the whole mystery of Dust!” (199)

The plot in The Subtle Knife might be sharp, but I myself wouldn’t charge it with subtlety. It holds the framework for the stunning conclusion of The Amber Spyglass and sheds light on the meaning of the first book.

In The Subtle Knife, it comes to view that Asriel, one of the lead characters, is gathering an army to fight a war against heaven — begun ages ago — implied that it was Lucifer a.k.a Satan who was the champion of the first war, or perhaps, the one that wasn’t strong enough, or who didn’t do it the right way the first time.

Asriel is planning to kill the Authority, in his moving Cloud and overthrow the monarchy of Heaven, but instead of trying to overtake it and rule his own way, he is planning to leave it Head-less, thereby instituting the Republic of Heaven.

It is a quest that all the heroes join, including the witches and Lyra and Will.  The bene elim, turned angels, say to Will at the end of the book,

“You must come with us now. Lord Asriel needs you at once. The enemy’s power is growing every minute… Follow us and help us win.” (326)

This clear use of the word ‘enemy’ as applied to the Authority and his angels typify the theme and tone of His Dark Materials.

………….

That Pullman has the right to his views, in a free society, is clear. Why he should have tried to misdirect us as to his intent is rather less so.

Next: Amber Spyglass

image: http://stephennewell.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/his-dark-materials-trilogy.jpg