I found his writing tiresome. IMO his books don't read well. I think he made a conscious attempt to put his beliefs in his books which tends to make for tedious reading.

I did read the 3 Dark Materials books.

A lot more fun than reading the book- but of course - wouldn't understand a word of it without having read the book.

The word that I was looking for in my post on Pullman is contrived. An example of this would be C.S. Lewis' Perelandra trilogy. The Chronicles of Narnia were much better.

Also The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield was a real bore.

I haven't read the other two.

I would add three by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

The Sirens of Titan -- chronosynclastic infundibulum and Tralfamadore. Then there's Martian tent rentals and the Sirens themselves.

Cat's Cradle -- the best spearing of religion ever, at the end of the world no less. Whatever you do, don't lick the ice nine.

Slaughterhouse Five -- short, and brilliant. More Tralfamadore. SciFi within a somewhat autobiographical World War II prisoner of war drama.

Of course, a really great version of Miller's Canticle is the one broadcast on NPR back when they did drama. It was pretty damned good. Many episodes to get through the whole story. Superb production values.

Happy Thanksgiving to you!

I saw your post in GD. Have a glass of wine for me.

Here it is online.

http://evankozierachi.com/uploads/The_Plague_by_Albert_Camus.pdf

It's got a killer last line for Thanksgiving.

Courtship Rite by Donald Kingsbury is another book that examines many of our cultural biases and stands a lot of them on their head from what could be seen as an atheist perspective.

I didn't really care for Handmaid's Tale all that much, to me how today's American culture became what it is in the book would be the more interesting story and it's not really touched on in the book.

but it probably has as much for theists as atheists, as the TV series All in the Family was a favorite of liberals and conservatives. I was astounded when I found out racist winger types were fans of the show- Archie was their hero.

As did Catcher in the Rye.

I'm sure it's not needed: SPOILER ALERT,


Harry was marked by death as a child- like Jesus by Herod the Great.

Both escaped and lived in exile, Harry with the Dursleys, Jesus in Egypt.

Then both died to carrying the weight of their friends.

Jesus died to save his friends.
Harry died to save his friends.

Both experienced a resurrection from the dead.

There are hints in the Potter books about life after death- the voices in the archway in the Department of Mysteries, Harry meeting Dumbledore in the other worldly Kings Cross station which gives an indication of going on to somewhere else.

Finally the symbols of the 2 main houses at Hogwarts. Slytherin's mark is a serpent which we find in the creation/fall story-the symbol of the clever and self-serving.

Gryffindor on the other hand is represented by a lion. The lion is the symbol of the tribe of Judah, the tribe of Jesus. The lion is a symbol of courage in the face of danger.

People read good fiction through their metaphorical glasses. What one believes or not believes colors how one understands the story. In high school and college literature classes we ( I find it strange this was not universal) symbolic interpretation was expected to be our thought. I remember a college paper on one of Emily Dickinson's poems that I got a passing mark but not an A. My interpretation was not valid because I misunderstood a word. The professor was smart enough to figure that out and graded accordingly. He circled the word and wrote a note to look it up- What a teacher!

In any case there would be as many interpretations as there were people in the class- some were similar but none were identical, and some were quite surprising.

While not overtly atheist the story shines a bright light on the evils of a theocracy.

I believe in God but am adamantly against any kind of theocracy. That is just more of people creating god in their own image. And it always devolves into the darkest of evils.

I was less convinced of his avowed atheism and became convinced that, unknown to him, he is a pantheist. I just found this interesting piece by Jules Evans on the subject that puts it better than I ever did.

and indeed I've seen all of the arguments already in the writings of that great antitheist, Martin Luther (or Jack Chick--stop citing Godfrey Higgins, people!); his world is actually that of Kingsley Amis's "The Alteration"--another work written by a "North Oxonian" hoping every day that the Second Armada isn't gonna come over the hill; critics (and John C. Wright) also noted a strong tension between "we mortals must seize the levers of Heaven from the Archons" and "just live your lives well in your own little world, and that's it": Prospero had to break his staff to return to Europe and the Visconti throne, but there was a narrative flow that brought us to that, not the Goddess saying "ya gotta go" and the two fighter-teens answering "KTHXBAI"

to quote myself, "Both Church and state are unable to suppress even the riparian Traveller-Sea Beggar hybrids in an industrialized and conformist Brytain--they even have a special, chartered zone in the Fens, a feudal feature. This world's mightiest military has heathen Tartars, nature-worshiping Witches, and Authorityless bears underfoot. Our world may give nuns the right to leave the cloister over marzipan and Italians, but all we got is the I Ching ... there are wild tiger-worshiping Lithuanians still running around right at the doorsteps of Warsaw and St. Petersburg"

Edit: At least two of those book series substitute metaphysical BS for existing metaphysical BS. So, not sure why that helps. I guess the 'dark materials' series works for those who like metaphysics, but just really don't want to hear the word 'god'.

It's not direct word substitution, but it still taps into metaphysics/supernatural stuff, for no real purpose.