|
I suppose one could ask the question 'Are all fans of Tolkien (& Lewis) fans of Fantasy?' or are many only fans of the 'confirmation' of their own beliefs/worldview that they percieve it to contain?
Or, 'Is the true lover of Fantasy one who seeks to enter into a secondary world which is other than their own?' What Pullman does, at least in the first volume, is create a convincing secondary reality, whose inhabitants are 'real' - within their own world. I don't know of any (even its most vociferous opponents) of the work who claim its 'fake', 'unconvincing', 'unbelievable'. Their objection seems to be the exact opposite - its too convincing, too 'seductive' - read Pullman & you may be seduced into his worldview.
In other words, Pullman's work is both offensive & dangerous because, as fantasy, it succeeds. Pullman creates a totally believable secondary world (sorry, fans of HDM, but I'm limiting myself here to the first volume).
So, I think its possible to argue that anyone who objects to HDM/The Golden Compass movie is actually objecting to Fantasy itself - or to any manifestation of Fantasy that challenges their worldview/belief system - which, essentially, is the same thing.
Good Fantasy convinces, bad Fantasy doesn't. But bad Fantasy isn't a 'threat' to Churches or political regimes, or to anyone's personal beliefs - because bad fantasy doesn't convince: it feels fake. Only good fantasy is a threat - because it does convince - of its 'reality', the possibility that a world like that is possible (if only logically possible).
So, one could argue that any Fantasy is only a 'threat' because its a good (ie convincing) fantasy, & that a true fantasy fan would like* it, & that anyone who disliked a convincing Fantasy because they didn't approve of the worldview it presents is not a true Fantasy fan at all.......
*They may not approve of/agree with the philosophy behind it, but they would have to approve it as a Fantasy, as the creation of a convincing & wholly believeable secondary world.
|