The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

Say, for example that one is reading or writing a "transitional" fantasy; that is, one that starts in the primary world (at least as evoked in the feigned reality) and moves into a secondary world.

It could work if a Christian from this world entered a non-Christian secondary world. But the secondary world would have to retain its autonomy, & not serve merely to promote the author's Christianity, by having all the characters of the secondary world come to see the 'error of their ways' & convert. The central character's religion could be explored in perhaps profound ways, & maybe his faith would be deepened by his experiences there, but the inhabitants of the secondary world, not living in a world that had known the Incarnation (though perhaps having had some other kind of divine intervention) could not believably 'convert' to a religion which had developed in another 'reality'. Primary & secondary realities would follow their own rules & have their own paths. Otherwise the Secondary reality would become in the end no more than a poor copy of the primary.

This is what occurs in Lawhead's Song of Albion trilogy. The 'Ancient Britain' Lawhead gives us is deeply innaccurate. The ancient Celts were not monothiests but polytheists, & their supreme deity was the Goddess Don or Danu. Basically, Lawhead attempts to present a real cultural/historical period as being something we know it wasn't. My experience all through reading this work was that it was 'wrong' - ie, that Lawhead was lying to me, & lies will break the spell of faerie more effectively than the appearance of primary world religious images would.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

The one aspect I cannot recall, is any use of the symbol of Christianity, the cross. So, he makes great use of religious icons, but not of the most important symbol of that religion.

The absence of the Cross (specifically what it symbolises) is one of the greatest failings of HDM. Pullman plays us false in presenting the work as an attack on 'organised religion' (by which he of course means Christianity) but fails to grapple with the central & supremely profound 'symbol' of that religion - the Cross.

Nowhere in Pullman's universes is the idea of the Incarnation of God dealt with. His 'God' is an external being who never got his hands dirty, or suffered with His children. The Cross is the great symbol of divine love & suffering. Pullman actually creates a false god, an 'Aunt Sally' & proceeds to throw stones at it. The core of Christianity is never presented, let alone dealt with. The Incarnation of God is the one thing, the one idea, that has to be confronted in a work like HDM if it is to claim any validity as Art. Pullman fails to deal with, or rather he runs away from, the blood & the pain & the dirt. Tolkien doesn't, neither does Lewis (nor does Lawhead for all his proselytising).

Now, this is not a matter of whether the Christian story is literally true - the parables of the Prodigal Son & the Good Samaritan are true despite the fact that they are not accounts of actual events in early first centruy Palestine. What Pullman fails to confront & therefore the reason his work fails to grip & hold the reader on the deepest & most profound level, is the idea of the Incarnation. What he does is pretend the idea, not just the event itself never was.
He simply picks out the aspects of Christianity that he can easily trash & proceeds to do so while at the same time pretending (to us & possibly also to himself) that the aspects of Christianity he cannot so trash do not exist. Worst of both worlds, if you like...