The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ [With Earbuds] Book

..... ....

Open Mind...Hey Big C, what's up?

Controversy: I've got another book review to do and this one could be a MAJOR PROBLEMO so I was really hoping you could help me out and be there when I post it.

Open Mind: Of course, you know I'm always glad to assist if my being present will help people get through one of your reviews.

Controversy: Believe me OM, without you there, this review is doomsville before it begins. Without you, we would have Inflammatory Rhetoric

showing up, with or without Offensive Name Calling

and they would simply blow up the review. In fact, given the sensitive nature of the subject matter, I was hoping that you might be able to get some of the "others" to help out as well just so things don't get out of hand.

Open Mind: That bad?

Controversy: Potentially. I just want to take whatever precautions I can to at least try and present this in a respectful manner so we can avoid any appearances by Intentionally Hurtful Comment

or that lowlife assclown Nasty Comment Thread

over this. I mean, it's just a book review but those two have still shown up often enough in the past that it concerns me they might be out there trolling.

Open Mind: Well we were just finishing up watching the first season of Entourage so we're all here. How about I put you on speaker so we can all listen to what you have to say?

Controversy: Sounds great and thanks, OM.

Open Mind: Not a problem...[pause]...okay, we're all here Big C...what have you got?

Controversy: Well, here's the thing. The review I'm doing is about a very radical, anti-Christian re-telling/re-imagining of the life of Jesus.

Tolerance for Opposing Views: Big C, hi it's TOV…I know that "re-imaginings," especially about religious figures and writings can often stir strong feelings in people, but are you sure that it is intentionally "anti-Christian"?

Controversy: It's written by PHILIP PULLMAN!

[multiple voices in unison]: OHHHHH SHIIIITTT!!!

Controversy: Exactly, are you starting to see.

Respect and Courteousness: Hey, Big C, its RAC, what's the name of this book?

Controversy: Are you ready for this? "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ."

Open Mind: ....are you serious?

Controversy: Serious as anal rape.

Tact: Controversy!!

Controversy: Sorry Tact, just a joke, I can't help it.

Tact: Try, it's in very poor taste!!!

Tolerance for Opposing Views: I'm a bit surprised Big C. Knowing your own views about "bash" pieces. Why did you even read it?

Controversy: Well, TOV, you see I loved His Dark Materialsand didn't think it was anywhere near as "blatantly" "anti-Christian" as most people did. I just thought it was a phenomenal story that I really, really enjoyed. What a person's private views are doesn't usually impact whether I will read their work. So, when I saw this, I wanted to give it a try.

Open Mind: Well, was this one as "bad" as it sounds?

Controversy: That's the problem. On one hand, I would have to say A BIG YES...and on the other hand I would say kinda yes and no.

Clear Unambiguous Statements: C'mon Big C...it's me...you are going to have to explain that a little more clearly.

Controversy: I know CUS, I'm just not sure how to say this so people understand where I am coming from.

Clear Unambiguous Statements: That's why I'm here to help, now just give it a shot.

Controversy: All right, just give me a second to organize my thoughts...[pause]...Okay, is it "anti-Christian"?...BIG YES…Is it offensive?...again YES…but let me clarify this last statement. To devout Christians this book is clearly OFFENSIVE and I don't think that you can find anything of merit in this book even if you enjoyed His Dark Materials. This book is clearly an attack on the fundamental beliefs of their faith and they have every right to refuse to read it or, if they do read it, to rip it a new one big enough to park a truck inside.

My desire to "clarify" stems from the fact that, for me, what I saw Pullman saying was something like, "I don't believe what Christians believe, I think they are misguided and have been led down a false path and this book is an 'alternative explanation' for the events that gave rise to the Christian faith." That can clearly be described as OFFENSIVE to a lot of people and I would not argue the point. However, for me, it was a matter of tone.

Clear Unambiguous Statements: What do you mean by tone, Big C?

Controversy: Well, I would have had a real problem with the book if I had seen Pullman saying, "Not only do I not believe in Christianity but because you are Christian, you are stupid and evil and I hold you in contempt." Now I am not saying that Pullman doesn't believe that because I don't know, but I didn't read that kind of "hateful" tone in his words. Now, that may be a subtle distinction for some, but it means a lot to me. It is the difference between "I disagree with you" and "I disagree with you and you are fucktard for believing what you believe." The former is what our country was built on and the latter is what we too often have to put up with in order to preserve the former. I believe people have the right to believe what they want and to express and try to explain it to people so long as they don't INTENTIONALLY DEMEAN AND BELITTLE people who think differently.

Clear Unambiguous Statements: That was much better, but you are soapboxing a bit.

Controversy: Thanks and I know. I was just trying to make a point.

Rational Discourse: Big C, it's Ratty. Why don't you describe the book and then we can discuss how you felt about it and how best to present your analysis.

Controversy: Fine by me, Ratty. The novella is basically Pullman's interpretation and re-telling of the life of Jesus and the creation of the Christian faith using the various gospels as source material. When I say Pullman uses the gospels as source material, what I mean is that the narrative follows the basic timeline of the new testament gospels and includes many of the critical events that are described about the life of Jesus (e.g., from his conception through his crucifixion and even the resurrection).
…
Polite Questioning: Pardon me, sorry to interrupt, but if Pullman does not believe in the divinity of Jesus how does he address the resurrection?

Controversy: Sorry PQ, you know I don't do spoilers. You will have to read it yourself.
…
Anyway, Pullman follows the time-line and events described in the gospels and then filters them through the lens of his own beliefs and convictions for purposes of his story.

Clear Unambiguous Statements: Can you give us an example?

Controversy: Sure, CAS. One prime example happens early on when Pullman describes Mary's conception of Jesus. In the biblical version (and I am not a scholar so please forgive any technical mistakes in this description) Mary, a virgin, is visited by an angel, told she will conceive the Son of God and then Jesus is conceived through the blessing of the "Holy Spirit." ...NOW BRACE YOURSELF...in Pullman's version, no miracle is implied and it is STRONGLY SUGGESTED that the "angel" who visited Mary was merely a slimy, opportunistic con man taking advantage of Mary's naiveté and beliefs in order to seduce her while Joseph was out of town.
…
[multiple voices in unison]: NO FUCKING WAY!!!!

Controversy: I told you people would find it OFFENSIVE.
…
Anyway, Mary and Joseph eventually find their way to Bethlehem and here is where Pullman introduces the major "structural" difference between his story and the gospels. Mary gives birth to twins. The first is Jesus and the second, a sickly child (whose real name is never actually revealed), is simply referred to by Mary as her little Christ.

Even though most people are probably generally familiar with the story of Jesus, I want to be careful not to give away any major spoilers while still giving a decent description of the basic plot. Please forgive me if I go too far in one direction or the other.

Anyway, as the twins grow up Jesus becomes a teacher and, to my less than scholarly understanding, appears to be portrayed fairly consistent with the biblical Jesus with two major differences. First, the "miracles" of Jesus are either given alternative explanations or significantly downplayed. Second, Jesus does not refer to himself or imply that he is the Son of God. His message is a very simple one. Love your neighbor, be forgiving, give to the poor, help those in need and basically be the best person you can be.

It is in the person of "the scoundrel" Christ that Pullman pours most of the energy of his narrative. I would describe Pullman's Christ as a passionate, though easily corrupted, "believer" that Jesus is the Messiah. He follows Jesus around wherever he goes and writes down his words and his actions in order to save them for posterity. He sees Jesus as the one sent by God to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven and is deeply frustrated that Jesus refuses to accept that mantle or assist in any way in the creation of an "organized following" (i.e., a church). This becomes the central friction of the book. Jesus teaching a message of love and peace and Christ believing that message needs to be delivered in a way that would have the "most powerful impact" on people.

Eventually, Christ meets a mysterious "person" who convinces Christ that for the good of mankind, it is absolutely critical that the life of Jesus be the foundation of creating a world wide following of his believers...Side Note: This stranger is never identified, but by the end of the book I thought it was very clear who Pullman intended him to be...

Anyway, the stranger convinces Christ that it may be necessary to "tweak" or "rewrite" some of the words and events of the life of Jesus in order to preserve the fundamental "truth" of the events. The stranger convinces Christ that the "Truth" of Jesus' life (or what should have happened) is much more important than the History (or what did happen). I will stop there as I think the above gives a good enough description of the dynamic that Pullman has introduced to the story without spoiling how that dynamic eventually plays out.

Well, that's it….comments, questions, suggestions.

Rational Discourse:..Dude, this thing has a Flaming Troll sighting written all over it.

I don't see how we are going to keep him from showing up with his cousin Malicious Non Sequitur.


Open Mind: Hey, don't be so pessimistic, Ratty. There's always hope...Wow, Big C, this one is little tough even for me. I think maybe you should just give a few final thoughts on the story, maybe what you took from it, and just let people decide for themselves. Otherwise, I just think you run the risk of going off on unnecessary tangents.

Unnecessary Tangent: HEY!!

Open Mind: Sorry, UT no offense meant…Go ahead Big C.

Controversy: Okay, well I am rating the book 3.5 stars because I enjoyed Pullman's writing and the controversial nature of it made it extremely memorable and so it is certainly a reading experience that I will remember. Also, from a completely "non partisan" perspective, I was amazed at how ingenious Pullman was at taking the gospels and basically turning them on their head by simply making some fairly subtle changes to them, with the end result being a complete 180 degrees different from the source material. As an analogy, it was like someone turning the movie Rambo into a Romantic Comedy while only being able to make a few detail changes to the original film. You can certainly hate what they did to the original film (and believe me, many will) but it is hard to discount the creativeness of the achievement.

Overall, I was impressed with Pullman's writing and his story was certainly evocative as it stirred a lot of emotions (even of many of them were negative). Thus, while I may not agree with his conclusions, you can tell this was a writer passionate about his subject matter. I can always respect that.
.
.
.
.
.
.

NOTES ON REVIEW:
The part of Controversy was played by me (with a visual assist by Harlan Ellison). The part of the other "helpers" were played by the chorus of voices inside my head...except for Unnecessary Tangent who was played by Peter Griffin.