So, I've been sick for a few days, and not having the brains to continue with the KOREAN SECURITY POLICY book on my desk, I ordered some lighter stuff (or just more fun). I have been wanting to read HIS DARK MATERIALS for a while. WARNING: thematic SPOILERS
I got the first book from the library and read it in two sittings. It was quite a page turner, and, though there's not a big reason to compare it to Harry Potter, it was much smarter, more complex, and more imaginative than HP. And better written, on the sentence level. Less interior drag. Less psychological, I suppose, as Lyra, the main character, is not a tortured orphan, subject to the vicissitudes of peer pressure and the mass media.
Lyra is a scrappy girl who eschews the frippery of conventional girlhood (at first). She is the hero of the novel. I was wondering about the "she's a strong female character" idea...why does a female character (written by a man) have to make fun of "girly" female stuff (dresses, clean hair) in order to be adventurous, lion-hearted, etc.? I wonder if, instead of being pro-girl if it's actually very anti-girl. That is to say, the only kind of girl hero worth following is one who takes on conventionally male characteristics. Lyra is kind of androgynous and then she is seduced by the softness and cleanness and glamour of living with Mrs. Coulter...who then turns out to be evil. The "good" woman in the book (well, there's a gyptian woman who is good, but doesn't play a large role) is an ageless, beautiful witch. Of course there's tons of men of all kinds.
Despite seeming like a book that champions girls, I find that it really doesn't. Not that Pullman makes that claim, but I can see book reviewers doing so.
It's like that cliche male fantasy moment when the bad-ass motorcyclist whips off the helmet to reveal a long, lush, slow-motion mane of (usually blonde, and Lyra is blonde) hair.
Lyra is the virgin/maiden archetype in every way and Mrs. Coulter is the witch archetype.
The better thing about HP is that Hermione, to me, seems fully realized, and not a male fantasy (truly!). Of course Hermione is not the main character, but she still plays a very important role. Of course she's an older character, and I've read her throughout 7 (?) books and not just one. And am, I'm sure, influenced by the films. But she does seems like a character written by a woman, and Lyra seems to me to be quite standard, and written by a man. I do like that Lyra is sort of anti-education and is a bit wild, and a good liar. The most salient comparison is surely not Lyra and Hermione, but it springs to mind because I haven't read much fantasy. I'm maybe interested in trying to write for a YA audience and will have to think hard about the nature of characterization. I'm probably too weighted down by ideology--fiction to me seems more vulnerable to reductivism because you're dealing with a character whose purpose, to some degree, is to provide some verisimilitude with a real humans. If I were a composer (of music) perhaps I could be more free! Poetry, while also full of ideas and ideology, need not deal with character or plot so much.
Thinking about Lyra Belacqua ("musical beautiful water"--her name counteracts her punkish, hoodlumish ways) reminds me of the totally-male-made film HARD CANDY, in which the avenging teen girl really has a baby-dyke appearance/persona, as if the only kind of female capable of the imagination and moral outrage shown by the girl is one who transgresses conventional gender boundaries.
To bolster my argument, the evil female character is a beautiful woman (as she often is, or is often a disgusting old hag who can change herself into an beautiful female).
I am going to try to go see the film (The Golden Compass) asap. It looks lush and exciting, as the book was (although it left me feeling slightly hollow...perhaps it's because I never really cared about the metaphysical cosmology being played out...and because the only character really explored is Lyra, and perhaps Iorek the armored bear. I also thought that her love for him was just the tiniest bit eroticized, which made me "feel funny inside, and not in a good way," as one of my friends like to say. It reminded me of the overly erotic nature of the bond between the protagonist and his dragon in the ERAGON books, which by the way, I liked much much less than TGC or HP or any other fantasy/SF YA literature, not that I've read a lot of it.)
This is not to put too much on the shoulders of one book. I did enjoy it. I am thinking of reading it to my daughter, although she could read it herself, but not sure if she would stick with it. It is more challenging than the HP books in vocabulary and in other ways. I like how Pullman doesn't overexplain anything (e.g. he does not explain that "gyptian" is the origin of the word "gypsy." Maybe English children already know that.)