Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials: A Multiple Allegory by Leonoard F. Wheat (review)

In a long tradition of allegorical writing from John Bunyan’s (2007) Pilgrim’s Progress (1678) to C.S. Lewis’s (2008) The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950), Philip Pullman contributes a unique piece of literature. In contrast to Bunyan, John Milton, and Lewis, who offer a Christian perspective on the world, Pullman advances a contrastive picture of the world according to his atheistic naturalism (the belief that the world is closed to physical causes and effects, thereby excluding a supernatural entity[ies]). Uniquely, he writes the first allegory post-Second World War and Darwin, which offers a critique of theism. By re-telling Christian allegories, Pullman creatively adds an atheistic spin to symbols that have shaped, and continue to shape, Christian thought. Normally, we think of the theism and naturalism debate in the context of philosophy and theology, but here we find the debate emerging in fiction.

Leornard F. Wheat offers the reader a close analysis of Pullman’s (2007) His Dark Materials collection, which is comprised of three books (that is, The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass) and Milton’s (2007) Paradise Lost (1667). Accordingly, Wheat seeks to show the literary artistry of Pullman’s allegorical critique of theism, more specifically Christian theism. Wheat persuasively shows the reader that Pullman’s purpose is not only to shed light on the disconnect between this world and heaven but also to suggest that heaven is unreal.

Wheat begins by displaying the themes found within Pullman’s literary work. The first two chapters following the introduction serve to set up the context. In Chapter 2, he summarizes the superficial content found in His Dark Materials. In Chapter 3, he summarizes Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. The next three chapters advance a more interesting in-depth treatment of Pullman’s allegories. Wheat persuasively demonstrates Pullman’s successful re-telling of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe using 104 symbols that correspond to symbols in Lewis’s story. In Chapters 5 and 6, Wheat thoughtfully examines Pullman’s re-telling of Paradise Lost and highlights the hidden themes corresponding to Milton’s poem by highlighting the fact that knowledge is in competition with religious superstition. Finally, Wheat offers some commentary on Pullman’s attempt to carve out a story of the world (through allegory) following the influence of Charles Darwin (a perceived saint within atheistic circles) and following the Second World War, a time in which scepticism and agnosticism is on the rise.

There are numerous strengths in Wheat’s study of Pullman. First, Wheat’s writing is clear and nearly conversational. While his investigation requires numerous details, one could conceive of the reading becoming rather tedious, but Wheat’s grasp of the allegorical pictures and the colourful language sustain the reader’s attention. Second, Wheat offers the student of Lewis, Milton, and especially Pullman helpful summaries for ease of digestion. Throughout, Wheat summarizes his research using bullet points and bold print for the countless themes discussed. Additionally, in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, Wheat kindly leaves the reader with a list of Pullman’s symbols and their meaning. This makes for ease of retention.

In the end, Wheat’s study is deserving of additional attention from those interested in literary analysis and cultural studies. Those interested in Christian fiction, theism versus naturalism, sociology, and the like will find Wheat’s text useful for reflection on these and related themes. Given the questions that will naturally emerge in the reader’s mind concerning atheistic naturalism, it might have been nice to read Wheat’s thoughts on the internal logic of Pullman’s literature (for example, in the conclusion), but this may be expecting too much in light of the aims and scope of the work. While there does seem to be a decline in societal belief in the supernatural (for example, Islam and...