![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Intent Analysis ( talk) 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I am being out of line when I say that revealing the entirety of the plot of the book in an article about it is mental.
But that is exactly what I am saying.
Intent Analysis ( talk) 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC) For precedent, look at almost every other article about every other book/movie/television episode. 66.215.20.28 ( talk) 07:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
From the intro:
"The trilogy functions in part as a retelling and inversion of John Milton's epic, Paradise Lost; Pullman commends humanity for its attainment of wisdom and knowledge rather than condemning it (as in Milton's poem)." It’s fine to say that these books attempt to invert Milton (even if painfully presumptuous), but it’s nonsense to say that Milton condemns 'attainment of wisdom and knowledge'. That view suggests either a polemic straw man or else an innocent but entirely gross ignorance of Paradise Lost.
First note that the fruit is referred to by Milton as 'false Fruit' and Satan as the 'false serpent' foreshadowing that the knowledge they grant is really at the expense of a greater knowledge being thus forfeited:
(book 9 ~ line 1070) To that false Worm, of whomsoever taught To counterfet Mans voice, true in our Fall, False in our promis'd Rising; since our Eyes [ 1070 ] Op'nd we find indeed, and find we know Both Good and Evil, Good lost, and Evil got, Bad Fruit of Knowledge, if this be to know,
That the claim to knowledge is a false one is made yet more explicit elsewhere, certainly breaking the identification of the fruit with wisdom:
(from book 9 ~line 1120) They sate them down to weep, nor onely Teares Raind at thir Eyes, but high Winds worse within Began to rise, high Passions, Anger, Hate, Mistrust, Suspicion, Discord, and shook sore Thir inward State of Mind, calm Region once And full of Peace, now tost and turbulent: For Understanding rul'd not, and the Will Heard not her lore, both in subjection now To sensual Appetite, who from beneathe Usurping over sovran Reason claimd Superior sway:
It's clear that to Milton the result of eating the fruit is the intellectual impoverishment of mankind and the savaging of reason and understanding (of course leaving aside the innumerable other dire consequences of other types).
Given the above the intro to this article should be rewritten for accuracy, at a minimum changed to say 'what the author [or some particular party] has personally claimed is condemnation of wisdom and knowledge in Milton' assuming someone can be found somewhere expressing that mistaken view.
Otherwise it should simply read something more like ‘Pullman revises the themes of Paradise Lost in such a way that the biblical fall of man becomes a great achievement for mankind.’ In any case it shouldn’t make reference to some shoddy misreading of Milton as if it’s not only correct but obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.251.201 ( talk) 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
How much of Earth in HDM is controlled by the Magisterium? We know that it controls Europe, but what about the rest of Earth? The USA, for example, has states like it does here (such as Texas, which wasn't part of the original UA- it joined later in a war). Does he ever say who controls it? Or Australia and New Zealand, for that matter? And what about the parts of the world that aren't controlled by the west (Asia, Africa etc). They mention the "Tartars"- Mongols- which suggests they may not control that area. How much of Earth is free from them?
Where the hell did Asriel etc get all that technology at the end of Northern Lights- he could blast through universes with that. I know there's a bit about this in the article, but I still think it laughable that while Metatron's fortress has guns and anti-gravity, he can't equip his bodyguards with anything better than spears. To get to the ludicrously advanced levels of technology Lyra's Earth seems to have acess to, you need to have a base of similarly advanced technology to begin with. A world as basic as Lyra's (for the most part) would probably not be able to reach the levels they seem to get (unless they got it from aliens or soething, but I don't think that's likely).
And yeah, if the church is so hell-bent on keeping power that they stamp out all heretical technology, wouldn't they give some of their army, which is responsible for keeping this power base, some of this tech (which they have no trouble actually using, as seen in The Amber Spyglass). That way they would be able to wipe out absolutely anyone who tried to stop them. Instead, they give them crappy chain mail armour and guns that resemble those of the seventeenth century. Added to that, they have no grenades, no armoured vehicles, no artillery (note: everything so far is world war 1 era- which they are in advance of), no flamethrowers and no communications systems. Asriel has lasers (as seen on the intention craft), but he is equally unable to give his troops any actual equipment. All in all, the US Army today would own their world, which can eject people from space time. Something seems out of place.
The main article states:
In The Amber Spyglass, an advanced interdimensional weapon is discussed which, when aimed using a sample of the target's DNA, can track the target to any universe and disrupt the very fabric of space-time to form a bottomless abyss into nothing, forcing the target to suffer a fate far worse than normal death. In our contemporary world, this is implausible as there would be an infinite number of individuals with the same genotype as the target, each in a different world, but the bomb can target the exact person the sample was taken from.
I thought that this was tracking based where the hair was separated as once the hair that the locks were cut from was also removed and thrown through a window, the bomb went to the hair and not Lyra. If it were DNA based, it would still have tracked Lyra.
The sentence "In our contemporary world, this is implausible as there would be an infinite number of individuals with the same genotype as the target, each in a different world, but the bomb can target the exact person the sample was taken from" is confusing. Since the plausibility of this device depends on whether or not multiple worlds exist in reality, it seems a bit superfluous. Could it be deleted? User:Timvines 17:40 BST, 2nd August 2007
Could someone fill me in on the purpose of the harpies? What would the authority have to gain by trapping people in the underworld forever? Jarwulf 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite simple: If they could get out, they may be able to mount an operation against him. Even if they could not fight him themselves, they coudl reveal to the living the truth about what happens after death, upon which they would all declare war on the authority. It may also keep the fear of death high among the living, so he could threaten them with it.
Or it could just be Metatron's idea of fun.
Okay, there's a portal for His Dark Materials that I made today. You can see it at Portal:His Dark Materials. I look forward to some feedback. Methulah 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope everyone's OK with the changes in this talk page, since it's getting pretty large I thought at least a start at organization might be in order. Nothing's been deleted from the page, just re-arranged (unless I screwed up). There might need to be a division of 'current events' and archived discussion or something along those lines. I don't know if there's a consensus (or at least a convention) on how to create a well-organized talk page on wikipedia, but I figured this was better than nothing. -- Overand 05:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
What's everyone's opinions on changing Northern Lights, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass pages to redirect here and merge their content into His Dark Materials? They're all plot-synopsis stubs, and considering their content is more or less duplicated here, they seem a little pointless...? - Taliswolf 11:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've removed this definition from the 'esoteric' section, as a gyrocopter is a very real and very current (at least in use if not inovation) flying machine in the real world. see: gyrocopter
I also think this may be more appropriate to remove, as naptha is also very real, although it's a bit odd that naptha is used as the main fuel, it's not an esoteric renaming/modification of a word. * Naphtha: Oil (as in oil-lamp, rather than naphtha-lamp). -- Overand 05:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
In section Theatre One sentence was removed.
I thought the sentence was interesting. I could put it back but don't want to start an edit war - any other opinions? -- SGBailey 12:31, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
I agree with SGBailey totally, and the statement is correct, all 126 performances in that year sold out before the opening day,- that's definitely a point to mention since I know of no other plays for which this has happened- why does it matter that tickets are availible now, in 2005?
Why no one talk about the idea of dark matter, and that freedom of thought scares the church and how it echoes what HAS happened. The idea of a soul being a part of nature, and that Even Angels don't know who created them, just that they were first. Also the conotations of the Subtle knife creating a creature which takes life (every action has an exact and opposite action) -- Arlechinio 23:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Was I the only one who thought the Amber Spyglass was a major disapointment after the first two? The Fellowship of the Troll 03:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Mind if I change this? He's written much more than fantasy.
Go for it, but you'll have to change quite a few pages. Cittagazze and Spectres pages also list him as a fantasy fiction author. If you're prepared to change all the links, go forwards, but: what would you describe him as? -- alfakim 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Just as an author, I don't want to limit him. -- Mongreilf 14:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too vexed by this so if you want to go round changing them all to "author" I say it's a good move. From the ever HDM-loving Wikipedian: -- alfakim 00:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the long high detail summaries of the books detracts from the quality of this article. I believe these summaries should be removed, moved to the individual book pages, or severely reduced in size. Wikipedia:Article size recommends an upper limit of 20-30 K in length, on average, but this page is 80 K long. I know that I personally tired of reading the article and failed, initially, to notice the sections below these long summaries -- Jacen137 18:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
You are totally right, but as the author of the whole lot of it I couldn't quite bear to have it all deleted. I've taken it upon myself to move the three synopses to the individual pages for the seperate books, and resorted-out the original HDM page. The high detail synopses are now in a much better place, and I recommend a better cleaning up/expansion of the individual book pages. -- alfakim 00:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I thought it might be nice to reference some of the other books that are often compared to HDM. However, I am not sure how much detail is good. I offer the following line as an alternate in case the text used is too detailed.
The trilogy is often been compared to other epic children's fantasy novels such as The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle, the Young Wizards series by Diane Duane, and the Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling. -- Jacen137 05:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
His Dark Materials Illuminated: Critical Essays on Philip Pullman’s Trilogy, edited by Millicent Lenz with Carole Scott is the first book to place His Dark Materials in critical perspective. The fourteen diverse essays within offer literary and historical analysis as well as approaches from such disciplines as theology, storytelling, and linguistics. The first part, Reading Fantasy, Figuring Human Nature, looks at Pullman’s art of making stories and creating fantasy worlds and at readers’ responses to his creations. Part 2, Intertextuality and Revamping Traditions, examines the rich intertextuality of Pullman’s narratives and his use and revamping of literary traditions, including fantasy. Part 3, Pullman and Theology, Pullman and Science Fiction, centers on the complexities of the author’s stance toward religion, his treatment of “Eve,” and his affirmation of the Republic of Heaven.
These words were pronounced 'pan-ser-buh-yorn', 'pan-ta-LIE-mon', and 'eye-shatter' in the NT production. Pullman was consulted on many issues during rehearsal, I assume this was one of those issues - though of course I wasn't in the rehearsals themselves! -- Urbane legend 18:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm unsure about Kirjava. Finnish stresses the first syllabe. -- Kizor 20:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added in the IPA transcriptions. As for the pronunciation of "Panserbjørne", I reckon it should be along the lines of "PAN-ser-byer-nuh" rather than "-byor-", since Scandinavian ø is pronounced a bit like er. Also, I think that "Æsahættr" being pronounced "eye-shatter" sounds wrong. Etymologically it's from the Old Norse Æsir ("gods") + hættr ("dangerous" I think), so I think the "s" and "h" should be pronounced separately. Maybe Pullman wasn't consulted on this word. But I don't know whether it should be pronounced as "ASS(a)-hatter" (like Old English) or "EYE-site-er" (like Old Norse). -- Dave ~ (talk) 14:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
In my editions of Northern Lights (British English and German), it's "Panserbjørne", but in Alfakim's it's "Panserbørne". On Google, "PanserbJørne" returns 322 results, whereas "Panserbørne" returns 12. Maybe the spelling is without a "j" in some editions, to aid pronunciation (since the "j" is pronounced like a "y")? If so, perhaps Alfakim wouljd like to add a note to clarify this :) -- Dave ~ (talk) 13:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Just so this point is taken seriously, I've taken some photos: | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This shows that it's by no means a misspelling in my version, because it is consistently spelt without a J.
Does anyone have a picture of it spelt with a J? -- alfakim 12:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC) |
-- goncalopp 00:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen "ambaric" - can anyone attest this spelling? I've only seen "anbaric" (from the Arabic word for "amber", I believe). -- Dave ~ (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Cthonic isn't necessarily pronounced 'THON-ic [ˈθɒnɪk] ', as some anonymous person just edited. Per Wikipedia chthonic it is pronounced either with or without a silent k. Derek Balsam 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Quick question: does anyone else think that the pronunciations and terminology section should have its own article? It seems that there is enough information to form a good new article and this could help tidy the His Dark Materials article up considerably. Just a suggestion. Thanks, Demosthenes 1 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
"Many people would also disagree with his religion, which is evolution, because of the enourmous amount of evidence disproving it."
I just don't get this evolution thing. Is evolution a religion?? Shouldn't this be corrected?
Hmm. Aside from the syntax, I see two problems with that statement:
Actually, evolution is a proven theory. 81.246.147.45 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Reverted after someone vandalised it. I agree with the vandal that these books are ungodly, but that's no excuse for denying the public facts about them - furiouscommie
in response to the 'alot of evidence' please cite your sources next time please :) Dragon queen4ever ( talk) 23:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
"Prior to resigning he rejected a script by Tom Stoppard and controversially indicated that the film would make no direct mention of religion due to the viewpoint the books suggest. This however may not still be the case."
this text was removed by 152.163.100.10 today. I realy don't see what's the problem with it. What do you thinkm should we revert? goncalopp 03:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC) This is against religion but he is also very inconsistent throughout the books on his stance with God. Racker421 ( talk) 09:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand exactly what the legal issues referred to here -
"Due to legal reasons, it is almost certain that the actors chosen for Will and Lyra, twelve year olds, will be sixteen or older,..."
Is there some kind of law against hiring people younger than sixteen in the UK for acting, or is there some other reason(s) I'm not aware of? -- Aerodotus 00:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a trend in this article to reference other totally unrelated books by other totally unrelated authors. What is the point in mentioning that Clive Barker also once wrote a book involving a multiverse? I'm sure millions of writers have. The reference is almost stupid, it's like some fan of that book was desperate to give it some fame in connection through this page.
The same applies to "comparing HDM to other books in terms of popularity." That's just so vaguely related that it certainly can't be encyclopaedic. Why do we need to reference a whole load of other fantasy books before saying "HDM is pretty popular."
Lastly, HDM isn't as popular as Harry Potter. Harry Potter lays HDM out flat.
I wrote this here just in case someone objects. -- alfakim 10:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, sources 9 and 10 do not provide any evidence to the statements made about all Christian characters being absolutely evil. The former is another Christian tabloid article that simply makes this claim, and the latter breifly describes Mary Malone's defrocking, but is otherwise completely irrelevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.99.186 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What's the source for these interpretations, anyhow? MC MasterChef 22:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
NoMass reverted my changes to the article yesterday; I have no desire for an edit war, but I feel they should be reinstated. For one thing, I changed more than just the daemon table in my edits; if it absolutely has to be in this article, I would prefer s/he revert just that section.
I deleted the table for a number of reason, first of all because I felt it was an unsightly way to present information; this article already has some very long lists in it, and I generally prefer prose when at all possible. Second because I believe symbolic interpretations of the daemon's form are not directly relevant to this article, unless a case can be made that Philip Pullman himself was consciously choosing them on the basis of that interpretation. To be clear, I have no doubt that the rabbit in Pagan mythology symbolically represents the Moon and Resurrection (I have no idea, really), I just don't know that that necessarily has anything to do with rabbit daemons in HDM. NoMass in his/her edit summary promises sources, to which I say fine, but even assuming such evidence is produced, I still don't think the information belongs in this article, which is about the books. We have an article on the concept of daemons in His Dark Materials and individual articles (with their people) for any notable ones -- wouldn't this information be better placed there, rather than in the general overview page?
I would appreciate your comments on this matter. MC MasterChef 22:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Response. Or as you desired: comments
Well, I have to say that I agree with you. But my opinion on the matter differs from yours. For one thing, I think that being an encyclopaedia, wikipedia is a great font of information. We all contribute to this marvellous centre of knowledge to forward this ideal of an interminable ocean of information. We should thus put as much into it as possible. MC MaserChef observantly notes that this HDM page is becoming too “listy”, if we can so put it like that. But his own post, with descriptions of the characters, is nothing more than a list itself. Sure, I like prose as much as the next guy, but for the topic of deamons, I think it more appropriate to list them in a concise and easily readable format. Let me explain why. When attempting to understand the representation that Philip Pullman has given this creation, one needs to have a precise overview of how he is creating these personas. To do this, we have to look at the books as any historian looks at his subject of his interest. If you browse any historical related article, you will note that a story is being constructed by the narrator. (if fact, the word “history” derives from the latin of “story”) This is how history is written; using interpretation. Anything which is “interpreted” is intrinsically constructed through a subjective perspective. Now, to clarify, this website is an encyclopaedia, which, invariably is a transcript of history. HDM is something that we do not just present as some lifeless object. It has gone through the lives of every person that has read it, and essentially changed it. (Who can say that they were not changed but these books?) Thus, the books have infused themselves in the current of human existence and experience. They have become a part of our history. I therefore wish to understand how they have changed our world. To do this, I try to look at the books as what they are in our society: objects of art. Philip Pullman is quite evidently an artist. He works like all other artists have: by learning and understand, almost digesting, that which has come before, and that which is present, and happening all around us. With regards to the Present aspect of the book, it is obvious how he has infused our current understanding of Science, Religion, and Love into HDM. But when looking at how the Past has infused itself into the books, we must look at it like all Historians of Art look at creations. Historians will attempt to read the meanings and construction of the books based on what they know and what they can find out. It is no chance that Lyra’s daemon is an Ermine in most of the story. Throughout western history of Art, it has always been common knowledge that the Ermine has symbolized Purity. This has come from what the historians of Renaissance art discovered. Throughout the history of the Renaissance, symbolisms emerged as the chest of esoteric understanding. During this period, the rise of alchemy and other esoteric mysticism was extremely widespread. This use of symbolism was depicted but the Artists themselves. Thus, from the great books left to us from the Renaissance we can come to know what these symbols represented. Philip Pull has impregnated HDM with a wide variety of these symbols. And we can tell that they are symbols taken directly from the art of the Renaissance. In fact, most of the book makes reference to the esoteric realm.
Lyra’s daemon is commonly an Ermine throughout the book, until the point in which she kisses Will. At that moment, love bursts from that kiss like a flower opening to the world for the first time, flowing through their spirits out into the entire universe. From then on, Pan becomes fixed. He will never again be an Ermine because Lyra will never again be pure and innocent; she has now grown up. From these clues and others, it seems quite obvious that one can attempt to “read” these books in the same way that an Historian can “read” a painting. It goes without saying that it will inevitably be a subjective “reading” of the painting. But that is what history is all about, constructing it. If we do not “read” these books in this manner, we are almost not reading them at all, because Phillip Pull has obviously and blatantly constructed the stories in a way to be able to be read in this manner: like all objects of art. These books are objects of art, and should therefore be treated as such. They have being given to us to contemplate, enjoy and to change our lives. The only way to present these books it to give them their own historical understanding. And I for one think they are most deserving of such an honour. They are great masterpieces; and deserve energy poured into them, like Dust pours into our souls. They deserve to be part of history. It is us who have to give them this history. And thus, I have tried to understand them; to render their story of their integration with my life.
And thus, I come to the conclusion. You are right in that the Daemons should be one their own separate page. I shall therefore move them to the Daemon page; without excluding the symbolic interpretations, because they are why we are here.
NoMass --
NoMass
20:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I merged Kirjava with Will Parry, Stelmaria with Lord Asriel, and Pantalaimon with Lyra Belacqua. Let's not have intercision on Wikipedia!
Also, we had a Mrs Coulter and a Marisa Coulter. I merged the contents into the Marisa Coulter article with a redirect at the other. MC MasterChef 08:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
How did Pullman stick the 'a' and 'e' together in daemon? Used some special computer or something? Its a weird question,I know,but I think its worth asking. I won't be satisfied until I get a good answer,anyway. dark matter 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Reading the talk page first, I think that I should flag this up here before I get round to putting this in the article: I know some people are agaist mentioning themes and symbolism in the article, althoguh I don't know why -- it's a big part of understanding any book. Anyway, I'll take one obvious one: love. Look at these examples and tell me whether this should go in the article
And so on. tommylommykins 19:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The major themes of HDM are anti-religious dogmatism, and, although disputed, anti-christianity. it focusses on enjoyment of life and carnality and [everything that eve did "wrong"] - it uses the symbols of original sin, via dust = consciousness, saying that free thought, not dogmatism, causes you to be conscious (tree of knowledge). ok so that wasnt so coherent, but it's a religious book, not a romance.--
Alfakim --
talk
16:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Slightly off topic but did anyone else get the impression that Baruch and Balthamos's love was more than brotherly? i.e. romantic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.182.163 ( talk) 19:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That's some nice original research by tommylommykins, actually. Yes, Baruch and Balthamos's love is more than brotherly. I think that's hard to miss. Here's some more OR from me: the novels are about love vs. hierarchical controlling organizations. That pits love against the Church as described in the novels. Or love vs. the inquisition. On a personal note, I find it interesting that people are speaking against Pullman, as though they were in favor of the inquisition. Anyone else find this curious? Personal soapbox aside: I think this love vs. institution theme has some connection to Goethe's Faust (look at the Prologue in Heaven) and possibly to Spinoza's philosophy, specifically his identification of God with creation. Those of us who have BOTHERED TO READ THE BOOKS know that the children don't kill God, but rather inadvertently kill the first angel (who was a tyrant). God is neither killed, harmed, or even touched in the trilogy. That makes the trilogy agnostic. Ok, enough ranting. But has anyone else noticed the connection to Goethe or Spinoza? Best, Anthony Krupp ( talk) 20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Could it be that you've missed the point? Pullman doesn't believe in the God of the historic, monotheistic faiths. He believes that this God found in all the major religions is a conceptual poser, merely a false idea created by humans for the sake of religion. He believes this concept of God is evil and harmful to humanity (because Pullman is apparently very selective in what he allows himself to see in human history). So in his story he presents us with the Authority who is himself a poser and evil, a poser who came along early in our history and has been messing us up ever since, symbolizing PP's own view of the concept of God in the historic faiths. And yes, Pullman's representation of this concept of God of the historic religions is killed in the story, so we can say that PP has had the children kill God.
To say it another way, PP doesn't believe the monotheistic God in the major religions really can be killed because he doesn't believe that He exists. Pullman doesn't believe that there is a God who has been interacting with mankind. He allows that maybe there is a God way out there in space somewhere, and so with perhaps a bit of grandiosity he takes for himself the label "agnostic" rather than "atheist". But he does tell us that he is atheist in regard to the God of the historic creeds, the God who is presented in Christianty and Judaism as caring about humanity enough to interact with us. And so in HDM, we find that PP has created the perfect symbolism for killing this concept of a God who doesn't really exist. Instead of having God enter the story, he gives us a poser who is only pretending to be God, and then he kills the poser!
It is a silly rationalization for a fan of the books to say that there might be a God far away out there in space somewhere, who has never had anything whatsoever to do with mankind, and that PP has neither killed, harmed, or even touched this putative, perpetually absent being, and that therefore the books don't kill God. Nobody was concerned about a perpetually absent entity getting killed. Everyone (except PP's fans, it seems) is talking about how Pullman treats the God of the historic faiths. Let's stop being silly and face it that Pullman first demotes the God of the historic faiths to the status of being a poser, makes him evil and harmful to humanity (the way Pullman himself thinks of this God), and then has him killed. And so indeed, Pullman has the children kill (symbolically) the God of the historic faiths.
And nobody is speaking against Pullman as though we are in favor of the Inquisition. (!!!) Rather, we are speaking against Pullman as though we think it is dishonest for him to paint a picture of Christianity as though it were about the Inquisition. How about if we write a book about Pullman's atheism and make it all about the torture of the gulag, or Stalin's massacre of millions in the Soviet Union, or Pol Pot's bloodbath in Southeast Asia, or the atheism of Nietzche that fed Hitler's rationalizations for the holocaust? Is that kind of evil and torture what Pullman's atheism is all about? Well, in quite the same way, was it honest for Pullman to write a book about killing the God of the historic faiths and make it sound as though these faiths are full of Inquisition, the torture of children, the forbidding of pleasure and joy, and nothing redemptive, necessary, and good for humanity? People who are criticizing PP's books as dishonest and bigoted may very well have a good reason to do so. I think the enthusiasm of his fans keeps them from admitting it, and Pullman's brilliant use of symbolism is adequate to allow some of his fans to pretend that they don't see the intense anti-Christian bigotry in the books. Indeed, to suggest that we have ony two choices -- to enjoy Pullman's bigoted representation of theism, or to defend the Inquisition -- is bigotry in its own right. These are not the only two choices. Instead, we can exercise our minds to see that Pullman has created a heavily slanted characterization of the historic faiths, and then we can reject that mis-characterization along with rejecting the Inquisition. PurpleMonkey 08:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI - someone said in an edit summary that "Pullman didn't explicitly say that the target audience is "the US definition of young adult"". To the contrary, Pullman has indeed specifically said that he liked the U.S. young adult category, which apparently does not (or did not) exist in Britain. It's been a long time since I've done much (non-daemon) HDM-related, so I'm rusty on sources, but I'll dig the source up if need be. (It's not particularly important, just avoiding misinformation.) AySz88^ - ^ 05:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The section 'Plot summary' contains, "In the alternate universe of Lyra Belacqua, the story's protagonist, and many other universes not including our own". I couldn't say which book it is or where, since I don't own any of them, but I came away from the series with the definite impression that Lyra's universe was the only one in which people had external dæmons. Could someone confirm or deny this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.246.47.206 ( talk • contribs) 21:38, December 6, 2005 (UTC).
User:AySz88, I know the NPOV police. The text bellow is even bolder than my previous edit, why don't you point out to me what do you see as NPOV infringement in it? Remember that POVs may be written in a NPOV way, The POV statement that Pullman's attacks are focused only on dogmatism, not on Christianity itself, is an example of that.
...[More-liberal Christians argue that...] Pullman's attacks are focused on the constraints and dangers of dogmatism and the use of religion to oppress, not on Christianity itself (as Pullman himself has said in speeches appearances such as the BBC's Belief citation needed).
On the other hand, some argue that Pullman doesn’t make distinctions between "bad" and "good" Christianity in the novels: almost all of the Christian characters are portrayed as bad, or are portrayed in a more positive light only after they give up the "false" Christian religion. Michael Nelson summarizes what he sees as Pullman's attacks against Christianity:
- "For all its history," a benevolent witch tells Lyra Belacqua and Will Parry, the young protagonists of the series, the Church "has tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. ... That's what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." As for God, a rebellious angel later tells the children, "God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty ... was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves ... [who] told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie." In one of the last scenes of the trilogy, the children watch God die. "Demented and powerless," Pullman writes, "the aged being could only weep and mumble in fear and pain and misery." Every Christian character in the series is rotten to the core, and none of them bothers to pretend otherwise. "The Christian religion," one of Pullman's main characters blandly explains, "is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all." [1]
About the quotation, I’ve seen longer quotes around Wikipedia, with no one complaining about them being "too long". I intend to put it back. -- Leinad-Z 18:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, AySz88. Let’s continue our "dialectic" edition process :-) You just deleted the text below:
There are three main reasons I can think of for your deletion:
I don’t believe your reason was the first option, at least not if you took some time to read what most Christian critics are saying.
Maybe you think that the point of view of the critics is false. Then, a much better way to deal with it is to provide counterexamples or alternative perspectives about this specific point, and not to apply some kind of censorship. To provide alternative views instead of removing things you disagree with also seems to be the way supported by the Wikipedia NPOV policies.
If the problem is what you see as a bad tone, it shouldn’t be too hard to find a better one. But remember that, if we are talking about the criticisms, were not supposed to say only nice things about the subject. A nice tone cannot be an excuse to gloss-over the criticism.
I see nothing remarkably wrong with the removed phrase, maybe the removal was just a distraction from your part. I’m looking forward for your reply. -- Leinad-Z 19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
No-one seems to have read the book clearly enough. The narrator describes the Authority as a false God who has got between Creation and a true God. Has anyone ever tried to study how the books unite Hermetic/Gnostic cosmologies with the latest cutting edge ideas on evolution being caused by consciousness and Quantum Physics? I have no idea if Pullman intended any of this but its there and someone should do a study of it. ThePeg 2006
(Avast, me hearties! Thar be spoilers ahead!)
In regards to the plot summary of The Amber Spyglass, I would argue that Lyra and Will falling in love is the climax. The battle, while it is important, is only of peripheral importance to the real story, the real conflict--which is the choice Will and Lyra must make to give up a life together and close the windows, thus saving all the worlds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danaris ( talk • contribs) 03:06, February 1, 2006 (UTC).
I agree that Will and Lyra falling in love is the climax - It's a bit disapointing though - that Lyra and Will can't be together, due to only being able to keep one window open - being the window from the world of the dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtm3 ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I heard 3 versions on the talk page. Does anyone have a source to confirm which way. Or somewhere to look for it. I'm kind of using that word as a handle somewhere else and well I'd like to know how to pronounce my own handle. DyslexicEditor 13:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
dictionary.com says that aesir is pronounced ace + err. a as in mace. and i either as i in sir or i in Mir (the space station) -- not sure which for the i. Anyone know why the ae is pronounced like a as in at in the article and why you say it's that way, Malf? DyslexicEditor 10:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It was generally agreed for a long time (on this article) that the word was pronounced "ASS-hatter". Apparantly in the radio-adaptation or stage production (one or the other) it was pronounced "EYE-shatter", which, although potentially cooler, is quite likely to be wrong. -- Alfakim -- talk 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
How is the i in aesir pronounced? Also when I pronounce ae like how Malfidus says it in aesahaettr, the ae sounds like I have a sweedish accent (which I don't). Why is the "ah" not pronounced in aesahaettr? And what is the old norse way (above in talk page) that makes it the ae sound like the i in ice? DyslexicEditor 12:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's get to the point all of us want to know. A sad ending to an exciting series. True or False?
I removed this quote - "It should be noted that this statement does not accord with the Authority (God) reflected in the book, who is a feeble, crazed angel" - which followed after Cynthia Grenier's comments, as it is blatantly incorrect. Although the Authority is certainly feeble (crazed is up for debate) at the time of the novels, when he was first created he was enough of a tyrant to decide to dupe all the other angels into thinking he created them, as well as to set up the World of the Dead as a prison camp. Furthermore, even when he was weakened, he still decided to delegate his power to the rather vicious Metatron, again demonstrating his cruelty.
I added the word "cachuc" (rubber) to the terminology section. If anyone needs references on this translation I would be happy to provide them. Noncognosco 23:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)noncognosco
I'm sorry, I'm a Pullman addict, and I would love to add to the plot you've written. But first of all, Even the Oblation Board call themselves Gobblers, not just 'gyptians and urchins'. But MOST IMPORTANTLY, one discovers nearly at the beginning that Lord Asriel is Lyra's father. She definitely knows when she betrays Roger. I am 100% sure. I have to alter this. And wht's more, why do "Lee Scoresby" links all go to this page? It doesn't say "This page does not exist", it just gets the wrong page... Fuzzibloke 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Lyra learns about her father and mother at the same time in the story. In my copy this is about 100 pages into the book, which is about 300 pages overall. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "nearly at the beginning" or not.
Noncognosco
21:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)noncognosco
Is it really necessary to throw in that little jab at Ann Coulter? Feelings about Ann Coulter should be left out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Verity O'Connor ( talk • contribs)
Should a brief plot description for Lyra's Oxford be included? Minglex 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
for some reason this page has been the focus of advertisement attacks over the past few days if you check the page history. I'd like to get some options on what we should do. Maybe try to get temporary page protection for unregistered users. Any ideas lets talk about it. SirGrant 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the use of the word "titular" in the summary of The Subtle Knife is incorrect, for according to Wikipedia, titular means "in a position of leadership without any real power." If this is indeed the intention of the writer, could somebody please clarify it?-- The Edit0r 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In the list of Lyra's world's terms, "Poppy: Opium, which is made from poppies" doesn't seem to be correct. This seems to be referring to a moment shortly into the second chapter of The Golden Compass when the Master of Jordan College cooks "poppy heads," which refers to the pods of the flower. Opium, as you'll see from the article, is produced in an entirely different manner than cooking them. Poppy pods can be used to the same end as opium; poppy tea is a good example, though considering how awful it tastes, I can't imagine how it would be fried in butter. However, this entry is incorrect, and I'm deleting it from the list. The use of "poppy" and specifically "poppy heads" in the context of the story is consistent with the meaning used in our world. Cheers. 66.82.9.56 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The section of this article related to the upcoming movie adaptations of the trilogy need to be updated now, as I believe they have just revealed that Daniel Craig has been cast as Lord Asriel. They have also revealed that actresses Dakota Blue Richards, Nicole Kidman and Eva Green will star in the film as Lyra Belacqua, Mrs Coulter and Serafina Pekkala respetively. Personally, everyone was insulting the idea of handsome Paul Bettany playing Lord Asriel, and now we're stuck with Daniel Craig! I hope you're happy now!!! lol! JJ
Speaking of such, much like other movie adaptions of books, wouldn't it be good to update the character profiles with screencaps they're showing us from the movie? CrazyNekoRun 06:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. Another fiercely and grossly negative portrayal of christianity. Hey, how come if something is anti-christianity it is automatically called free thinking? There is a lot of true free thinking that needs to be done. Don't you know its the hardest thing in the world to become a christian because of the narrow minded view that people have of them nowadays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.42 ( talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read this in a while and do not have access to my copies. The comment about "electrum" being identical to amber struck me the wrong way. Can someone double-check appearances of "electrum" in the books? Because electrum is a real substance that was used a lot in the ancient world - it's an alloy of silver and gold that is a good conductor of electricity. Is everyone sure that Pullman really meant amber when he wrote "electrum"?
I've read through the first two books of His Dark Materials and love it.
Correct me if I'm wrong =)
Though I thought (in Northern Lights, or The Golden Compass) "gyptians" did not mean gypsies but rather the Egyptians? Maybe I'm wrong. Oops. I searched Gyptian on Wikipedia and it explained >.< Sorry.
Also, shouldn't the name Lyra Silvertongue be used instead of Belacqua? Because Belacqua is a fake name to hide her parents' identities while Silvertongue is a name that Lyra 'earned' and uses (since she got it and found out about her parents)
Or is there something about these two in The Amber Spyglass that changes these?
^_^ -- Deon 12:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In the 3rd book it turns out she was a ghost all along, just a manifestation of Dust, so she doesn't really have a name. Nah, I'm just kidding, I wouldn't spoil it for ya. Her name could be Lyra Coulter for all I know, but Balecqua seems to be her name at the start of the book and the article assumes her character from the start. JayKeaton 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the pronunciation of dæmon is DAY-mon because I went to the movie website and when you enter it, someone is narrarating what is written in this information box. The person who was narrarating pronounced dæmon, DAY-mon. The website is, www.goldencompassmovie.com. If I am mistaken on this pronuncation, I am truly, terribly sorry.
Please, someone correct me if i'm wrong, but in Eastern Europe I believe there are actual 'gyptians'. A group of people who travel the waterways of the continent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.190.57.13 ( talk) 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Has anyone else heard of the audiobook adaptation of His Dark Materials, by Chivers Children's Audio Books? It was produced in 1999, narrated by Philip Pullman, accompanied by a full cast - including Alison Dowling (of BBC Radio 4's The Archers) and Susan Sheridan (Trillian in the original Hitchhikers Guide radio series). It can probably only be obtained secondhand now, but its a great recording of the entire series cover to cover, and should be worth at least a passing mention.
The entry regarding "the amateur rights are now available" (originally part of a spamlink now removed) is only correct as far as it goes. HDM has been released under the standard T&C for the industry ( here) which allows amateur and professional productions (but permission for amateur productions may be withdrawn at any time in favour of the professional). This flexibility would have been present from the start, although in practice amateur productions would have been embargoed as part of the NT contract. Subject to other editor's views, as it's non notable, I'm inclined to complete the deletion. -- Old Moonraker 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I just made an edit to the "Esoteric renaming" section with too many different changes in it to document in the edit summary, so here they are.
Hairy Dude 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:HisDarkMaterialsUS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
fair use but there is no
explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the
boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
fair use.
Please go to
the image description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot
04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The book sais she has dark hair, doesn't it? Just because Nicole Kidman hast blonde hair, it doesn't mean Mrs Coulter has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.72.46 ( talk • contribs)
It seems that the greek concept of the guardian spirit 'daemon' is not mentioned. Is this a valid connection?
Also, HDM refereces may become important in the future. Already I know of one major poetic reference in the work of Saul Williams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.113.106.33 ( talk • contribs)
I propose merging of several minor characters' articles into one. The reason is that they already cover the subject and are unlikely to be expanded considerably. If no objectons, I'll do the merge within few days. -- Tone 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Just like The Chronicles of Narnia is chalked full of a large section for criticism, this trilogy needs one is well. And not a criticism section that answers and defends itself, but one that stands as is, without defense (like Lewis has). There are numerous sources for criticism regarding this series of books and wiki is supposed to be without bias. It is bias to criticize lewis yet leave Pullman untouched. Now, which atheist here will have the courage and obejctive ability to be fair? You had no problem putting up the lewis criticisms, now lets see how honest you really are. (and dont call the current "influence and criticisms" section a criticism section. 95% of that section is devoted to defending the criticism.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 ( talk) 15:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice try Anthony. The "Chronicles of Narnia" section on Wiki has a criticisms secion that totals 1,617 words. Thats quite a lot. More than I'd care to quote here. Pullman has gone on record stating that the children in these novels "kill god" and that while he may not be targeting Christianity specifically, it is full of references against organized religion (which do include christianity). The controversey surrounding these novels, especially in light of the fact that a major motion picture is going to be released, should definitely be included in this article. To not do so is intellectual dishonesty. Are you intellectually dishonest Anthony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.149.194 ( talk) 12:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of why Wikipedia suffers a negative reputation of not being neutral. This is a perfect example of why even the founders of wikipedia had to start a new website. Because the Chronicles of Narnia is chalked full of criticism (much coming from Pullman himself) while Pullman enjoys a "free pass". Is there a shortage of controversey surrounding Pullman's novels? No. There is not. It is fully justified to include in this article statements released by official religious bodies regarding his series of books. You (and by "you" I refer to the secular atheistic socialist white caucasion 'white-collar' wikis that hawk these articles)...you would think that this article would cite some of these major criticisms and controversey surrounding this series...like the Chronicles article has....but they are not there. Why aren't they there? Bias of course. And it permeates wikipedia.com. I am not asking that the 1,617 word criticism section in the Chronicles be removed, I am asking that this article fairly provide a similiar amount. To not do so screams of bias, something wikipedia is becoming known for. -SIGNED, 64.146.149.194. This is 64.146.149.194 wishing you all a good day. (smiles at Anthony) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.149.194 ( talk) 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that while it is said "anyone may edit" that is unfortunately incorrect. The powers that be simply delete it if it doesn't fit their POV. Then they accuse you of being POV or find some pretext. Since they can suspend other editors the issue is always resolved in the favor of those in power. I suspect that would happen here. It is why wikipedia is not respected as a source. 70.108.115.9 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Er, kind of a lot of bickering going on, but I just want to add my support to the fact that the article doesn't "defend" Pullman, rather it clarifies basic facts about his text and characters. Specifically, Cynthia Grenier's accusation that in the books the Authority is God, and God is a tyrant and is overthrown in the novel. The books make it very clear that the Authority is a FALSE god and a liar, and it says he didn't create anyone, he was just the first thing that existed in the universe so he was free to tell everyone else he created them. If someone says something incorrect about a book, and you correct it, that doesn't mean you are "defending" the book. You're just making sure the facts are out there. If wikipedia readers saw her accusation without anything pointing out her inaccuracy, they would be getting an erroneous impression of what the book says, which wouldn't be very useful for an encyclopedia article. Would it help to quote the direct passages from the book that describe how the Authority is just a liar posing as a god, who didn't really create anybody?
Now if there is criticism that isn't based on a misunderstanding of the text, then maybe it can stand on its own. VatoFirme 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As has been mentioned, the Manual of Style prohibits personal attacks, like your suggestions that everyone editing this article is a "secular atheistic socialist white Caucasion 'white-collar wiki", and the broader implication that because a person is atheist, they also must be socialist. If you want to create an Criticism section that is unbiased in your view, please do. You clearly want it to be there, stop expecting everyone else to do your work for you. Atmadja ( talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a warning about plot spoilers etc. ahead in this article? I don't know how to add them? Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.187.248 ( talk) 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The WP:LEDE is very lacking. The book is explicitly intended as an anti-religious broadside; Pullman said so himself. There is no mention of this or the resulting controversy in the lede. Ling.Nut 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm reviewing His Dark Materials per the Good Articla criteria - see Wikipedia:What is a good article? - and the Manual of Style - see WP:MOS - and will return in a day or two. The lead is still not adequate - see WP:LEDE. For example, the long quote shouldn't be in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the entire article: maybe about 400 words for a long artcle. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Pullman has said:
If I think about the audience I’d like to have, I don’t think about a particular age group, or a particular gender, or a particular class or ethnic group or anything specific at all. ... I’d like to think that I’m telling the sort of story that holdeth children from play and old men from the chimney corner, in the old phrase of Sir Philip Sidney. 'Everyone is welcome, and no one is shut out, and I hope each reader will find a tale worth spending time with.' [1]
For the moment, I'll readd the ref, at least, if that's consistent with lead style. Best, Anthony Krupp ( talk) 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
My review. I chose this article to GA review because of the publicity surrounding the upcoming movie. I enjoyed reading it but can not pass it as GA. Actually, it has several problems that would warrant a quick-fail but perhaps the contributing editors can fix them. My over-all impression is that the series is thought of well in the literary world (awards, adaptations) but this does not come across at all in this article.
Comments
Setting
Plot summary
Character histories
Influences and criticism
Institutional religion is criticized by some of the characters. For example, Ruta Skadi, a witch and friend of Lyra's calling for war against the Magisterium in Lyra's world, says that "For all of [the Church's] history...it's tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. And when it can't control them, it cuts them out." (see intercision). Skadi later extends her criticism to all organized religion: "That's what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." (By this part of the book, the witches have made reference to how they are treated criminally by the church in their worlds.) Mary Malone, one of Pullman's main characters, states that "the Christian religion…is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all." She was formerly a Catholic nun, but gave up her vows when the experience of being in love caused her to doubt her faith.”
Awards
Adaptations
The production hopes to stay as true to the book as possible. Prior to his initial departure from the project, Weitz suggested that its film treatment might minimize the explicitly religious character of The Authority so as to avoid offending some viewers. This suggestion sparked a fan backlash that some believe was the real reason for Weitz's leaving. Pullman has since stated that "All the important scenes are there and will have their full value." The film will open in December 2007. Dakota Blue Richards has been cast as Lyra. Nicole Kidman plays Mrs. Coulter, Daniel Craig is Lord Asriel, and Eva Green will play Serafina Pekkala throughout the trilogy. Iorek Byrnison is voiced by Ian McKellen. On Saturday 24 November the press were given the first opportunity to see the film in London and the reception was mixed[citation needed]
References in popular culture
Overall, this article has to be revised. With the movie coming out, I'm certain it will be heavily visited and edited so I'll leave it on GA Hold for 14 days (longer than normal because of the movie). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
GA Fail: The article's overall problem is one common to many fiction articles at Wikipedia and that is a pre-dominate 'in-universe' perspective: see Real-world perspective. The manual of style - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) - gives a List of exemplary articles. The FA article The Illuminatus! Trilogy is a very good model of what His Dark Materials should be like. I suggest that anyone editing here should first take a look at the FA article to gain an understanding of what an article on a fictional trilogy should look like. There is little point in passing His Dark Materials as it would have to be re-written to achieve FA status. According to the criteria at Wikipedia:What is a good article?, His Dark Materials fails at 1(b) for not following the appropriate manual of style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
For keen contributing editors, you may wish to know about two interviews of Pullman in podcast form. See CBC Writers & Co podcasts. Specifically,
Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 17:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Should there be mention of steampunk in this article? If so, where? See Talk above for this article's recent GA failure. Best, Anthony Krupp ( talk) 13:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I just moved the following section from the article. I'm concerned about the verifiability ("it is thought that") and the potential distaction... I guess it reads like OR. But it's interesting. Which is why I didn't delete it outright. I guess if someone could find sources for this, we can work at including it.
Cheers, Anthony Krupp ( talk) 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this here for now, as it's all uncited. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed an increasing number of fan sites listed under External Links. My first impulse is to remove them as violating the standards of external links, specifically: Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews). I don't think fan sites meet this standard.
Thoughts? TechBear ( talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The attempted addition by an anon IP of material "sourced" to Pullman's website seriously rips what he writes there out of context, and mischaracterizes the nature of what Pullman wrote. Explain your wording here before reinserting. Mr Which ??? 06:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "Two characters who once belonged to the Church, Mary Malone and Marisa Coulter, are both displayed in a positive light only insofar as they have rebelled against the Church." I strongly disagree with this. Marisa Coulter is indeed essentially pure evil, but Mary Malone is compassionate, wise, etc. ... I don't see how Mary has any bad qualities, despite the fact that she plays the role of "the serpent". 75.70.135.246 ( talk) 04:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Charon
I undid the edit that said this was in the genre Christian novel because this book is documented as not being in that genre. Do not change it back unless you can provide documentation that the definition of the genre has been changed in common usage to include books that intend to undermine belief in Christianity and portray God in a bad light. The definition of the genre in Wikipedia says,
A Christian novel is any novel that expounds and illustrates a Christian world view in its plot, its characters, or both. Any novel that deals with Christian themes in a positive way could also be Christian novel.
This series does the opposite. It illustrates and expounds a non-Christian world view. Philip Pullman said he wanted to overturn Milton's Paradise Lost so that the serpent is the hero and God is the villain, so that the wrong side had won the war in heaven (until at last in his trilogy he is overthrown and dissipates in the wind -- reflecting the view of Pullman's atheism that belief in God should dissipate into nothing when people finally see it for what it is [Pullman's view, not mine]). You can't get much more opposite from a Christian world view than that! It also portrays the afterlife of the Christian worldview as a lie and the believers as acting on their beliefs in a way that hurts children and takes away the joys of life. Pullman has said about his works, "I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief," and, "I've been surprised by how little criticism I've got...My books are about killing God." In light of this, it is not reasonable to say that this book is in the genre of Christian novels. It clearly is not.
A good discussion of this genre can be found in a presentation It's Not Your Grandmothers Christian Fiction Anymore, by Deborah Bryan, presented at the Tri-Conference 2007. [2] Her presentation is here; [3] and her handouts are here. [4] Sanddune777 ( talk) 01:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed this recent addition, "One thread of the books shows that humans can do bad things quickly and easily in the name of God. Accordingly,..." The claim it makes, that this one thread of the books is the cause of the controversy, is unreferenced and thus appears to be original research (the opinion of the editor, not the documented public statements of literary critics) and in fact it may not be correct. It is questionable whether this is really or primarily the thread that causes the controversy. It may be that the controversy arises primarily from a combination of other threads of the book, such as its defacto inversion of Paradise Lost by replacing Milton's God with the Authority who is a fraud (symbolic of the way Pullman's atheism considers the concept of God to be a fraud), or its unbalanced treatement of religion and religious people, or its failure to show people whose mainline religious faith makes them work to change the world for the better, etc. The claim that this one thread is the cause for the controversy, "accordingly", should be supported by references showing it really is the consensus opinion if it is to appear in the article. Sanddune777 ( talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I find it surprising that this hasn't been raised yet due to Pullman's inclusion of it in his trilogy and considering how central it is to the plot's development. JRDarby ( talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The current version says in the introduction that Pullman "presents a skeptical view of the world in his stories". What on earth does that mean? If you have a sceptical view of the world, does that mean that you doubt its existence? In what way does Pullman present that? Bluewave ( talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please reply in this section only if you are not a Christian.
In the novel The Amber Spyglass of the series His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman, God, the Authority, is false, fake, and fraud, not really God or a god, but is actually an angel. Could it be possible that God is false, fake, and fraud, not really God or a god, but is actually an angel, in reality, in the real world, in real life?
When the story His Dark Materials said that God is not really God or a god but is actually an angel, it meant and was talking about the Christian god. But Christianity is just one of the many different religions that exist in the world today. There are so many different religions in the world today. There are some people who claim and believe that Allah, the god of Islam, is false, fake, and fraud, not really God or a god but is actually an angel. Did you know that? See section 29 in page 20 of the article Islam - A Case Of Mistaken Identity.
Bowei Huang ( talk) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Are they canon? Lord Of Demise ( talk) 23:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the "single-volume omnibus" of the trilogy the UK or the NA version? 75.138.153.210 ( talk) 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing a person without a daemon seems to them as a bad as seeing someone without a head, or some other crucial organ.
Having only just finished reading NL, I suspect that this could do with re-phrasing ; there is an extensive section early in the book where one of the child protagonists (I'd have to re-read to check which one, which I'm not going to do until I've read the remaining two books) is in hiding and has their daemon (sorry, "dæmon") assume the form of a moth. Nothing much is made of this, from which I deduce that it's a reasonably common ploy, at least amongst children. So, seeing a child without a visible dæmon is nothing particularly uncommon.
Also, the remarks about witches being able to send their dæmons on errands to arbitrary distances excites no particular comment. Unless a dæmon can be in two places at once (which never gets mentioned in NL), that implies a second circumstance where a human not accompanied by an evident dæmon would not be remarkable.
Come to think of it, Lyra's subterfuge against the usurper-king of the panserbjorne depends critically on her keeping her dæmon hidden in a pocket, so that's a third strike against the assertion.
Of course, if there are sections in the later volumes where this assertion is made "in universe", then my objection is inappropriate. But a reference would then be appropriate.
On BBC 4 programme, "Charles at 60: the Passionate Prince", he recommended the triology as an excellent read. Broadcast 12 November 2008 21:00 GMT on BBC 4.
The image File:TGCfilm.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 09:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Intent Analysis ( talk) 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I am being out of line when I say that revealing the entirety of the plot of the book in an article about it is mental.
But that is exactly what I am saying.
Intent Analysis ( talk) 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC) For precedent, look at almost every other article about every other book/movie/television episode. 66.215.20.28 ( talk) 07:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
From the intro:
"The trilogy functions in part as a retelling and inversion of John Milton's epic, Paradise Lost; Pullman commends humanity for its attainment of wisdom and knowledge rather than condemning it (as in Milton's poem)." It’s fine to say that these books attempt to invert Milton (even if painfully presumptuous), but it’s nonsense to say that Milton condemns 'attainment of wisdom and knowledge'. That view suggests either a polemic straw man or else an innocent but entirely gross ignorance of Paradise Lost.
First note that the fruit is referred to by Milton as 'false Fruit' and Satan as the 'false serpent' foreshadowing that the knowledge they grant is really at the expense of a greater knowledge being thus forfeited:
(book 9 ~ line 1070) To that false Worm, of whomsoever taught To counterfet Mans voice, true in our Fall, False in our promis'd Rising; since our Eyes [ 1070 ] Op'nd we find indeed, and find we know Both Good and Evil, Good lost, and Evil got, Bad Fruit of Knowledge, if this be to know,
That the claim to knowledge is a false one is made yet more explicit elsewhere, certainly breaking the identification of the fruit with wisdom:
(from book 9 ~line 1120) They sate them down to weep, nor onely Teares Raind at thir Eyes, but high Winds worse within Began to rise, high Passions, Anger, Hate, Mistrust, Suspicion, Discord, and shook sore Thir inward State of Mind, calm Region once And full of Peace, now tost and turbulent: For Understanding rul'd not, and the Will Heard not her lore, both in subjection now To sensual Appetite, who from beneathe Usurping over sovran Reason claimd Superior sway:
It's clear that to Milton the result of eating the fruit is the intellectual impoverishment of mankind and the savaging of reason and understanding (of course leaving aside the innumerable other dire consequences of other types).
Given the above the intro to this article should be rewritten for accuracy, at a minimum changed to say 'what the author [or some particular party] has personally claimed is condemnation of wisdom and knowledge in Milton' assuming someone can be found somewhere expressing that mistaken view.
Otherwise it should simply read something more like ‘Pullman revises the themes of Paradise Lost in such a way that the biblical fall of man becomes a great achievement for mankind.’ In any case it shouldn’t make reference to some shoddy misreading of Milton as if it’s not only correct but obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.251.201 ( talk) 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
How much of Earth in HDM is controlled by the Magisterium? We know that it controls Europe, but what about the rest of Earth? The USA, for example, has states like it does here (such as Texas, which wasn't part of the original UA- it joined later in a war). Does he ever say who controls it? Or Australia and New Zealand, for that matter? And what about the parts of the world that aren't controlled by the west (Asia, Africa etc). They mention the "Tartars"- Mongols- which suggests they may not control that area. How much of Earth is free from them?
Where the hell did Asriel etc get all that technology at the end of Northern Lights- he could blast through universes with that. I know there's a bit about this in the article, but I still think it laughable that while Metatron's fortress has guns and anti-gravity, he can't equip his bodyguards with anything better than spears. To get to the ludicrously advanced levels of technology Lyra's Earth seems to have acess to, you need to have a base of similarly advanced technology to begin with. A world as basic as Lyra's (for the most part) would probably not be able to reach the levels they seem to get (unless they got it from aliens or soething, but I don't think that's likely).
And yeah, if the church is so hell-bent on keeping power that they stamp out all heretical technology, wouldn't they give some of their army, which is responsible for keeping this power base, some of this tech (which they have no trouble actually using, as seen in The Amber Spyglass). That way they would be able to wipe out absolutely anyone who tried to stop them. Instead, they give them crappy chain mail armour and guns that resemble those of the seventeenth century. Added to that, they have no grenades, no armoured vehicles, no artillery (note: everything so far is world war 1 era- which they are in advance of), no flamethrowers and no communications systems. Asriel has lasers (as seen on the intention craft), but he is equally unable to give his troops any actual equipment. All in all, the US Army today would own their world, which can eject people from space time. Something seems out of place.
The main article states:
In The Amber Spyglass, an advanced interdimensional weapon is discussed which, when aimed using a sample of the target's DNA, can track the target to any universe and disrupt the very fabric of space-time to form a bottomless abyss into nothing, forcing the target to suffer a fate far worse than normal death. In our contemporary world, this is implausible as there would be an infinite number of individuals with the same genotype as the target, each in a different world, but the bomb can target the exact person the sample was taken from.
I thought that this was tracking based where the hair was separated as once the hair that the locks were cut from was also removed and thrown through a window, the bomb went to the hair and not Lyra. If it were DNA based, it would still have tracked Lyra.
The sentence "In our contemporary world, this is implausible as there would be an infinite number of individuals with the same genotype as the target, each in a different world, but the bomb can target the exact person the sample was taken from" is confusing. Since the plausibility of this device depends on whether or not multiple worlds exist in reality, it seems a bit superfluous. Could it be deleted? User:Timvines 17:40 BST, 2nd August 2007
Could someone fill me in on the purpose of the harpies? What would the authority have to gain by trapping people in the underworld forever? Jarwulf 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite simple: If they could get out, they may be able to mount an operation against him. Even if they could not fight him themselves, they coudl reveal to the living the truth about what happens after death, upon which they would all declare war on the authority. It may also keep the fear of death high among the living, so he could threaten them with it.
Or it could just be Metatron's idea of fun.
Okay, there's a portal for His Dark Materials that I made today. You can see it at Portal:His Dark Materials. I look forward to some feedback. Methulah 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope everyone's OK with the changes in this talk page, since it's getting pretty large I thought at least a start at organization might be in order. Nothing's been deleted from the page, just re-arranged (unless I screwed up). There might need to be a division of 'current events' and archived discussion or something along those lines. I don't know if there's a consensus (or at least a convention) on how to create a well-organized talk page on wikipedia, but I figured this was better than nothing. -- Overand 05:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
What's everyone's opinions on changing Northern Lights, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass pages to redirect here and merge their content into His Dark Materials? They're all plot-synopsis stubs, and considering their content is more or less duplicated here, they seem a little pointless...? - Taliswolf 11:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've removed this definition from the 'esoteric' section, as a gyrocopter is a very real and very current (at least in use if not inovation) flying machine in the real world. see: gyrocopter
I also think this may be more appropriate to remove, as naptha is also very real, although it's a bit odd that naptha is used as the main fuel, it's not an esoteric renaming/modification of a word. * Naphtha: Oil (as in oil-lamp, rather than naphtha-lamp). -- Overand 05:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
In section Theatre One sentence was removed.
I thought the sentence was interesting. I could put it back but don't want to start an edit war - any other opinions? -- SGBailey 12:31, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
I agree with SGBailey totally, and the statement is correct, all 126 performances in that year sold out before the opening day,- that's definitely a point to mention since I know of no other plays for which this has happened- why does it matter that tickets are availible now, in 2005?
Why no one talk about the idea of dark matter, and that freedom of thought scares the church and how it echoes what HAS happened. The idea of a soul being a part of nature, and that Even Angels don't know who created them, just that they were first. Also the conotations of the Subtle knife creating a creature which takes life (every action has an exact and opposite action) -- Arlechinio 23:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Was I the only one who thought the Amber Spyglass was a major disapointment after the first two? The Fellowship of the Troll 03:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Mind if I change this? He's written much more than fantasy.
Go for it, but you'll have to change quite a few pages. Cittagazze and Spectres pages also list him as a fantasy fiction author. If you're prepared to change all the links, go forwards, but: what would you describe him as? -- alfakim 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Just as an author, I don't want to limit him. -- Mongreilf 14:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too vexed by this so if you want to go round changing them all to "author" I say it's a good move. From the ever HDM-loving Wikipedian: -- alfakim 00:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the long high detail summaries of the books detracts from the quality of this article. I believe these summaries should be removed, moved to the individual book pages, or severely reduced in size. Wikipedia:Article size recommends an upper limit of 20-30 K in length, on average, but this page is 80 K long. I know that I personally tired of reading the article and failed, initially, to notice the sections below these long summaries -- Jacen137 18:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
You are totally right, but as the author of the whole lot of it I couldn't quite bear to have it all deleted. I've taken it upon myself to move the three synopses to the individual pages for the seperate books, and resorted-out the original HDM page. The high detail synopses are now in a much better place, and I recommend a better cleaning up/expansion of the individual book pages. -- alfakim 00:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I thought it might be nice to reference some of the other books that are often compared to HDM. However, I am not sure how much detail is good. I offer the following line as an alternate in case the text used is too detailed.
The trilogy is often been compared to other epic children's fantasy novels such as The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle, the Young Wizards series by Diane Duane, and the Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling. -- Jacen137 05:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
His Dark Materials Illuminated: Critical Essays on Philip Pullman’s Trilogy, edited by Millicent Lenz with Carole Scott is the first book to place His Dark Materials in critical perspective. The fourteen diverse essays within offer literary and historical analysis as well as approaches from such disciplines as theology, storytelling, and linguistics. The first part, Reading Fantasy, Figuring Human Nature, looks at Pullman’s art of making stories and creating fantasy worlds and at readers’ responses to his creations. Part 2, Intertextuality and Revamping Traditions, examines the rich intertextuality of Pullman’s narratives and his use and revamping of literary traditions, including fantasy. Part 3, Pullman and Theology, Pullman and Science Fiction, centers on the complexities of the author’s stance toward religion, his treatment of “Eve,” and his affirmation of the Republic of Heaven.
These words were pronounced 'pan-ser-buh-yorn', 'pan-ta-LIE-mon', and 'eye-shatter' in the NT production. Pullman was consulted on many issues during rehearsal, I assume this was one of those issues - though of course I wasn't in the rehearsals themselves! -- Urbane legend 18:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm unsure about Kirjava. Finnish stresses the first syllabe. -- Kizor 20:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added in the IPA transcriptions. As for the pronunciation of "Panserbjørne", I reckon it should be along the lines of "PAN-ser-byer-nuh" rather than "-byor-", since Scandinavian ø is pronounced a bit like er. Also, I think that "Æsahættr" being pronounced "eye-shatter" sounds wrong. Etymologically it's from the Old Norse Æsir ("gods") + hættr ("dangerous" I think), so I think the "s" and "h" should be pronounced separately. Maybe Pullman wasn't consulted on this word. But I don't know whether it should be pronounced as "ASS(a)-hatter" (like Old English) or "EYE-site-er" (like Old Norse). -- Dave ~ (talk) 14:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
In my editions of Northern Lights (British English and German), it's "Panserbjørne", but in Alfakim's it's "Panserbørne". On Google, "PanserbJørne" returns 322 results, whereas "Panserbørne" returns 12. Maybe the spelling is without a "j" in some editions, to aid pronunciation (since the "j" is pronounced like a "y")? If so, perhaps Alfakim wouljd like to add a note to clarify this :) -- Dave ~ (talk) 13:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Just so this point is taken seriously, I've taken some photos: | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This shows that it's by no means a misspelling in my version, because it is consistently spelt without a J.
Does anyone have a picture of it spelt with a J? -- alfakim 12:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC) |
-- goncalopp 00:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen "ambaric" - can anyone attest this spelling? I've only seen "anbaric" (from the Arabic word for "amber", I believe). -- Dave ~ (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Cthonic isn't necessarily pronounced 'THON-ic [ˈθɒnɪk] ', as some anonymous person just edited. Per Wikipedia chthonic it is pronounced either with or without a silent k. Derek Balsam 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Quick question: does anyone else think that the pronunciations and terminology section should have its own article? It seems that there is enough information to form a good new article and this could help tidy the His Dark Materials article up considerably. Just a suggestion. Thanks, Demosthenes 1 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
"Many people would also disagree with his religion, which is evolution, because of the enourmous amount of evidence disproving it."
I just don't get this evolution thing. Is evolution a religion?? Shouldn't this be corrected?
Hmm. Aside from the syntax, I see two problems with that statement:
Actually, evolution is a proven theory. 81.246.147.45 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Reverted after someone vandalised it. I agree with the vandal that these books are ungodly, but that's no excuse for denying the public facts about them - furiouscommie
in response to the 'alot of evidence' please cite your sources next time please :) Dragon queen4ever ( talk) 23:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
"Prior to resigning he rejected a script by Tom Stoppard and controversially indicated that the film would make no direct mention of religion due to the viewpoint the books suggest. This however may not still be the case."
this text was removed by 152.163.100.10 today. I realy don't see what's the problem with it. What do you thinkm should we revert? goncalopp 03:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC) This is against religion but he is also very inconsistent throughout the books on his stance with God. Racker421 ( talk) 09:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand exactly what the legal issues referred to here -
"Due to legal reasons, it is almost certain that the actors chosen for Will and Lyra, twelve year olds, will be sixteen or older,..."
Is there some kind of law against hiring people younger than sixteen in the UK for acting, or is there some other reason(s) I'm not aware of? -- Aerodotus 00:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a trend in this article to reference other totally unrelated books by other totally unrelated authors. What is the point in mentioning that Clive Barker also once wrote a book involving a multiverse? I'm sure millions of writers have. The reference is almost stupid, it's like some fan of that book was desperate to give it some fame in connection through this page.
The same applies to "comparing HDM to other books in terms of popularity." That's just so vaguely related that it certainly can't be encyclopaedic. Why do we need to reference a whole load of other fantasy books before saying "HDM is pretty popular."
Lastly, HDM isn't as popular as Harry Potter. Harry Potter lays HDM out flat.
I wrote this here just in case someone objects. -- alfakim 10:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, sources 9 and 10 do not provide any evidence to the statements made about all Christian characters being absolutely evil. The former is another Christian tabloid article that simply makes this claim, and the latter breifly describes Mary Malone's defrocking, but is otherwise completely irrelevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.99.186 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What's the source for these interpretations, anyhow? MC MasterChef 22:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
NoMass reverted my changes to the article yesterday; I have no desire for an edit war, but I feel they should be reinstated. For one thing, I changed more than just the daemon table in my edits; if it absolutely has to be in this article, I would prefer s/he revert just that section.
I deleted the table for a number of reason, first of all because I felt it was an unsightly way to present information; this article already has some very long lists in it, and I generally prefer prose when at all possible. Second because I believe symbolic interpretations of the daemon's form are not directly relevant to this article, unless a case can be made that Philip Pullman himself was consciously choosing them on the basis of that interpretation. To be clear, I have no doubt that the rabbit in Pagan mythology symbolically represents the Moon and Resurrection (I have no idea, really), I just don't know that that necessarily has anything to do with rabbit daemons in HDM. NoMass in his/her edit summary promises sources, to which I say fine, but even assuming such evidence is produced, I still don't think the information belongs in this article, which is about the books. We have an article on the concept of daemons in His Dark Materials and individual articles (with their people) for any notable ones -- wouldn't this information be better placed there, rather than in the general overview page?
I would appreciate your comments on this matter. MC MasterChef 22:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Response. Or as you desired: comments
Well, I have to say that I agree with you. But my opinion on the matter differs from yours. For one thing, I think that being an encyclopaedia, wikipedia is a great font of information. We all contribute to this marvellous centre of knowledge to forward this ideal of an interminable ocean of information. We should thus put as much into it as possible. MC MaserChef observantly notes that this HDM page is becoming too “listy”, if we can so put it like that. But his own post, with descriptions of the characters, is nothing more than a list itself. Sure, I like prose as much as the next guy, but for the topic of deamons, I think it more appropriate to list them in a concise and easily readable format. Let me explain why. When attempting to understand the representation that Philip Pullman has given this creation, one needs to have a precise overview of how he is creating these personas. To do this, we have to look at the books as any historian looks at his subject of his interest. If you browse any historical related article, you will note that a story is being constructed by the narrator. (if fact, the word “history” derives from the latin of “story”) This is how history is written; using interpretation. Anything which is “interpreted” is intrinsically constructed through a subjective perspective. Now, to clarify, this website is an encyclopaedia, which, invariably is a transcript of history. HDM is something that we do not just present as some lifeless object. It has gone through the lives of every person that has read it, and essentially changed it. (Who can say that they were not changed but these books?) Thus, the books have infused themselves in the current of human existence and experience. They have become a part of our history. I therefore wish to understand how they have changed our world. To do this, I try to look at the books as what they are in our society: objects of art. Philip Pullman is quite evidently an artist. He works like all other artists have: by learning and understand, almost digesting, that which has come before, and that which is present, and happening all around us. With regards to the Present aspect of the book, it is obvious how he has infused our current understanding of Science, Religion, and Love into HDM. But when looking at how the Past has infused itself into the books, we must look at it like all Historians of Art look at creations. Historians will attempt to read the meanings and construction of the books based on what they know and what they can find out. It is no chance that Lyra’s daemon is an Ermine in most of the story. Throughout western history of Art, it has always been common knowledge that the Ermine has symbolized Purity. This has come from what the historians of Renaissance art discovered. Throughout the history of the Renaissance, symbolisms emerged as the chest of esoteric understanding. During this period, the rise of alchemy and other esoteric mysticism was extremely widespread. This use of symbolism was depicted but the Artists themselves. Thus, from the great books left to us from the Renaissance we can come to know what these symbols represented. Philip Pull has impregnated HDM with a wide variety of these symbols. And we can tell that they are symbols taken directly from the art of the Renaissance. In fact, most of the book makes reference to the esoteric realm.
Lyra’s daemon is commonly an Ermine throughout the book, until the point in which she kisses Will. At that moment, love bursts from that kiss like a flower opening to the world for the first time, flowing through their spirits out into the entire universe. From then on, Pan becomes fixed. He will never again be an Ermine because Lyra will never again be pure and innocent; she has now grown up. From these clues and others, it seems quite obvious that one can attempt to “read” these books in the same way that an Historian can “read” a painting. It goes without saying that it will inevitably be a subjective “reading” of the painting. But that is what history is all about, constructing it. If we do not “read” these books in this manner, we are almost not reading them at all, because Phillip Pull has obviously and blatantly constructed the stories in a way to be able to be read in this manner: like all objects of art. These books are objects of art, and should therefore be treated as such. They have being given to us to contemplate, enjoy and to change our lives. The only way to present these books it to give them their own historical understanding. And I for one think they are most deserving of such an honour. They are great masterpieces; and deserve energy poured into them, like Dust pours into our souls. They deserve to be part of history. It is us who have to give them this history. And thus, I have tried to understand them; to render their story of their integration with my life.
And thus, I come to the conclusion. You are right in that the Daemons should be one their own separate page. I shall therefore move them to the Daemon page; without excluding the symbolic interpretations, because they are why we are here.
NoMass --
NoMass
20:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I merged Kirjava with Will Parry, Stelmaria with Lord Asriel, and Pantalaimon with Lyra Belacqua. Let's not have intercision on Wikipedia!
Also, we had a Mrs Coulter and a Marisa Coulter. I merged the contents into the Marisa Coulter article with a redirect at the other. MC MasterChef 08:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
How did Pullman stick the 'a' and 'e' together in daemon? Used some special computer or something? Its a weird question,I know,but I think its worth asking. I won't be satisfied until I get a good answer,anyway. dark matter 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Reading the talk page first, I think that I should flag this up here before I get round to putting this in the article: I know some people are agaist mentioning themes and symbolism in the article, althoguh I don't know why -- it's a big part of understanding any book. Anyway, I'll take one obvious one: love. Look at these examples and tell me whether this should go in the article
And so on. tommylommykins 19:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The major themes of HDM are anti-religious dogmatism, and, although disputed, anti-christianity. it focusses on enjoyment of life and carnality and [everything that eve did "wrong"] - it uses the symbols of original sin, via dust = consciousness, saying that free thought, not dogmatism, causes you to be conscious (tree of knowledge). ok so that wasnt so coherent, but it's a religious book, not a romance.--
Alfakim --
talk
16:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Slightly off topic but did anyone else get the impression that Baruch and Balthamos's love was more than brotherly? i.e. romantic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.182.163 ( talk) 19:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That's some nice original research by tommylommykins, actually. Yes, Baruch and Balthamos's love is more than brotherly. I think that's hard to miss. Here's some more OR from me: the novels are about love vs. hierarchical controlling organizations. That pits love against the Church as described in the novels. Or love vs. the inquisition. On a personal note, I find it interesting that people are speaking against Pullman, as though they were in favor of the inquisition. Anyone else find this curious? Personal soapbox aside: I think this love vs. institution theme has some connection to Goethe's Faust (look at the Prologue in Heaven) and possibly to Spinoza's philosophy, specifically his identification of God with creation. Those of us who have BOTHERED TO READ THE BOOKS know that the children don't kill God, but rather inadvertently kill the first angel (who was a tyrant). God is neither killed, harmed, or even touched in the trilogy. That makes the trilogy agnostic. Ok, enough ranting. But has anyone else noticed the connection to Goethe or Spinoza? Best, Anthony Krupp ( talk) 20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Could it be that you've missed the point? Pullman doesn't believe in the God of the historic, monotheistic faiths. He believes that this God found in all the major religions is a conceptual poser, merely a false idea created by humans for the sake of religion. He believes this concept of God is evil and harmful to humanity (because Pullman is apparently very selective in what he allows himself to see in human history). So in his story he presents us with the Authority who is himself a poser and evil, a poser who came along early in our history and has been messing us up ever since, symbolizing PP's own view of the concept of God in the historic faiths. And yes, Pullman's representation of this concept of God of the historic religions is killed in the story, so we can say that PP has had the children kill God.
To say it another way, PP doesn't believe the monotheistic God in the major religions really can be killed because he doesn't believe that He exists. Pullman doesn't believe that there is a God who has been interacting with mankind. He allows that maybe there is a God way out there in space somewhere, and so with perhaps a bit of grandiosity he takes for himself the label "agnostic" rather than "atheist". But he does tell us that he is atheist in regard to the God of the historic creeds, the God who is presented in Christianty and Judaism as caring about humanity enough to interact with us. And so in HDM, we find that PP has created the perfect symbolism for killing this concept of a God who doesn't really exist. Instead of having God enter the story, he gives us a poser who is only pretending to be God, and then he kills the poser!
It is a silly rationalization for a fan of the books to say that there might be a God far away out there in space somewhere, who has never had anything whatsoever to do with mankind, and that PP has neither killed, harmed, or even touched this putative, perpetually absent being, and that therefore the books don't kill God. Nobody was concerned about a perpetually absent entity getting killed. Everyone (except PP's fans, it seems) is talking about how Pullman treats the God of the historic faiths. Let's stop being silly and face it that Pullman first demotes the God of the historic faiths to the status of being a poser, makes him evil and harmful to humanity (the way Pullman himself thinks of this God), and then has him killed. And so indeed, Pullman has the children kill (symbolically) the God of the historic faiths.
And nobody is speaking against Pullman as though we are in favor of the Inquisition. (!!!) Rather, we are speaking against Pullman as though we think it is dishonest for him to paint a picture of Christianity as though it were about the Inquisition. How about if we write a book about Pullman's atheism and make it all about the torture of the gulag, or Stalin's massacre of millions in the Soviet Union, or Pol Pot's bloodbath in Southeast Asia, or the atheism of Nietzche that fed Hitler's rationalizations for the holocaust? Is that kind of evil and torture what Pullman's atheism is all about? Well, in quite the same way, was it honest for Pullman to write a book about killing the God of the historic faiths and make it sound as though these faiths are full of Inquisition, the torture of children, the forbidding of pleasure and joy, and nothing redemptive, necessary, and good for humanity? People who are criticizing PP's books as dishonest and bigoted may very well have a good reason to do so. I think the enthusiasm of his fans keeps them from admitting it, and Pullman's brilliant use of symbolism is adequate to allow some of his fans to pretend that they don't see the intense anti-Christian bigotry in the books. Indeed, to suggest that we have ony two choices -- to enjoy Pullman's bigoted representation of theism, or to defend the Inquisition -- is bigotry in its own right. These are not the only two choices. Instead, we can exercise our minds to see that Pullman has created a heavily slanted characterization of the historic faiths, and then we can reject that mis-characterization along with rejecting the Inquisition. PurpleMonkey 08:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI - someone said in an edit summary that "Pullman didn't explicitly say that the target audience is "the US definition of young adult"". To the contrary, Pullman has indeed specifically said that he liked the U.S. young adult category, which apparently does not (or did not) exist in Britain. It's been a long time since I've done much (non-daemon) HDM-related, so I'm rusty on sources, but I'll dig the source up if need be. (It's not particularly important, just avoiding misinformation.) AySz88^ - ^ 05:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The section 'Plot summary' contains, "In the alternate universe of Lyra Belacqua, the story's protagonist, and many other universes not including our own". I couldn't say which book it is or where, since I don't own any of them, but I came away from the series with the definite impression that Lyra's universe was the only one in which people had external dæmons. Could someone confirm or deny this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.246.47.206 ( talk • contribs) 21:38, December 6, 2005 (UTC).
User:AySz88, I know the NPOV police. The text bellow is even bolder than my previous edit, why don't you point out to me what do you see as NPOV infringement in it? Remember that POVs may be written in a NPOV way, The POV statement that Pullman's attacks are focused only on dogmatism, not on Christianity itself, is an example of that.
...[More-liberal Christians argue that...] Pullman's attacks are focused on the constraints and dangers of dogmatism and the use of religion to oppress, not on Christianity itself (as Pullman himself has said in speeches appearances such as the BBC's Belief citation needed).
On the other hand, some argue that Pullman doesn’t make distinctions between "bad" and "good" Christianity in the novels: almost all of the Christian characters are portrayed as bad, or are portrayed in a more positive light only after they give up the "false" Christian religion. Michael Nelson summarizes what he sees as Pullman's attacks against Christianity:
- "For all its history," a benevolent witch tells Lyra Belacqua and Will Parry, the young protagonists of the series, the Church "has tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. ... That's what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." As for God, a rebellious angel later tells the children, "God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty ... was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves ... [who] told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie." In one of the last scenes of the trilogy, the children watch God die. "Demented and powerless," Pullman writes, "the aged being could only weep and mumble in fear and pain and misery." Every Christian character in the series is rotten to the core, and none of them bothers to pretend otherwise. "The Christian religion," one of Pullman's main characters blandly explains, "is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all." [1]
About the quotation, I’ve seen longer quotes around Wikipedia, with no one complaining about them being "too long". I intend to put it back. -- Leinad-Z 18:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, AySz88. Let’s continue our "dialectic" edition process :-) You just deleted the text below:
There are three main reasons I can think of for your deletion:
I don’t believe your reason was the first option, at least not if you took some time to read what most Christian critics are saying.
Maybe you think that the point of view of the critics is false. Then, a much better way to deal with it is to provide counterexamples or alternative perspectives about this specific point, and not to apply some kind of censorship. To provide alternative views instead of removing things you disagree with also seems to be the way supported by the Wikipedia NPOV policies.
If the problem is what you see as a bad tone, it shouldn’t be too hard to find a better one. But remember that, if we are talking about the criticisms, were not supposed to say only nice things about the subject. A nice tone cannot be an excuse to gloss-over the criticism.
I see nothing remarkably wrong with the removed phrase, maybe the removal was just a distraction from your part. I’m looking forward for your reply. -- Leinad-Z 19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
No-one seems to have read the book clearly enough. The narrator describes the Authority as a false God who has got between Creation and a true God. Has anyone ever tried to study how the books unite Hermetic/Gnostic cosmologies with the latest cutting edge ideas on evolution being caused by consciousness and Quantum Physics? I have no idea if Pullman intended any of this but its there and someone should do a study of it. ThePeg 2006
(Avast, me hearties! Thar be spoilers ahead!)
In regards to the plot summary of The Amber Spyglass, I would argue that Lyra and Will falling in love is the climax. The battle, while it is important, is only of peripheral importance to the real story, the real conflict--which is the choice Will and Lyra must make to give up a life together and close the windows, thus saving all the worlds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danaris ( talk • contribs) 03:06, February 1, 2006 (UTC).
I agree that Will and Lyra falling in love is the climax - It's a bit disapointing though - that Lyra and Will can't be together, due to only being able to keep one window open - being the window from the world of the dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtm3 ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I heard 3 versions on the talk page. Does anyone have a source to confirm which way. Or somewhere to look for it. I'm kind of using that word as a handle somewhere else and well I'd like to know how to pronounce my own handle. DyslexicEditor 13:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
dictionary.com says that aesir is pronounced ace + err. a as in mace. and i either as i in sir or i in Mir (the space station) -- not sure which for the i. Anyone know why the ae is pronounced like a as in at in the article and why you say it's that way, Malf? DyslexicEditor 10:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It was generally agreed for a long time (on this article) that the word was pronounced "ASS-hatter". Apparantly in the radio-adaptation or stage production (one or the other) it was pronounced "EYE-shatter", which, although potentially cooler, is quite likely to be wrong. -- Alfakim -- talk 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
How is the i in aesir pronounced? Also when I pronounce ae like how Malfidus says it in aesahaettr, the ae sounds like I have a sweedish accent (which I don't). Why is the "ah" not pronounced in aesahaettr? And what is the old norse way (above in talk page) that makes it the ae sound like the i in ice? DyslexicEditor 12:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's get to the point all of us want to know. A sad ending to an exciting series. True or False?
I removed this quote - "It should be noted that this statement does not accord with the Authority (God) reflected in the book, who is a feeble, crazed angel" - which followed after Cynthia Grenier's comments, as it is blatantly incorrect. Although the Authority is certainly feeble (crazed is up for debate) at the time of the novels, when he was first created he was enough of a tyrant to decide to dupe all the other angels into thinking he created them, as well as to set up the World of the Dead as a prison camp. Furthermore, even when he was weakened, he still decided to delegate his power to the rather vicious Metatron, again demonstrating his cruelty.
I added the word "cachuc" (rubber) to the terminology section. If anyone needs references on this translation I would be happy to provide them. Noncognosco 23:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)noncognosco
I'm sorry, I'm a Pullman addict, and I would love to add to the plot you've written. But first of all, Even the Oblation Board call themselves Gobblers, not just 'gyptians and urchins'. But MOST IMPORTANTLY, one discovers nearly at the beginning that Lord Asriel is Lyra's father. She definitely knows when she betrays Roger. I am 100% sure. I have to alter this. And wht's more, why do "Lee Scoresby" links all go to this page? It doesn't say "This page does not exist", it just gets the wrong page... Fuzzibloke 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Lyra learns about her father and mother at the same time in the story. In my copy this is about 100 pages into the book, which is about 300 pages overall. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "nearly at the beginning" or not.
Noncognosco
21:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)noncognosco
Is it really necessary to throw in that little jab at Ann Coulter? Feelings about Ann Coulter should be left out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Verity O'Connor ( talk • contribs)
Should a brief plot description for Lyra's Oxford be included? Minglex 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
for some reason this page has been the focus of advertisement attacks over the past few days if you check the page history. I'd like to get some options on what we should do. Maybe try to get temporary page protection for unregistered users. Any ideas lets talk about it. SirGrant 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the use of the word "titular" in the summary of The Subtle Knife is incorrect, for according to Wikipedia, titular means "in a position of leadership without any real power." If this is indeed the intention of the writer, could somebody please clarify it?-- The Edit0r 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In the list of Lyra's world's terms, "Poppy: Opium, which is made from poppies" doesn't seem to be correct. This seems to be referring to a moment shortly into the second chapter of The Golden Compass when the Master of Jordan College cooks "poppy heads," which refers to the pods of the flower. Opium, as you'll see from the article, is produced in an entirely different manner than cooking them. Poppy pods can be used to the same end as opium; poppy tea is a good example, though considering how awful it tastes, I can't imagine how it would be fried in butter. However, this entry is incorrect, and I'm deleting it from the list. The use of "poppy" and specifically "poppy heads" in the context of the story is consistent with the meaning used in our world. Cheers. 66.82.9.56 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The section of this article related to the upcoming movie adaptations of the trilogy need to be updated now, as I believe they have just revealed that Daniel Craig has been cast as Lord Asriel. They have also revealed that actresses Dakota Blue Richards, Nicole Kidman and Eva Green will star in the film as Lyra Belacqua, Mrs Coulter and Serafina Pekkala respetively. Personally, everyone was insulting the idea of handsome Paul Bettany playing Lord Asriel, and now we're stuck with Daniel Craig! I hope you're happy now!!! lol! JJ
Speaking of such, much like other movie adaptions of books, wouldn't it be good to update the character profiles with screencaps they're showing us from the movie? CrazyNekoRun 06:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. Another fiercely and grossly negative portrayal of christianity. Hey, how come if something is anti-christianity it is automatically called free thinking? There is a lot of true free thinking that needs to be done. Don't you know its the hardest thing in the world to become a christian because of the narrow minded view that people have of them nowadays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.42 ( talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read this in a while and do not have access to my copies. The comment about "electrum" being identical to amber struck me the wrong way. Can someone double-check appearances of "electrum" in the books? Because electrum is a real substance that was used a lot in the ancient world - it's an alloy of silver and gold that is a good conductor of electricity. Is everyone sure that Pullman really meant amber when he wrote "electrum"?
I've read through the first two books of His Dark Materials and love it.
Correct me if I'm wrong =)
Though I thought (in Northern Lights, or The Golden Compass) "gyptians" did not mean gypsies but rather the Egyptians? Maybe I'm wrong. Oops. I searched Gyptian on Wikipedia and it explained >.< Sorry.
Also, shouldn't the name Lyra Silvertongue be used instead of Belacqua? Because Belacqua is a fake name to hide her parents' identities while Silvertongue is a name that Lyra 'earned' and uses (since she got it and found out about her parents)
Or is there something about these two in The Amber Spyglass that changes these?
^_^ -- Deon 12:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In the 3rd book it turns out she was a ghost all along, just a manifestation of Dust, so she doesn't really have a name. Nah, I'm just kidding, I wouldn't spoil it for ya. Her name could be Lyra Coulter for all I know, but Balecqua seems to be her name at the start of the book and the article assumes her character from the start. JayKeaton 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the pronunciation of dæmon is DAY-mon because I went to the movie website and when you enter it, someone is narrarating what is written in this information box. The person who was narrarating pronounced dæmon, DAY-mon. The website is, www.goldencompassmovie.com. If I am mistaken on this pronuncation, I am truly, terribly sorry.
Please, someone correct me if i'm wrong, but in Eastern Europe I believe there are actual 'gyptians'. A group of people who travel the waterways of the continent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.190.57.13 ( talk) 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Has anyone else heard of the audiobook adaptation of His Dark Materials, by Chivers Children's Audio Books? It was produced in 1999, narrated by Philip Pullman, accompanied by a full cast - including Alison Dowling (of BBC Radio 4's The Archers) and Susan Sheridan (Trillian in the original Hitchhikers Guide radio series). It can probably only be obtained secondhand now, but its a great recording of the entire series cover to cover, and should be worth at least a passing mention.
The entry regarding "the amateur rights are now available" (originally part of a spamlink now removed) is only correct as far as it goes. HDM has been released under the standard T&C for the industry ( here) which allows amateur and professional productions (but permission for amateur productions may be withdrawn at any time in favour of the professional). This flexibility would have been present from the start, although in practice amateur productions would have been embargoed as part of the NT contract. Subject to other editor's views, as it's non notable, I'm inclined to complete the deletion. -- Old Moonraker 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I just made an edit to the "Esoteric renaming" section with too many different changes in it to document in the edit summary, so here they are.
Hairy Dude 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:HisDarkMaterialsUS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
fair use but there is no
explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the
boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
fair use.
Please go to
the image description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot
04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The book sais she has dark hair, doesn't it? Just because Nicole Kidman hast blonde hair, it doesn't mean Mrs Coulter has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.72.46 ( talk • contribs)
It seems that the greek concept of the guardian spirit 'daemon' is not mentioned. Is this a valid connection?
Also, HDM refereces may become important in the future. Already I know of one major poetic reference in the work of Saul Williams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.113.106.33 ( talk • contribs)
I propose merging of several minor characters' articles into one. The reason is that they already cover the subject and are unlikely to be expanded considerably. If no objectons, I'll do the merge within few days. -- Tone 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Just like The Chronicles of Narnia is chalked full of a large section for criticism, this trilogy needs one is well. And not a criticism section that answers and defends itself, but one that stands as is, without defense (like Lewis has). There are numerous sources for criticism regarding this series of books and wiki is supposed to be without bias. It is bias to criticize lewis yet leave Pullman untouched. Now, which atheist here will have the courage and obejctive ability to be fair? You had no problem putting up the lewis criticisms, now lets see how honest you really are. (and dont call the current "influence and criticisms" section a criticism section. 95% of that section is devoted to defending the criticism.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 ( talk) 15:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice try Anthony. The "Chronicles of Narnia" section on Wiki has a criticisms secion that totals 1,617 words. Thats quite a lot. More than I'd care to quote here. Pullman has gone on record stating that the children in these novels "kill god" and that while he may not be targeting Christianity specifically, it is full of references against organized religion (which do include christianity). The controversey surrounding these novels, especially in light of the fact that a major motion picture is going to be released, should definitely be included in this article. To not do so is intellectual dishonesty. Are you intellectually dishonest Anthony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.149.194 ( talk) 12:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of why Wikipedia suffers a negative reputation of not being neutral. This is a perfect example of why even the founders of wikipedia had to start a new website. Because the Chronicles of Narnia is chalked full of criticism (much coming from Pullman himself) while Pullman enjoys a "free pass". Is there a shortage of controversey surrounding Pullman's novels? No. There is not. It is fully justified to include in this article statements released by official religious bodies regarding his series of books. You (and by "you" I refer to the secular atheistic socialist white caucasion 'white-collar' wikis that hawk these articles)...you would think that this article would cite some of these major criticisms and controversey surrounding this series...like the Chronicles article has....but they are not there. Why aren't they there? Bias of course. And it permeates wikipedia.com. I am not asking that the 1,617 word criticism section in the Chronicles be removed, I am asking that this article fairly provide a similiar amount. To not do so screams of bias, something wikipedia is becoming known for. -SIGNED, 64.146.149.194. This is 64.146.149.194 wishing you all a good day. (smiles at Anthony) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.149.194 ( talk) 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that while it is said "anyone may edit" that is unfortunately incorrect. The powers that be simply delete it if it doesn't fit their POV. Then they accuse you of being POV or find some pretext. Since they can suspend other editors the issue is always resolved in the favor of those in power. I suspect that would happen here. It is why wikipedia is not respected as a source. 70.108.115.9 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Er, kind of a lot of bickering going on, but I just want to add my support to the fact that the article doesn't "defend" Pullman, rather it clarifies basic facts about his text and characters. Specifically, Cynthia Grenier's accusation that in the books the Authority is God, and God is a tyrant and is overthrown in the novel. The books make it very clear that the Authority is a FALSE god and a liar, and it says he didn't create anyone, he was just the first thing that existed in the universe so he was free to tell everyone else he created them. If someone says something incorrect about a book, and you correct it, that doesn't mean you are "defending" the book. You're just making sure the facts are out there. If wikipedia readers saw her accusation without anything pointing out her inaccuracy, they would be getting an erroneous impression of what the book says, which wouldn't be very useful for an encyclopedia article. Would it help to quote the direct passages from the book that describe how the Authority is just a liar posing as a god, who didn't really create anybody?
Now if there is criticism that isn't based on a misunderstanding of the text, then maybe it can stand on its own. VatoFirme 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As has been mentioned, the Manual of Style prohibits personal attacks, like your suggestions that everyone editing this article is a "secular atheistic socialist white Caucasion 'white-collar wiki", and the broader implication that because a person is atheist, they also must be socialist. If you want to create an Criticism section that is unbiased in your view, please do. You clearly want it to be there, stop expecting everyone else to do your work for you. Atmadja ( talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a warning about plot spoilers etc. ahead in this article? I don't know how to add them? Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.187.248 ( talk) 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The WP:LEDE is very lacking. The book is explicitly intended as an anti-religious broadside; Pullman said so himself. There is no mention of this or the resulting controversy in the lede. Ling.Nut 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm reviewing His Dark Materials per the Good Articla criteria - see Wikipedia:What is a good article? - and the Manual of Style - see WP:MOS - and will return in a day or two. The lead is still not adequate - see WP:LEDE. For example, the long quote shouldn't be in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the entire article: maybe about 400 words for a long artcle. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Pullman has said:
If I think about the audience I’d like to have, I don’t think about a particular age group, or a particular gender, or a particular class or ethnic group or anything specific at all. ... I’d like to think that I’m telling the sort of story that holdeth children from play and old men from the chimney corner, in the old phrase of Sir Philip Sidney. 'Everyone is welcome, and no one is shut out, and I hope each reader will find a tale worth spending time with.' [1]
For the moment, I'll readd the ref, at least, if that's consistent with lead style. Best, Anthony Krupp ( talk) 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
My review. I chose this article to GA review because of the publicity surrounding the upcoming movie. I enjoyed reading it but can not pass it as GA. Actually, it has several problems that would warrant a quick-fail but perhaps the contributing editors can fix them. My over-all impression is that the series is thought of well in the literary world (awards, adaptations) but this does not come across at all in this article.
Comments
Setting
Plot summary
Character histories
Influences and criticism
Institutional religion is criticized by some of the characters. For example, Ruta Skadi, a witch and friend of Lyra's calling for war against the Magisterium in Lyra's world, says that "For all of [the Church's] history...it's tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. And when it can't control them, it cuts them out." (see intercision). Skadi later extends her criticism to all organized religion: "That's what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." (By this part of the book, the witches have made reference to how they are treated criminally by the church in their worlds.) Mary Malone, one of Pullman's main characters, states that "the Christian religion…is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all." She was formerly a Catholic nun, but gave up her vows when the experience of being in love caused her to doubt her faith.”
Awards
Adaptations
The production hopes to stay as true to the book as possible. Prior to his initial departure from the project, Weitz suggested that its film treatment might minimize the explicitly religious character of The Authority so as to avoid offending some viewers. This suggestion sparked a fan backlash that some believe was the real reason for Weitz's leaving. Pullman has since stated that "All the important scenes are there and will have their full value." The film will open in December 2007. Dakota Blue Richards has been cast as Lyra. Nicole Kidman plays Mrs. Coulter, Daniel Craig is Lord Asriel, and Eva Green will play Serafina Pekkala throughout the trilogy. Iorek Byrnison is voiced by Ian McKellen. On Saturday 24 November the press were given the first opportunity to see the film in London and the reception was mixed[citation needed]
References in popular culture
Overall, this article has to be revised. With the movie coming out, I'm certain it will be heavily visited and edited so I'll leave it on GA Hold for 14 days (longer than normal because of the movie). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
GA Fail: The article's overall problem is one common to many fiction articles at Wikipedia and that is a pre-dominate 'in-universe' perspective: see Real-world perspective. The manual of style - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) - gives a List of exemplary articles. The FA article The Illuminatus! Trilogy is a very good model of what His Dark Materials should be like. I suggest that anyone editing here should first take a look at the FA article to gain an understanding of what an article on a fictional trilogy should look like. There is little point in passing His Dark Materials as it would have to be re-written to achieve FA status. According to the criteria at Wikipedia:What is a good article?, His Dark Materials fails at 1(b) for not following the appropriate manual of style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
For keen contributing editors, you may wish to know about two interviews of Pullman in podcast form. See CBC Writers & Co podcasts. Specifically,
Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 17:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Should there be mention of steampunk in this article? If so, where? See Talk above for this article's recent GA failure. Best, Anthony Krupp ( talk) 13:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I just moved the following section from the article. I'm concerned about the verifiability ("it is thought that") and the potential distaction... I guess it reads like OR. But it's interesting. Which is why I didn't delete it outright. I guess if someone could find sources for this, we can work at including it.
Cheers, Anthony Krupp ( talk) 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this here for now, as it's all uncited. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed an increasing number of fan sites listed under External Links. My first impulse is to remove them as violating the standards of external links, specifically: Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews). I don't think fan sites meet this standard.
Thoughts? TechBear ( talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The attempted addition by an anon IP of material "sourced" to Pullman's website seriously rips what he writes there out of context, and mischaracterizes the nature of what Pullman wrote. Explain your wording here before reinserting. Mr Which ??? 06:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "Two characters who once belonged to the Church, Mary Malone and Marisa Coulter, are both displayed in a positive light only insofar as they have rebelled against the Church." I strongly disagree with this. Marisa Coulter is indeed essentially pure evil, but Mary Malone is compassionate, wise, etc. ... I don't see how Mary has any bad qualities, despite the fact that she plays the role of "the serpent". 75.70.135.246 ( talk) 04:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Charon
I undid the edit that said this was in the genre Christian novel because this book is documented as not being in that genre. Do not change it back unless you can provide documentation that the definition of the genre has been changed in common usage to include books that intend to undermine belief in Christianity and portray God in a bad light. The definition of the genre in Wikipedia says,
A Christian novel is any novel that expounds and illustrates a Christian world view in its plot, its characters, or both. Any novel that deals with Christian themes in a positive way could also be Christian novel.
This series does the opposite. It illustrates and expounds a non-Christian world view. Philip Pullman said he wanted to overturn Milton's Paradise Lost so that the serpent is the hero and God is the villain, so that the wrong side had won the war in heaven (until at last in his trilogy he is overthrown and dissipates in the wind -- reflecting the view of Pullman's atheism that belief in God should dissipate into nothing when people finally see it for what it is [Pullman's view, not mine]). You can't get much more opposite from a Christian world view than that! It also portrays the afterlife of the Christian worldview as a lie and the believers as acting on their beliefs in a way that hurts children and takes away the joys of life. Pullman has said about his works, "I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief," and, "I've been surprised by how little criticism I've got...My books are about killing God." In light of this, it is not reasonable to say that this book is in the genre of Christian novels. It clearly is not.
A good discussion of this genre can be found in a presentation It's Not Your Grandmothers Christian Fiction Anymore, by Deborah Bryan, presented at the Tri-Conference 2007. [2] Her presentation is here; [3] and her handouts are here. [4] Sanddune777 ( talk) 01:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed this recent addition, "One thread of the books shows that humans can do bad things quickly and easily in the name of God. Accordingly,..." The claim it makes, that this one thread of the books is the cause of the controversy, is unreferenced and thus appears to be original research (the opinion of the editor, not the documented public statements of literary critics) and in fact it may not be correct. It is questionable whether this is really or primarily the thread that causes the controversy. It may be that the controversy arises primarily from a combination of other threads of the book, such as its defacto inversion of Paradise Lost by replacing Milton's God with the Authority who is a fraud (symbolic of the way Pullman's atheism considers the concept of God to be a fraud), or its unbalanced treatement of religion and religious people, or its failure to show people whose mainline religious faith makes them work to change the world for the better, etc. The claim that this one thread is the cause for the controversy, "accordingly", should be supported by references showing it really is the consensus opinion if it is to appear in the article. Sanddune777 ( talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I find it surprising that this hasn't been raised yet due to Pullman's inclusion of it in his trilogy and considering how central it is to the plot's development. JRDarby ( talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The current version says in the introduction that Pullman "presents a skeptical view of the world in his stories". What on earth does that mean? If you have a sceptical view of the world, does that mean that you doubt its existence? In what way does Pullman present that? Bluewave ( talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please reply in this section only if you are not a Christian.
In the novel The Amber Spyglass of the series His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman, God, the Authority, is false, fake, and fraud, not really God or a god, but is actually an angel. Could it be possible that God is false, fake, and fraud, not really God or a god, but is actually an angel, in reality, in the real world, in real life?
When the story His Dark Materials said that God is not really God or a god but is actually an angel, it meant and was talking about the Christian god. But Christianity is just one of the many different religions that exist in the world today. There are so many different religions in the world today. There are some people who claim and believe that Allah, the god of Islam, is false, fake, and fraud, not really God or a god but is actually an angel. Did you know that? See section 29 in page 20 of the article Islam - A Case Of Mistaken Identity.
Bowei Huang ( talk) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Are they canon? Lord Of Demise ( talk) 23:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the "single-volume omnibus" of the trilogy the UK or the NA version? 75.138.153.210 ( talk) 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing a person without a daemon seems to them as a bad as seeing someone without a head, or some other crucial organ.
Having only just finished reading NL, I suspect that this could do with re-phrasing ; there is an extensive section early in the book where one of the child protagonists (I'd have to re-read to check which one, which I'm not going to do until I've read the remaining two books) is in hiding and has their daemon (sorry, "dæmon") assume the form of a moth. Nothing much is made of this, from which I deduce that it's a reasonably common ploy, at least amongst children. So, seeing a child without a visible dæmon is nothing particularly uncommon.
Also, the remarks about witches being able to send their dæmons on errands to arbitrary distances excites no particular comment. Unless a dæmon can be in two places at once (which never gets mentioned in NL), that implies a second circumstance where a human not accompanied by an evident dæmon would not be remarkable.
Come to think of it, Lyra's subterfuge against the usurper-king of the panserbjorne depends critically on her keeping her dæmon hidden in a pocket, so that's a third strike against the assertion.
Of course, if there are sections in the later volumes where this assertion is made "in universe", then my objection is inappropriate. But a reference would then be appropriate.
On BBC 4 programme, "Charles at 60: the Passionate Prince", he recommended the triology as an excellent read. Broadcast 12 November 2008 21:00 GMT on BBC 4.
The image File:TGCfilm.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 09:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)