His Dark Materials (Golden Compass + 2)

[Tequila Sunrise]

I just finished reading the trilogy, and don't have anyone to talk to about it so I want to know what you think. For anyone who hasn't read it, I highly recommend His Dark Materials for a well written and refreshing fantasy fiction. Despite the author's outspoken agenda, it has a positive ending without the usual saccharine note that fantasy books are prone to end with. It ends tragically, but not in the usual Shakespearean everyone-and-their-grandmother-dies-for-no-good-reason way. I don't know what it is about English writers, but they write the best fantasy!

[Kobold-Bard]

I love those books. I read them when I was younger, so I had no idea about the analytical view of them, I just liked talking bears and whatnot. However from subsequent re-reads, they are definitely some of my favourites (not that I'm a big reader of course).

[Mordokai]

Read them quite some time ago and am actually in possession of all three of them. Translated, of course, but I hope that someday I'll manage to get my hands on originals and read those as well.

They are one of my favourite books, though I can't really say why. It's been so long since I last read them that I forgot most of what's going on, as funny as that may sound. I liked the settings, the idea of alternate universes and the deamons. Also, Lyra and Will are quite possibly two of the more interesting characters, along with the extensive list of supporting characters and you just have to adore the unexpected twist in the third book. And the angels... oh god, I love the angels.

So yeah, loved the books. I should probably refresh my memory by re-reading them soon.

[Mx.Silver]

I've read the whole series a few times now, over the years so understandably I'm not exactly a huge detracter of it (Pullman's short stories are another matter entirely though). The first book, Northen Lights* does kind of stand out as the best of the three though. Pullman's love of Victorian era history really makes the world come alive in a way a lot of 'elseworlds' don't quite manage. The daemons - while drawn somewhat from the ancient Greek concept - are one of the more original touches I've seen in Speculative Fiction and handled extremely well.

Subtle Knife is good, but it's not quite up to the same standard in world-building and characterisation. Pullman's depictions of the other worlds don't have quite the same depth as Lyra's homeworld and, while I don't have anything against Will, the main narrative doesn't make for quite the same compelling reading as it did in the previous book. It's still good, but not as good.

The Amber Spyglass I felt was fairly weak, as often happens when an author becomes more foccussed on 'the message' of the work at the expense of the actual story. Ironically, Pullman's own desire to create an 'antidote' to CS Lewis' style ended-up pushing him into the same kind of deterioration the Narnia chronicle went into from Dawn Treader onwards, although it's still not anywhere near the level of The Last Battle.
While I'd agree the ending of Amber Spyglass is decent, a lot of the novel doesn't really hold-up to the standard set by the preceding two. I've yet to come across anyone who was particularly fond of the world of the dead chapters, I certainly found them rather poor, and the whole Mulefa world did often border on being padding.

*yes, that's what it's actually called. The name got changed when it crossed over the pond for some unfathomable reason in much the same manner as the first Harry Potter novel


I don't know what it is about English writers, but they write the best fantasy!
Might have something to do with the genre's roots, which are predominantly British. British authors also seem less prone to letting their series grow out of hand (aka Robert Jordan Syndrome), although there are some exceptions.
From what I gather, Pullman isn't overly keen on the label 'fantasy' either, but that's kind of by the by.

[Mordokai]

Also, a little bit of comedy relief (http://www.bridgetothestars.net/index.php?d=commentaries&p=panperplex), concerning Hollywood adaption :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

[Mx.Silver]

Also, a little bit of comedy relief (http://www.bridgetothestars.net/index.php?d=commentaries&p=panperplex), concerning Hollywood adaption :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:
Sadly, not quite funny enough to make-up for the film.

[Soras Teva Gee]

The first book is pretty good I'll give ya. Shame to see such an interesting world and set of characters jettisoned and side tracked for one of the more shallow tracts out there. Then again I've yet to find a religion is evil plot line that isn't philosophically very shallow. But that's diving head long into IRL so I'll stop there.

[Tirian]

It's hard to have this discussion about HDM without going There. But, yeah, Pullman wrote a lot of checks that he couldn't cash in building up to the climax of the trilogy.

[Mauve Shirt]

The first was I think my favorite, though I liked the second a lot too. Will is AWESOME. The third was meh.

[Tirian]

Ironically, Pullman's own desire to create an 'antidote' to CS Lewis' style ended-up pushing him into the same kind of deterioration the Narnia chronicle went into from Dawn Treader onwards, although it's still not anywhere near the level of The Last Battle.

While people generally compare HDM to Narnia, I think it is far closer to Lewis' Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, That Hideous Strength). Certainly, my reaction to both of the trilogies were the same:

Book 1: Wow! This is a revolutionary viewpoint on cosmological science fiction!
Book 2: Um, okay, this is getting a little thick, but let's see where you're going...
Book 3: (halfway through) What the hell is *he* doing here?!
Book 3: (afterwards) Well, that's ten hours of my life I'll never get back.

[Vaynor]

Phillip Pullman is one of my favorite authors, and to all those who have read HDM I suggest his other novels (Clockwork, I Was A Rat, etc).

[Soras Teva Gee]

It's hard to have this discussion about HDM without going There. But, yeah, Pullman wrote a lot of checks that he couldn't cash in building up to the climax of the trilogy.

I think his most (though hardly only) critical error was having the Authority actually factually exist. That or maybe the afterlife actually factually existing. At least from what I thought the books were supposed to be about.

(Color since I find SPOILER tags annoying for short things)

[Lord Seth]

Ironically, Pullman's own desire to create an 'antidote' to CS Lewis' style ended-up pushing him into the same kind of deterioration the Narnia chronicle went into from Dawn Treader onwards, although it's still not anywhere near the level of The Last Battle.I'll disagree. I think The Amber Spyglass was way, way more blatant than The Last Battle.

[Elfin]

I'll disagree with that - I don't think anything can really compare to the level which The Last Battle sank to. Even Amber Spyglass.

[Lord Seth]

I'll disagree with that - I don't think anything can really compare to the level which The Last Battle sank to. Even Amber Spyglass.I'm a little confused as to why you chose the words "sunk to" but whatever. If we're talking about blatancy, I can think of several things right off the top of my head that make The Last Battle and even The Amber Spyglass look positively subtle. But let's concentrate on The Amber Spyglass. At least in The Last Battle I don't think there were too many times when the author was literally telling you things. The parallels were pretty clear but at least he kept them in parallels, unlike The Amber Spyglass where it continually tells you what the inferences are.

I also disliked the bait-and-switch nature of His Dark Materials. Narnia may have gotten more blatant, but it at least was just an extension of what it originally was, rather than swerving the story all of a sudden like HDM did.

[xPANCAKEx]

i refuse to touch the films

casting nicole kidman (a devout catholic) in a film based on a book with highly anti-catholic tones was never going to be a wise move

books though were great - read them through twice now

[Lord Seth]

casting nicole kidman (a devout catholic) in a film based on a book with highly anti-catholic tones was never going to be a wise move"Highly anti-Catholic"? Sure, there was some anti-Catholicism in the first book, but it was really mostly targeted on extremism like the Inquisition. Given that almost all Catholics alive today regard that as a dark spot on their church's history, I'd classify it as "mildly anti-Catholic" at worst. The critiques didn't really get too noticeable until the second book, and by then it stopped being anti-Catholicism and was anti-religion in general.

Incidentally, I should probably share my perspectives on the series. I liked the first book. A bit dark for my taste, and more adult than I expected (people apparently billed it as what you should read while waiting for the next Harry Potter book). The second book, though...I've used the phrase before, but here goes again: It's a bait-and-switch. I was set up for a fantasy series that may have had some mild anti-Catholic sentiments but kept them in check, and then it spontaneously and really without any warning turned into not just having some mild anti-Catholic sentiments, but heavy and noticeable anti-religion sentiments. I really loathe when the writer switches gears on you like this.

Then we come to the third book. Here all attempts at subtlety are completely forgotten and the whole thing is just one giant rant. But from a narrative standpoint, it was a major loss as well. Characters or events are just thrown at the reader, and I found the climax to be rather boring. The ending didn't leave me with much of a feeling of resolution either.

[xPANCAKEx]

The ending didn't leave me with much of a feeling of resolution either.

im not entirely sure how i feel about the end, but this is pretty close to it

[Tirian]

I think his most (though hardly only) critical error was having the Authority actually factually exist.

That was certainly a very challenging scene for readers who disagree with Pullman on certain real-world issues. But, as a novel, the most critical error was spending two books hyping the "replay" of the Fall of Man as the most important act in the future of the multiverse and then not writing it in such a way that the parallel to the first time was clear to the average reader.

[Soras Teva Gee]

"Highly anti-Catholic"? Sure, there was some anti-Catholicism in the first book, but it was really mostly targeted on extremism like the Inquisition. Given that almost all Catholics alive today regard that as a dark spot on their church's history, I'd classify it as "mildly anti-Catholic" at worst. The critiques didn't really get too noticeable until the second book, and by then it stopped being anti-Catholicism and was anti-religion in general.

I'd argue that its still highly anti-Christian since once you account for the whole series, the first book is the only one that goes beyond 'vast unspecified crimes' as its 'evidence' for the main tract. And there's Asriel's little aesop at the end when he explains that stuff like the main plot is basically the entire history of the church writ small.


That was certainly a very challenging scene for readers who disagree with Pullman on certain real-world issues. But, as a novel, the most critical error was spending two books hyping the "replay" of the Fall of Man as the most important act in the future of the multiverse and then not writing it in such a way that the parallel to the first time was clear to the average reader.

Well my objections aren't ones I think a lot of other people pick up on. Namely I think it reveals the author to simply actually very very angry person (philosophically) rather then any greater enlightenment over superstition. Which is probably why the J-word never appears in all three books. Note: The very very angry person (philosophically) part is something I've observed in rather extreme atheist's arguments more generally.

However I'd say your example is a pretty big fault too, with its side-order of mild squick and all.

[Mx.Silver]

I'm a little confused as to why you chose the words "sunk to" but whatever. If we're talking about blatancy, I can think of several things right off the top of my head that make The Last Battle and even The Amber Spyglass look positively subtle.
As can I, but the less said about GP Taylor the better.



But let's concentrate on The Amber Spyglass. At least in The Last Battle I don't think there were too many times when the author was literally telling you things. The parallels were pretty clear but at least he kept them in parallels, unlike The Amber Spyglass where it continually tells you what the inferences are.
I do recall a pretty blatant screed against enjoying being an adult in The Last Battle. There's also the implications it makes about Islam which I may not be able to go into here without breaking forum rules.



I also disliked the bait-and-switch nature of His Dark Materials. Narnia may have gotten more blatant, but it at least was just an extension of what it originally was, rather than swerving the story all of a sudden like HDM did.
No argument there.


Which is probably why the J-word never appears in all three books.
I don't really see why that follows on at all. I mean think about. What would bringing 'the J-word' into the books have possibly added, other than more controversy? The central theme of the book had little to do with 'The J-word' as it was ('the J-word' also doesn't feature much in Paradise Lost, which was Pullman's main inspiration, for similar reasons). Leaving it out was probably one of the better decisions he made.

I'd dispute other aspects of your post as well, but that would probably drag the thread into forum-unfriendly territory (as I suspect we're on opposite sides of that particular debate). I will say that your view of it as being 'very anti-christian' isn't shared by a number of people of that particular faith though.



However I'd say your example is a pretty big fault too, with its side-order of mild squick and all.
Two 12/13 year-olds kissing constitutes squick now?

[Joran]

I agree with a few people who thought the first book was the best of the series, and kept getting more and more disappointing as the series went on.

Pullman had some really interesting ideas: I particularly liked the idea of daemons, the subtle knife (including the way to attain it), and the mulefa. Lyra and Will were a little too capable as children, but that seems to be a annoyance of mine towards children in fantasy.

What I didn't particularly understand was the ending:
I don't think the book did a good job of explaining why Lyra and Will couldn't be together at the end. One rift that he can cut, then repair occasionally doesn't seem like it'd destroy the universe. So, the "tragedy" at the end didn't really resonate for me.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I do recall a pretty blatant screed against enjoying being an adult in The Last Battle. There's also the implications it makes about Islam which I may not be able to go into here without breaking forum rules.

Well C.S. Lewis in general is fairly anti-adult, its more of a lament then anything else. Over the pretensions we accrue and such. Oh plus materialism overriding the imagination. A lot of people take that and the Susan thing as some kind of rant against sex which misses the point. (Incidentially everyone misses the point about Christianity and sex anyways. Even people ascribing to it. But I digress)



I don't really see why that follows on at all. I mean think about. What would bringing 'the J-word' into the books have possibly added, other than more controversy? The central theme of the book had little to do with 'The J-word' as it was ('the J-word' also doesn't feature much in Paradise Lost, which was Pullman's main inspiration, for similar reasons). Leaving it out was probably one of the better decisions he made.

He still showed up while not named explicitly, which is rather more important then being explicitly named Jesus.

I'd agree its wise for the absense in Pullman's series, since Jesus almost inevitably would run counter to it. Hard to beat such a nice guy. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.JesusWasWayCool) Thematically better to avoid the issue entirely. Philosophically its still there though.



I'd dispute other aspects of your post as well, but that would probably drag the thread into forum-unfriendly territory (as I suspect we're on opposite sides of that particular debate). I will say that your view of it as being 'very anti-christian' isn't shared by a number of people of that particular faith though.

I'd argue I'm reading more into the books then I think a lot of its critics even do. Or at least expanding on implications more. To me it inevitably is 'very.'


Two 12/13 year-olds kissing constitutes squick now?

Was implied a rather bit more then that when I read it. Course implied is why its only a side helping.

[Tirian]

Well C.S. Lewis in general is fairly anti-adult, its more of a lament then anything else.

It's quite a bit more subtle than that. Lewis has embraced adults in his books even when they weren't a protagonist, like Professor Kirke and Ransom's associates in That Hideous Strength, and his non-fiction is intended for an adult audience that he clearly does not hate. On the other hand, he does rant against "adult" behaviors like heirarchy games and the dulling of intellectual curiosity. The "Susan Problem" was that she abandoned the call of reality (i.e. Narnia) because she was blinded by the illusion of finding her place in society. Lewis is definitely on record often as being in favor of remaining eternally "childlike" in terms of embracing wonder and owning your beliefs.

I'm not convinced that Pullman is any more progressive on this point. The best I can piece together the climax of HDM, the universe was saved because Lyra and Will handled the onset of puberty well. It seemed that a whole lot of the world mechanics were tied to sexual knowledge at the end of the day.

[Mx.Silver]

Well C.S. Lewis in general is fairly anti-adult,
And Phillip Pullman in general is a fairly outspoken atheist. Your point?





He still showed up while not named explicitly, which is rather more important then being explicitly named Jesus.
Where? I admit I haven't read them in a couple of years, but I did read them all several times and I don't recall a christ figure ever showing-up. Maybe if you include him and The Authority as the same figure due to Trinity, but that's kind of stretching it. Given that, once again, this is based on the 'fall of man' scenario (which old Jeshua ben Joseph played no part in) adding him wouldn't really do much for it.





I'd agree its wise for the absense in Pullman's series, since Jesus almost inevitably would run counter to it. Hard to beat such a nice guy. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.JesusWasWayCool)
It is hard to see JC being overly chummy with The Magisterium or Metatron, but given that the latter shut The Authority in a crystal prison I doubt JC would have faired particularly well when Metatron took over the running, assuming he even had angelic or divine status in the HDM cosmology. Putting him in it as either go to put him on Metatron's side or Asriel's, neither of which would exactly mitigate the controversy (since it boils down to 'JC is evil' or 'JC wants to euthanise his dad') Assuming Trinity applies then JC = The Authority anyway rendering the whole issue irrelevent. It's also perfectly plausible that Jesus may not exist in HDM cosmology at all, given that most of the abrahamic faith's claims about the authority are not applied within the series either. Given that 'god' in HDM is an ancient angel well-past his time being kept alive so Metatron can use him as a rallying point for his domination of the multiverse.




I'd argue I'm reading more into the books then I think a lot of its critics even do.
Has it occurred to you that you may be reading more into the books than is actually there at all? I don't mean to insult you or anything, but this sort of thing can happen.

Case in point:


Was implied a rather bit more then that when I read it. Course implied is why its only a side helping.
Again, I've read it multiple times and never got that impression from the text. Even if it were there, it would have to be significantly more subtle than his earlier allusions to sex (which, while not explicit, are fairly obvious) so I highly doubt this 'implied squick' consists of much more beyond kissing and maybe some cuddling.

EDIT


I'm not convinced that Pullman is any more progressive on this point. The best I can piece together the climax of HDM, the universe was saved because Lyra and Will handled the onset of puberty well. It seemed that a whole lot of the world mechanics were tied to sexual knowledge at the end of the day.
It wasn't sexual knowledge so much as abandoning 'childlike' intuitive thought for 'adult' reasoned thought. This is referenced with Lyra's loss of ability to read the Aletheometre and has been supported with interviews from Pullman.

[Tequila Sunrise]

No, Nicole Kidman can't be a Cath...well I'll be dammed! She must be a pretty atypical Catholic though, as she's apparently been divorced at least once and dabbled in Scientology in addition to playing Mrs. Coulter. And my one Catholic friend won't even watch the movie because the church 'blacklisted' it; go figure.


What I didn't particularly understand was the ending:
I don't think the book did a good job of explaining why Lyra and Will couldn't be together at the end. One rift that he can cut, then repair occasionally doesn't seem like it'd destroy the universe. So, the "tragedy" at the end didn't really resonate for me.
I was thinking over the books again today, and I came to the same [minor] disapointment:
I mean, if everyone's okay with leaving one door open for souls to escape the underworld, what's one more door? And Will-Lyra's door wouldn't even be permanent; just until they died. Or got divorced. The only explanation is that they're supposed to set an example for everyone else to 'build the republic of heaven in their own world' or whatever, but that seems a bit harsh. I mean c'mon, these two just saved every world in existance, give 'em the nooky they deserve!

[Jorkens]

And Phillip Pullman in general is a fairly outspoken atheist. Your point?
This is quite an interesting interview. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3613962/The-Dark-Materials-debate-life-God-the-universe....html) Pullman goes head to head with the AB of C, and the result is a very amiable and vaguely academic chat. Obviously centres around matters Not For This Forum, but kind of puts the image of Pullman as being a frothing-at-the-mouth zealot into perspective a bit.

Also, I'd actually tend to read the underlying message of HDM as being more humanist than actively atheist.

The real message of a novel, AIUI, comes from its moral system, not from the actual events - so Tolkein isn't saying that we should avoid trying to find the One Ring and enslave Middle Earth, more that loyalty to friends, a love of the simple life and harmony with nature are generally good while greed, hunger for power and the use of technology to dominate nature are bad.

Similarly, once you take the actual events of the novels as being fictional rather than factual, I think the big idea of His Dark Materials is more about not being afraid to think for yourself, take responsibility for yourself, and live in the earthly world than about the existance or otherwise of invisible superheroes...

[Mx.Silver]

This is quite an interesting interview. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3613962/The-Dark-Materials-debate-life-God-the-universe....html) Pullman goes head to head with the AB of C, and the result is a very amiable and vaguely academic chat. Obviously centres around matters Not For This Forum, but kind of puts the image of Pullman as being a frothing-at-the-mouth zealot into perspective a bit.
Outspoken atheist =/= frothing-at-the-mouth zealot.


Also, I'd actually tend to read the underlying message of HDM as being more humanist than actively atheist.

Humanism is an atheistic philosophy. Athiesm isn't a philosophy, it's a disbelief. Two aren't mutually exclusive by any means.

[Soras Teva Gee]

It's quite a bit more subtle than that. Lewis has embraced adults in his books even when they weren't a protagonist, like Professor Kirke and Ransom's associates in That Hideous Strength, and his non-fiction is intended for an adult audience that he clearly does not hate. On the other hand, he does rant against "adult" behaviors like heirarchy games and the dulling of intellectual curiosity. The "Susan Problem" was that she abandoned the call of reality (i.e. Narnia) because she was blinded by the illusion of finding her place in society. Lewis is definitely on record often as being in favor of remaining eternally "childlike" in terms of embracing wonder and owning your beliefs.

More or less what I wanted to get at.


And Phillip Pullman in general is a fairly outspoken atheist. Your point?

Well if you insist, I would say that while for two bits I've actually read of each author (Narnia and HDM respectively) that Lewis presents much more nuanced views and is writing more defensively than offensively. The concept of Narnia is "what if JC came to a world with talking animals, and fantasy creatures" and retelling Christianity in a different setting. When he briefly takes on Islam in Last Battle its as nice you can be and still be in line with core Christian theology (idolatry is evil, ergo...) and the much more important point is that there can be nothing noble that does not honor God because God is equivalent with good. Lewis from what I know is one of the most soft-hearted of Christian writers.

This is rather in contrast I find to Pullman's at best incomplete and at worse grossly distorted presentation of religion by proxy organization. I also find a difference between a corrupt church and shredding the central theology of monotheism. Namely: God doesn't simply not exist, God does exist and is a tyrant, is not supreme, and is complicit/supportive in every crime ever committed for maintaining Authority. Oh and has everyone go to Hades. In short religion is not just misguided/mistaken, it is honoring someone not worthy.


Where? I admit I haven't read them in a couple of years, but I did read them all several times and I don't recall a christ figure ever showing-up. Maybe if you include him and The Authority as the same figure due to Trinity, but that's kind of stretching it. Given that, once again, this is based on the 'fall of man' scenario (which old Jeshua ben Joseph played no part in) adding him wouldn't really do much for it.

Well I've never got around to reading Milton. But the source of all knowledge says of Paradise Lost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost) that has:

The Son of God: The Son of God in Paradise Lost is Jesus Christ, though he is never named explicitly, since He has not yet entered human form. The Son is very heroic and powerful, singlehandedly defeating Satan and his followers when they violently rebel against God and driving them into Hell. Also, after the Father explains to him how Adam and Eve shall fall, and how the rest of humanity will be doomed to follow them in their cursed footsteps, the Son selflessly and heroically proclaims that he will take the punishment for humanity. The Son endows hope to the poem, because although Satan conquers humanity by successfully tempting Adam and Eve, the victory is temporary because the Son will save the human race. Strikingly, the Son shows a major break with orthodox religious thought on Milton’s part; the contemporaneous accepted belief was that the Trinity were all part of the one Godhead, and thus all created at the same time, and yet Milton portrays the Son as being created after the Father.

Also gives JC summary billing in books X, XI, and XII dealing with if not the Fall but most definitely the aftermath.

(Side Note: HDM pretty much cannot have the Trinity, but anything involving that concept is pretty much a big can of worms anyways.)


Has it occurred to you that you may be reading more into the books than is actually there at all? I don't mean to insult you or anything, but this sort of thing can happen.

Oh its occurred to me, but more from a "nobody is thinking this through including the author" fridge logic kind of way.


Again, I've read it multiple times and never got that impression from the text. Even if it were there, it would have to be significantly more subtle than his earlier allusions to sex (which, while not explicit, are fairly obvious) so I highly doubt this 'implied squick' consists of much more beyond kissing and maybe some cuddling.

I remember kissing, and then some poetic exit. Then we come back an indeterminate time later to wrap up plot points. That's a classic PG sex approach if ever there was one. Or is my memory in error here?

(Incidentally it would be right in line with Milton for them to have...)

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I remember kissing, and then some poetic exit. Then we come back an indeterminate time later to wrap up plot points. That's a classic PG sex approach if ever there was one. Or is my memory in error here?

(Incidentally it would be right in line with Milton for them to have...)


I never really read that there. For one, they've only just hit puberty! Having them have sex is also against the idea of the end of the book, that their love is pure. Having sex at 13-14 =/= pure.

[warty goblin]

I never really read that there. For one, they've only just hit puberty! Having them have sex is also against the idea of the end of the book, that their love is pure. Having sex at 13-14 =/= pure.

On the other hand, once you've accidentally offed God, well in for a dollar, in for a dime...