Talk:His Dark Materials/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

distorting a classic author

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)

Update -- I took the time to read the source (economist interview) allegedly given for this statement about Milton and it in no way confirms any claim about 'inverting Milton' much less that Milton condemns knowledge or wisdom. For whatever else he might be it appears Pullman isn't nearly so uneducated as whoever came up with that gem... consequently I'm deleting the reference. The reasons are amply argued from original sources above and anyway there is no source for the claim as it was written.

Rest of the Planet

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?

We don't know as it isn't mentioned in the book. Joeking16 (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Technology

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.

• As a response to Lord Asriels technological capabilities in your last paragraph, you must remember that he gathered many individuals across multiple universes. It can be assumed that the differences amongst said individuals may be the fact of technological capabilities and evolution. Those recruits amongst his ranks use the weapons and devices in which they feel most comfortable and confident with. It is quite possible that some of the parallel universes have acquired a greater technological capability than others such as Lyras or Wills world thus the lasers and the intention craft technology. Sorry, I don't have the books in front of me at the moment, but I will get back to you on your other questions here. I think I have a grasp but I just want to make sure. Thanks, (Epsilon09 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

• HDM is based on Amber and Atomcraft as technological catalysts rather than "rock oil". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.82.54 (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC) All "modern" technology in the series comes from that root not petrocarbons. Rock oil and ground-gas get a couple of mentions (for instance Page 200 GP: "... to find a ground-gas vent near a lire mine. There's a lot of gas under the ground here, and rock oil besides") but play no role. Fire mine or lire mine? I have the audio books and did an Amazon Search Inside.

DNA Device?

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.

John and Mary Gribbin explain this as an application of quantum entanglement in The Science of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials (ISBN 0-340-88159-3). It's a proven "sympathy" between photons or other particles which is believed to work irrespective of distance.--Old Moonraker 21:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Harpies

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.

New Portal

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)

Intro to talk page

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)

Article Meta-architechture Changes

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 think keeping anything but general plot summaries here is probably a Bad Idea. Keeping the more detailed plot summaries in the links to the other books (and saying so in this article) is probably a good idea. --Overand 05:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, I've just made the individual pages much longer by giving them full synopses of the boks that aren't appropriate on this all-embracing page. Work perhaps towards focussing more sprecific information on the individual pages, and more general information on these HDM pages.--alfakim 00:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of 'Gyrocopter' + other Esoterics

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

The word Pullman uses is gyROPter, not gyROCOPter, and in either case, it seems worthwhile saying that Pullman is not saying Asriel has gyrocopters, but is saying that he has helicopters or a very similar variant.

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 either case (this or above), I don't mind the removal.

Misc

In section Theatre One sentence was removed.

• Before
  • A theatrical version of the books has been produced by Nicholas Hytner as a two-part, 6 hour performance for London's Royal National Theatre in Q1 of 2004. All 126 performances at the 1110-seat Olivier Theatre sold out before the opening day. The play returned for a second run in November of 2004.
• After
  • A theatrical version of the books has been produced by Nicholas Hytner as a two-part, 6 hour performance for London's Royal National Theatre in Q1 of 2004. The play returned for a second run in November of 2004.

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)

That was originally removed on claims of being totally untrue, are we sure it was true? --alfakim 00:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Good edit: the info was irrelevant (I've inserted 'popular' to replace it) and factually incorrect: performances were still available last year, and at the time of writing, are still available this year for part 2 -- taliswolf 00:46, 25 Feb 2005 (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?

• Think of it this way, if you were doing research on this play for whatever project- isn't that the type of thing you'd want too know? And saying it was "highly popular" is less clear as it doesn't say what you're basing that on. - SiniStar 11:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I know without doubt that the statement that all tickets sold out before the opening day is untrue: I work at the National Theatre box office. Tickets were still freely available for quite a number of performances well after opening day. This is true for both the original (2003-4) and revival (2004-5) productions. -Urbane legend 15:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Offtopic Conversation

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)

Cool books huh? I was thinking that perhaps an 'interpretations' sections is required on these pages. ie: a Themes section. What the hell the trilogy means. (That'd probably be the most likely reason for someone to go to a Wikipedia entry on them anyway, right?)--alfakim 01:16, 28 May 2005 (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)

Maybe. r3m0t 15:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'fraid so, as i found Amber Spyglass to be the most moving one of the three. I concider the first to as character and situation set ups that Spyglass could be written with out having to have to much explained in the begining.

Yes. Well, being the absolute hardcore fan of the books that I am, I can't agree with you. (By the way, I hate the word 'fan', it makes me sound like I do nothing but smile... I think the books are astounding works of literature that have indeed affected me profoundly, so damn well done Pullman, and hence I'm interested in everything HDM). Anyway, I thought The Amber Spyglass was an excellent end, but that Northern Lights was perhaps the best read. Spyglass was however a much more interesting book, and much more ambitious and daring. Hmm, I think I'd better sign this... --alfakim 01:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

'Fantasy Fiction Author'

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)

High Detail Synopsis

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've also made sure that only the 'See also' and 'Other links' sections come after the high detail synopsis so that nothing is missed on the article because of it. For 'see also' sections, people automatically scroll right to the bottom, so this is, I think, perfectly okay. To reiterate what I've now stated above, I think work should be done to focus specific information on the individual book pages, and have more general HDM information on the main HDM page. --alfakim 00:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I like the changes. I think they work to make the HDM page more readable and attractive. --Jacen137 05:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Added tiny bit about related books

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.

Pronunciations and Spellings

• Is it possible to use genuine phonetic notation here?
• Some of the pronunciations are questionable - any way of checking them?

In particular:

• Panserbjorne: isnt it 'pan-ser-buh-yorn'?
• Pantalaimon: pan-ta-LIE-mon (isn't it LAY-mon?)
• Æsahættr: AYS-hayt-er (AS-hat-er? ice-a-HITE-er? which one?)

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'm going to edit the article based on the above two points - they seem potent enough to merit a change until a greater certainty is found.--alfakim 16:18, 18 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)

As a point (even though its a fair bit out of date) Phillip Pullman pronounces the word pan-ser-be-yor-nuh. Also, the he says mulefa as Mule-efa or Mule-fa.

Panserbjørne v. Panserbørne

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)

Well, my only note will be my edition of Northern Lights: Scholastic Ltd. / Point; 1998. But let's stick to the J. --alfakim 13:57, 6 August 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)

• I'm intrigued by this, which is, I have to admit, perhaps a little sad :\ Sorry, but I haven't got a pic because I've lent my copy to someone - I've only got the German version with me, and there's a "j" in that edition. It also doesn't really clarify why there are more hits on Google for "panserbjørne" than for "panserbørne". Also, from my (albeit limited) knowledge of Scandinavian languages, "panser/bjørne" means "armoured-bear", whereas "panser-BøRNE" means something like "armoured-children". Surely P.P. can't have made a mistake? --Dave ~ (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Aha. I just found this, so obviously we're not the only people who've picked up on this: "It looks as if this a difference between the US and UK editions. The Golden Compass has panserbjørne (plural) and panserbjorn (singular) and Northern Lights has panserbørne (plural) and panserborn (singular)." Sorry, it seems like we were both right after all :P --Dave ~ (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• • So which spelling becomes the official Wikipedia spelling? Non-patriotically and objectively, I say we actually go with PANSERBORNE/BORN, ie, no j, because it's a UK book written by a UK author in the UK, first printed in the UK, and also wikipedia uses the UK title of "Northern Lights" to refer to the book.--alfakim 22:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have Panserbjorn in my Portuguese book, but I bought Northern Lights in the UK and it says Panserborn. I think if it says panserborn in the original, we should stick to it. If it was a mistake, they probably would have corrected it in the new editions of the book (or not :P)

--goncalopp 00:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd rather see "panserbJørne", since it makes more linguistic sense. But I wouldn't object to "panserbørne" - it only appears once in this article anyway and, as already pointed out, it's "-børne" in the original (even if most, if not all, translations use the -j-). In the pronunciations section, both versions should be shown, IMHO. --Dave ~ (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• My 2001 Scholastic Ltd UK edition of Northern Lights has panserbjørne. So it would seem it has been revised in later UK editions. So I'm putting the j back. --KJBracey 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• • On which subject, I've restored the last-used panserbjørne pronunciation, but was that actually "as used by Pullman/in radio plays", as the text says? Indeed, are all the pronunciations there? I felt a bit uncomfortable changing the pronunciation given the heading, but I somewhat doubt that Pullman really did pronounce it PAN-ser-born-eh. But if he did, maybe it suggests he hasn't caught up with the editing correction, and he's still mentally using his original misspelling? --KJBracey 08:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• • So! Enough is Enough. I'm a Dane, and the word "panserbjørne" is a danish word, meaning "panserbears". It would be very wrong to say "Panserbørne", even though it says so in some versions. It is also danish words, and would mean panser - children! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.225.104 (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambaric or Anbaric?

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)

I've scanned the three books, and there are no ocurrences of "ambaric". I'm reverting the pronuntiation back to "anbaric" goncalopp 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Chthonic

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)

Its Own Article?

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)

Sounds like a good idea. I've been bold and done so. -Panser Born- (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion: evolution??

"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:

• Evolution is not a religion - it's a scientific theory with an enormous amount of evidence in support of it. It's not a proven theory, but that doesn't mean it's a religion!
• The author of the statement unreasonably assumes that the evidence against evolution automatically disproves it. --Urbane legend 18:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

On Film:information on Chris Weitz

"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)

Legal Issues?

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)

SPOILER >>> No, they must be sixteen or older because they have to fall in love, definitely have to kiss, possssssibly have to make love. Imagine the controversy over having a highly erotic scene (even just the kissing is pretty passionate) between 12-year-olds? --alfakim 09:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This appears quite speculative to me, and I think it should be removed -- we don't know what adaptions the film's screenplay will make, and the actors have not been cast to date. MC MasterChef 11:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

But that's ridiculous. There is no need for lurv-making. Kissing and losing their innocence (falling in love) is surely enough? 21:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

Of course they have to have sex. Otherwise there'd be no 'Second Fall'. --Urbane legend 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no sex in the book. The first and the second fall in the book is purely represented by humans choosing knowledge over dogmetisme. 129.142.143.67 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be such a literal analogy to Adam and Eve. --AySz88^-^ 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Right - in the original Biblical story, the Fall didn't happen because Adam and Eve had sex, it happened because they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Now the fruit that Lyra and Will shared was obviously not from any special Tree of Knowledge, so obviously for Pullman the Fall (or this second Fall, anyhow, though in fact some part of me doubts Pullman would call it a Fall in the first place) was more related to erotic love and carnal knowledge. As for how far Will and Lyra took this particular Fall, and to what extent of carnal knowledge Will and Lyra required to Fall...well, on that the books are silent. Ah, mores. Vespers 06:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your all missing the point. The actors picked will be 12 now. At the end of the third book they make love. By the time the third movie is made they will be older than 12, probably closer to 14. Movies take ages to make and they will be 16 years old by the time the 3rd movie is released. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JayKeaton (talk • contribs) .

No one says they make love in the book. Pullman has even talked about how he left it ambiguous for a reason. Even if your interpretation is that they did they won't show it in the movie. All you would have to do is leave the scene out and no legal issues. It's not illegal to show 15 or 16 (probably how old they will be by the time of the third film) kissing. SirGrant 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I was sure I signed that one JayKeaton 23:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cites and References

• I've added a cite for the BBC "Belief" interview, but haven't actually got the time to read it, so I've left the {{Fact}} tag there until someone else does. -- taliswolf 10:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the interviews again, a more-relevant interview probably would be this one. Sorry for confusing them; the two interviews are very similar. The Belief interview focuses more on religion without quite making it to dogma in general, while the Thirdway one includes more about how it applies to all religions and dogmas and such. I recall a video clip where Pullman specifically says that HDM was meant to apply to many dogmas, but it's probably impossible to dig that up by now, being that it's been years. --AySz88^-^ 16:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• 82.37.217.24 added:

Pullman himself describes the target range as being 'young adult', and many say that the books are too intellectual in content for most children.

Can anyone cite either of these claims? Particularly the first one. -- taliswolf 23:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can attest that I've seen the interview that the sentence is referring to, but a quick Google search isn't turning up anything yet. --AySz88^-^ 17:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view, Pullman has pretty much always stated that he wrote HDM with no audience in mind, except maybe himself:

kidsreads.com, "What made me decide to write for young adults? I didn't. I can't tell who my audience is going to be. I just write a book that's going to keep me entertained for the time it takes to do it. It's a continual mystery to me that anyone reads me at all, but I'm glad they do."

literacytrust.org.uk, "I don't know about this business of writing for this audience or that one. It's too like labelling the book as fantasy it shuts out more readers than it includes. If I think of my audience at all, I think of a group that includes adults, children, male, female, old, middle-aged, young everyone who can read. If horses, dogs, cats, or pigeons could read, they'd be welcome to it as well. I don't want to shut anyone out."

barnesandnoble.com, "I don’t think about the readers at all. 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 the largest audience possible, please. When you say, “This book is for children”, what you’re understood as saying is “This book is NOT for adults.” I don’t want that. 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." --Joshtek 22:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for all of those; they confirm my suspicions about that claim; authors I like are generally reluctant to target their books as implied. The edit was 01:05, 29 March 2006. As a side note, I've used the LotR references system; it seemed a bit prettier. We need to normalise the references system; I'm counting 3 different types used atm. -- taliswolf 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, I never read the sentence as i.e. Pullman was writing for a young adult audience, but rather that Pullman saw it better as labeled as "young adult" literature than how it's labeled "children's" in the UK. I'm confident that he's said that somewhere, but since I can't seem to find it anywhere anymore... bah; who knows?

(after conflict) As to reference systems, the m:Cite.php system (using <ref> tags) is the current preferred one. --AySz88^-^ 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Preferred, perhaps, but ugly. I went with LotR's system because I guessed it would be a heavily-edited article. Anyway. -- taliswolf 01:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Edit: Wait. Nevermind. -- taliswolf 02:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I reworded a little bit, just to make this all into verifiable claims. I've not seen any usage statistics on the percentage of child, YA, and adult readers, so I took away any claims of knowledge, and "ostensibly for children" I changed to "marketed to children" since in the absence of claims of authorial intent, that's what "for children" really means. Deborah-jl _Talk 03:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pointless References

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)

"though is by no means to be considered of the same genre or type of writing." Why not? What genre should we consider it, then? What genre should we consider these other books? Why is an encyclopedia article telling us how we should consider? This addendum appears to be a POV on the part of some HDM fans to me, who would like to see their favorite work elevated above "mere" fantasy, and I believe it should be excised: the fact that the books are compared should be sufficient, I would think. It offers context for readers looking to place the book in popular culture; the mention in the lede of other author's multiverses, on the other hand, seems fairly irrelevent to me, and could probably be removed if you really find it that distracting. MC MasterChef 11:16, 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)

Footnote #9 (at the time of writing) was sought out in respect of a {{fact}} request seeking authority for the article’s “no distinction is made between negative and positive Christian practice”. The last para of the work cited has: ...his books almost entirely ignore Jesus. Perhaps he could find no way to twist such loving self-sacrifice into ammunition for the case against God. After all, a God who will deliberately sacrifice himself out of love, etc. The following cite (which I may now include here as well) has Pullman saying: what I’m actually doing is to separate the original inspiration of a religious leader, such as Jesus, from the pernicious and altogether political and power-driven structures of the church erected in his name.

Footnote #10 was asked for to justify “nearly all the Christian characters are portrayed as bad individuals, or are portrayed in a more positive light only after they give up their affiliation with the Church”. The work quoted has: Pullman creates Father Gomez to symbolise that love is not always used in the right context. He was so enamoured with the church that he was deluded to the point where killing Lyra was the most honourable task in the Magesterium. and Mary, another very important character, is used by Pullman to criticize the church and its façade. Being an ex-nun, she is able to recognize that even though she initially felt connected with God and without him didn’t have a purpose; her purpose was, is in effect, to ‘tell them stories’. She finds that to spread knowledge and understanding to others and to place others in front of her

The citations do support the article’s points, but if anyone can come up with more apt references (and, agreed, there is room for improvement) please step forward! Old Moonraker 18:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Symbolic meanings of daemons

What's the source for these interpretations, anyhow? MC MasterChef 22:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Seconded, if they are not from HDM itself (and I don't believe they are), then surely they do not belong on Wikipedia, as they are 'interpretations' rather than fact. Jalada 08:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think they are not from HDM, they're standard symbolic meanings. However they're valuable, because Philip Pullman has probably chosen the daemons accordingly. --goncalopp 11:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, according to who? Standard in which culture? And do you have any source to suggest that Pullman chose them precisely according to the meanings listed here? If not, I'm going to remove them. MC MasterChef 11:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

daemon table edits/revert

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)

Thanks, NoMass, for your comments. I appreciate your devotion to the books -- they are my personal all-time favorite stories as well, and Pullman's craftsmanship is truly impressive. However, I still feel the daemon table as it currently stands is inappropriate for Wikipedia, even in its new home at the Dæmon (His Dark Materials) page.

Your reading of Pullman's choices for daemons could be right; not having any background in animal symbolism, I have no reason to do doubt it. But I also have no reason to doubt an assertion that PP simply made Pan a Pine Marten after an amusing trip to the zoo once; unless you can cite something to the contrary, you appear to be conducting original research, directing me authoritatively on how to read Pullman's masterpiece. As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view to the greatest extent possible, and by presenting your personal subjective interpretation as the authentic truth, you appear to me to be deviating from it. An encyclopedia article is not the place to exhaustively discuss all the themes and techniques of a literary work; it is a place to summarize existing, verifiable information about that subject -- perhaps offering a range of leading schools of interpretation to choose from, if they exist -- and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions based on their own perspective. There are many fan forums on the web to discuss HDM, and some material that might be better discussed there is not as appropriate for this project.

To conclude: if you can quote me an art historian or some other figure talking about the symbolic meanings of Pullman's choices, I would definitely say add it into the article (with that attribution). But if not, the language (or table) as it is currently written seems too broadly speculative and POV to me -- what does Carl Jung's moth have to do with Pan's first form? in which culture does the snow leopard symbolize "understanding one’s shadow side"? (please remember, not all readers share the same backgrounds as you or I might) -- I believe it needs to be either sourced or removed.

I hope others will weigh in on this as well. — Your server has been MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - Is there any objection to my reinstating my earlier changes, now that the table has been removed? I realize my prose was not exactly brilliant on the character summaries (I did the best I could, without having a copy of the books on hand), but they were intended as just that -- summaries, with the links to more detailed articles. — Your server has been MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Merging people and daemon stubs

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)

It doesn't seem that difficult. Without any specialized word processor, I can use a character map: æ. There are certain keyboard settings (and different keyboard set-up in different countries) that allow things like accents to be typed in through keystroke order or something like that. QueenStupid 02:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

On the vast majority of keyboard, at least, Windows, it's Alt+145. Just hold down Alt and press 1 then 4 then 5 (all while still holding Alt) on the numpad, and æ should come up. Dæmon. Methulah 01:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

On macs it is option-q —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.222.42 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Literary themes

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

• The love between Will and Lyra. Quite obvious.
• The brotherly love between Baruch and Balthamos.
• The love that Mrs Coulter and Lord Asriel hide.
• The parental love from Mrs Coulter to Lyra.
• The love as a nation from the Gyptians to Lyra.
• The protective love from Iorek Byrnison to Lyra.

And so on. tommylommykins 19:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to including themes in this article, as long as we can cite sources pointing them out (WP:NOR). "Love" doesn't really strike me as an informative or accurate theme, though. In fact, just about every story written in human history could be argued to have "love" as a "theme" from the above qualifications, and if anything His Dark Materials has less "love" than the typical fantasy novel. Additionally, every one of those instances of "love" is actually a very different concept: "national love", "protective love", "parental love", "romantic love" etc. are all such different concepts that many languages (Greek comes to mind) actually have distinct words for them. The fact that English doesn't does not make them all identical. "Love" is just too generic for me; you could just as easily say that "relationships" or "conflict" or "discovery" is a theme of His Dark Materials, and be no more or less correct! Just because something is a significant part of the plot doesn't make it a relevant theme; where's the message? Look more into the Biblical symbolism and Dust and so on for major themes of HDM. -Silence 19:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

*bangs head on corner of nearby table* NOR -- Looks like this comment is going to stay on the talk page tommylommykins 22:14, 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)

PurpleMonkey or User:67.34.179.217, thanks for your thoughtful post. I agree with much of what you say, actually. Your understanding of what it means for PP to kill God (i.e. to demote an abrahamic concept of God) is right, I think, and is superior to the understanding of many IPs who edit here. My only hesitation would be with your characterization of "the" historic creeds as being Judaism and Christianity. There is another abrahamic creed (Islam) and other non-abrahamic creeds that are also "historical." You didn't mention the I Ching, a major plot point, for example. One other item: you say that "we" are criticizing PP because... Who is this "we"? If your criticism is notable and verifiable, then by all means it could be in the article. But I sense you were mostly trying to enter a rational plea for criticizing PP. If that was your intent, then please understand that I agree, and will also accept your criticism about the either/or (Inquisition, etc.). That's too easy a polemic, and I've given it up now. You're right about that. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Young Adult comment FYI

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)

Dæmons in multiple worlds?

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).

Many (maybe most) of the ghosts seem to at least know what dæmons are, so it seems that plenty of worlds have dæmons, assuming there are many worlds. --AySz88^-^ 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There is one definite case of dæmons in another world. When Mrs Coulter kidnaps Lyra and keeps her in a drugged sleep, they are in a world other than Lyra's original one. The girl who rescues Lyra (I forgot her name) is originally from that world and she has a dæmon. 68.250.8.154 21:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Mrs. Coulter is in Lyra's world while she's in an enchanted sleep. How else would Will run into the armored bears? Furthermore, the many-world theory implies that there must be a huge number of worlds that are similar to Lyra's; any of the splits that originate in Lyra's world would spin off worlds with dæmons. Sorry if this is a bit late. 69.19.14.25 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that (In the alternate universe of Lyra Belacqua, the story's protagonist, and many other universes not including our own") myself and having read the book multiple times can say with confidence that it is never explicitly stated that any humans other than those from Lyra's world have dæmons. While some of the people, across the worlds, that Lyra meets have dæmons, they are all originally from her world. Although it does say that all humans have dæmons they are just unable to see them. However Will Parry and his father John Parry can both see their dæmons. 7:32, 21 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.182.163 (talk)

There is a passage, in the second or third book, where Will or another characters wonders if perhaps those from Lyra's world are the only ones to see their dæmons, indicating that they're not commonly encountered anywhere else. Certainly, as noted above, all the characters who do have dæmons are from Lyra's world, save Will, who only gains his after his ordeal in the world of the dead, and his father, who had to learn to see his own dæmon via an unspecified process. It's also not stated whether Will's dæmon will remain a separate entity when he returns to our world. I'd revise the statement to leave out mention of other universes, except perhaps stating in parentheses that it is unknown how man, if any, other worlds exist where dæmons are like those in Lyra's world. -- Guybrush (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the NPOV infraction?

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).

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)

There are weasel terms ("it has been noted that", "some argue", "almost all") before the quote, and the tone ("rotten to the core", "doesn't bother to", sarcasm) is inappropriate. The quote is from a secondary source, and it is not fair use since we're not trying to demonstrate anything about the newspaper The Chronicle of Higher Education. --AySz88^-^ 18:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly recommended to avoid Weasel terms as long as possible, still there are such terms in many wikipedia articles, your edits included. Does it suddenly become an inexcusable fault when used to criticize Pullman?

If I choose to insert the above text without the quotation, is it acceptable to you? I honestly see no basis for another reversal, unless you are really disputing that some interpret Pullman's work that way. --Leinad-Z 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I will think about the best way to explain the criticisms, and latter come back to edit the article. --Leinad-Z 21:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a little to the paragraph; see if that works. I just noticed you changed what you wrote above on this talk page from what was there before. The original bit was horrendous. ("On the other hand, it has been noted that Pullman doesn’t bother to make such distinctions....") --AySz88^-^ 21:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

We edit-conflicted; I reverted some of your additions. Also, if you look at Ruta Skadi's speech in the book, Lyra and Will aren't present and certainly aren't the intended recipients. --AySz88^-^ 16:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi, AySz88. Let’s continue our "dialectic" edition process :-) You just deleted the text below:

…critics notice that within the books Pullman describes the Judeo-Christian God plainly as a false god, leaving no room for other interpretations, and his promised paradise turns out to be a hell-like place were people are tormented by harpies.

There are three main reasons I can think of for your deletion:

1. You think it misrepresent the view of the critics;
2. You think there's something factually wrong or false with these statements about what Pullman wrote in the novels;
3. You subjectively think that the tone is wrong.

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)

The word "notice" suggests that those things are spelled out within the book, but they are opinions of the critics. I don't think the narrator ever calls the Authority the Judeo-Christian God (and presumably the narrator is Pullman, and it is, in itself, dubious to link the view of the speaker to the author).

Describing the criticism doesn't require copying the criticism's tone.

--AySz88^-^ 20:15, 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

"Post-climactic"?

(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).

My take on it is that they are both a climax, although of different aspects of the story, the plot of the Church from Lyra's word, as well as Lyra & Will, is climaxed when Will & Lyra 'fall into sin', restoring Dust & nature to its normal state, but equally, the battle is the climax of what I call The Bigger Picture plot, where the war on heaven ends (as this saves the world , as do the plots of Lord Asriel & Marisa Coulter, after all, if this plot had not ended the way it had, then Lyra & Will's actions would have been pointless, as they would have saved the multiverse, only for it to be plunged into an interworld inquisition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.102.136.246 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2007 (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)

Æsahættr = pronounced which way?

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)

• Personally, I'd go for "assa-hattr". This page shows the Old Norse alphabet. It says "æ" is a long low front unrounded vowel. So something like the a in "cat", but longer. It'd probably rendered in English as "ass(a)-hatter". I'm not 100% certain on any of that though. --Dave ~ (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the ae article on wikipedia months ago and its pronouncation instructions were too vague and cryptic to make out. Stuff about opening and closing the mouth is useless. Just say what it sounds like. "long low front unrounded vowel" ??? yeah DyslexicEditor 11:32, 25 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)

• Strange, I don't understand how they came to that pronunciation in the American Heritage Dictionary (the source for dictionary.com). The Old Norse (that I presume the term is based on) and Old English pronunciations are not pronounced anything like "ace". That dictionary also gives a second pronunciation, "aze-eer", which I'd also disagree with. The trouble is, "æ" is an odd sound that isn't exactly like an English sound - I believe it's roughly in between Brit. English "a" in "cat" and "e" in "met". So it's difficult to anglicise the pronunciation. I still prefer "a" as in "cat" rather than "ace" though - it seems more authentic. --Dave ~ (talk) 10:38, 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)

The EYE-shatter pronunciation comes from the National Theatre production. Pullman was involved in the rehearsal process and I assume he was consulted as to his preferred pronunciation. Maybe this doesn't match the Old Norse pronunciation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's "wrong". ▫ UrbaneLegend ^talk 18:27, 8 July 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)

Sorry, the bit about æ sounding like "i" in "Ice" above was me getting confused with Modern Icelandic. The "i" in æsir is similar to a short version of "ea" in "ear" I think, but with a rolled "r". As for the "a" in the middle, I'm not sure whether that should be pronounced or not. I think I'll see if I can find an ASNACist (student of Anglo-Saxon Norse and Celtic) to shed some light on the matter. --Dave ~ (talk) 14:17, 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?

The Authority - "Feeble and Crazed"?

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.

Cauchuc

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

The plot

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

Random comments

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)

I do agree I think that should be left out as it's not really appropriate SirGrant 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyra's Oxford

Should a brief plot description for Lyra's Oxford be included? Minglex 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so because technically Lyra's oxford isn't part of the trilogy so it doesn't really need a summary in the trilogy section, if we are gonna do a summary it should be on the Lyra's Oxford page SirGrant 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Lyra's Oxford is so incredibly short that the book itself could pass as a summary.--The Edit0r 21:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think yes; I added one before reading this. While it's not part of the trilogy by definition, it is an extension of it, however minor, and deserves at least minimal mention. I think the very brief (two sentence) description I have added is appropriate; anything more should definitely go under the main Lyra's Oxford article. -- Guybrush (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

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 agree, page protection would be a good solution, in most cases it takes some time before one of us sees the edit.goncalopp 03:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The page apparently hasn't had the protection actually applied, as a spam edit just went through.

I'd also suggest semi-protecting, instead. —AySz88\^-^ 04:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since the vandalism appears to have died down, I'll just remove the tag. —AySz88\^-^ 04:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean it has died down it's still happening every day I mean it's happened twice today --SirGrant 04:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection is for more-extreme cases - I just asked an administrator, who said an article would need something on the order of 5-10 vandal edits per hour for semi-protection. —AySz88\^-^ 06:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It just needs watching. I don't think it merits a protection yet: if the changes are reverted quickly enough the vandal will probably get bored. Yomangani 09:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if it's using a spambot, or the likes... goncalopp 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed it's the same message but it keeps coming from very different IP's each time. I think it's some sort of program not a actual person. --SirGrant 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a different message (but definitely a variation on a theme); perhaps TawkerBot or AntiVandalBot could be alerted to watch the page (haven't checked the code to see how they work, so it's pure guesswork). I have no interest in this page, but it's on my watchlist after the first vandalisation, and one of these two Bots nearly alway beat me in reverting vandalism on other pages. Yomangani 11:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to TawkerBot2's protection request page, but the other protected pages are high profile pages in the User namespace (like Jimbo Wales' page), so it will probably get rejected. Worth a shot though. Yomangani 13:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

King of Hearts has very kindly semi-protected it, so hopefully that will put them off after its been on for a while. Yomangani 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the URL's that are being spammed added to the blacklist so if they try to post the links they won't go through. Here is my post on the admin noticeboard [2]

The "Titular" Knife?

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)

Wikipedia doesn't define "titular"; Titular is just a redirect to Titular head, which uses one particular sense of the word "titular". Wiktionary does provide a full definition: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/titular gives the definition which fits: Of, relating to, being, derived from, or having a title. Since the Subtle Knife is the knife of the title, the word is used correctly.Derek Balsam 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A better word would be "eponymous."64.151.128.147 05:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Poppy misunderstanding?

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)

Well, never mind, I can't very well correct a semi-protected page without being logged in, which is impossible with my satellite internet. Strangely enough, Wikipedia is the only page I have a problem staying logged into. Regardless, somebody else will have to get this. Thanks. 66.82.9.56 20:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure I'll change it for you just let me know specifically what it should say cause I kinda get the general drift of what you are saying but not the specifics (not an expert on poppys) so just tell me what needs to be replaced with what and I'll fix it. --SirGrant 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There's just nothing that needs to be said about poppys in that particular list; Will's and Lyra's worlds are consistent with each other in the meaning of poppy heads. Just delete the entry altogether. 69.19.14.25 04:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is actually a reference to opium. Pullman cites this in his article From Exeter to Jordan in Oxford Today. This follows the relevant passage from TGC: Heaven forfend that the Rector of Exeter should feel obliged to serve opium after dinner, but this is an alternative universe, after all. I lifted that dainty detail from the diary of an English lady living in India before the Mutiny, which I'd come across ten years before, while I was looking for something else entirely. I knew I could use it somewhere. Not sure if it's still relevant for this wiki article. I usually work with the BridgetotheStars.net wiki but it's down at the mo'. Hope some of you will care to help out once it's returned. --jess 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Movies

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)

Lyra's World: "Electrum"

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 know this is old, but in Lyra's world, electrum is a petrified resin that sometimes has insects in it. Like amber. It just sounds like "amber" and "electrum" were swapped around, thus making anbaric energy in Lyra's world with electrum being the resin stuff and electric energy in Will's (our) world, with amber as the resin stuff. Methulah 01:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

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)

Pronunciation of Dæmon

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.

It is Dee-mon. I am a huge fan of the series, not only do I have all 3 novels but I have the audio version. The audio version is narrated by Philip Pullman himself. He pronounces it Dee-mon as in how you normally pronounce demon demon. Honestly if it came down to a debate on pronunciation (movie website vs. author) I would always go with how the author of the original novel pronounces it. SirGrant 11:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also if you look in the cover of some editions of Northern Lights it actually says "The word daemon is pronounced like the english word demon". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.102.136.246 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Gyptians

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).

Adaptations

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.

Play

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)

Afterthought: even if this sentence were kept, we can't say "across the country" on English WP. --Old Moonraker 21:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done--Old Moonraker 08:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

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.

• "Amber ... which the ancient Greeks in our world thought was the source of electricity". Rubbish. Changed to be more accurate. Also remove "many chemical terms entered the english language through arabic" which is not really relevant.
• Remove OED refs, replacing with links to Wiktionary where appropriate. In many cases a link to the WP article suffices since the article talks about the etymology.
• Dark matter "not yet fully understood, for non-physics majors" - good grief, that's not at all what "not yet fully understood" means in a scientific context! (Quantum physics is "well understood", but of course not by non-physics graduates.) Changed to be more accurate.
• Gyptians: the more accurate term is "Romani".
• Philosophical: I can't see any evidence that the physics degree at Oxford is called "natural philosophy", so I've removed that (it's irrelevant in any case).
• Tatar: as far as I can tell, this means just the same as it does in the real world, so I've removed the entry.

Hairy Dude 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HisDarkMaterialsUS.jpg

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)

Done--Old Moonraker 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mrs Coulters Hair Color

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)

Please add new comments to the end and sign your posts! Thanks. Yes, it does say her hair is dark in the books. garik 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I just checked with my copy of the book that she does in fact have black hair in the Novel. On page 65 of the American Hard Back Edition (last paragraph of chapter 3) it says "She was beautiful and young. Her sleek black hair framed her cheeks and her daemon was a golden monkey." so anyone with the book can check for themselves but the book for sure is clear on the fact that she has black hair and the movie deviates from this fact. SirGrant 02:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Greek concept of daemon

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)

It may be a valid connection, but you'd have to find someone else who'd noticed it first – otherwise, it's original research. garik 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Characters

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)

• Agree, it should be done, similarly to Locations in His Dark Materials series. --goncalopp 13:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge done. See Characters of His Dark Materials. Four main characters still have their articles. --Tone 19:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Need a Criticisms Section

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)

I'm not positive, but I've sometimes seen reference to wikipedia actually not preferring there be criticism sections. Be that as it may, here's the C. S. Lewis criticism section in its entirety, should one be curious to consult it. It seems concise to me, rather than 'chalked full'. Maybe 24.18.108.5 should understand the the same person/s who put up the Lewis criticisms may or may not be here:

"Despite its mass appeal, Lewis's work is not without its critics. The Chronicles of Narnia have variously been depicted as featuring religious propaganda, misogyny, racism, and emotional sadism (BBC News 2005).

For more details on this topic, see The Chronicles of Narnia#Criticism.

Criticism of Lewis's work is not limited to his Narnia books. In Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, former preacher turned atheist activist Dan Barker discusses Mere Christianity and takes issue with Lewis's belief in absolute morality, arguing 'any morality which is based on an unyielding structure above and beyond humanity is dangerous to human beings. History is filled with examples of what religious "morality" has done to worsen our lot' (Barker 1992).

Lewis's Christian apologetics have also been extensively criticised by John Beversluis in C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (1985, rev. 2007) and by S. T. Joshi in God's Defenders: What They Believe and Why They Are Wrong (2003). N. T. Wright observed that the "trilemma" argument 'doesn’t work as history, and it backfires dangerously when historical critics question his reading of the Gospels.'[6]"

Anthony Krupp 16:53, 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)

I'm not sure what 64.146.149.194 thinks I was trying to do. Maybe s/he can play a constructive role by adding something to the article itself. S/he should also inform him- or herself about wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. Cheers, Anthony Krupp 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right that our manual of style does not support criticism sections. It is far better to include criticism - both good and bad - of the trilogy throughout the article so that a balanced point of view is maintained. I think there is some justification to the request for the criticism to sit on its own though. Wording like this: Cynthia Grenier, in the Catholic Culture, has said: "In the world of Pullman, God Himself (the Authority) is a merciless tyrant, His Church is an instrument of oppression, and true heroism consists of overthrowing both."[10] However, Pullman's text states that the Authority is the first angel, rather than God. (my emphasis) Does seem to make the article more of a defense of Pullman's POV rather than trying to portray the views of critics and leaving it up to the reader to decide. It might be better with this sort of thing to summarize the position of critics rather than using simple quotes and then rebutting individual bits. -- SiobhanHansa 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your general point, SiobhanHansa. In this particular case, though, it's not a matter of Pullman's POV vs. that of Grenier. Rather, it's that Pullman's text says that the Authority is the first angel, not God. That's not a POV, it's a fact. And it seems a highly relevant one in light of any claims (including alleged claims by Pullman!) that the children overthrow or kill God. They do no such thing. If you think it helps, I could cite from the novel. What do you think? Anthony Krupp 18:17, 9 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)

64.146.149.194, who may also be 24.18.108.5: rather than ranting, why not contribute? Anyone can, you know. If you can cite further notable reliable references to controversy, then do so. If it's encyclopedic, it will stay. I doubt you'll do more than continue to rant, but on the off chance that you want to be useful, I'm inviting you to do so. I and the secular atheistic socialist white caucasion 'white-collar' wikis you mention are capable of having dialogue with reasonable people with opposed POVs.Anthony Krupp 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony. While I have full confidence that secular atheistic socialist white Caucasian 'white-collar' wikis are able to have a dialogue under the discussion tab, they are, in the end, not able to let go of their bias under the 'article' tab. This is not a neutral site. That fact is well known. I have cited an obvious example - the comparison of the Chronicles of Narnia article with His Dark Materials article. Anyone barely literate can see...even on a superficial level (just by looking at the section names) that wiki obviously favors one over the other. The attempt for someone to make this article fair is futile because no matter what valid, cited, referenced and sourced criticism is included, you will force a refutation of it. Again, all criticisms against pullman are fully self-refuted (refutations of criticism comprise more text of the criticism section than the actual criticism). So even if I did insert a sourced criticism, you (or someone else) would make sure it was amply refuted. And thats just the objective fact. On the other hand, the Lewis criticism (big bold sections titled 'Sexism, etc') stand as-is without refutation. Bias, bias, bias. Typical wiki. The bias is there, I'm sorry if you cannot see it. But then again secular atheistic socialist white caucasion 'white-collar' wikis are often unable to see their own created bias. It's the wiki way. It's what wiki is becoming known for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I redirect you to my first reply above.Anthony Krupp 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I redirect you to the article Chronicles of Narnia criticism section and His Dark Materials criticism section. The wiki way: use a criticisms section to slant any neutral article under the false mask of 'NPOV'. I also redirect you to the widespread opinion of many people that wikipedia.com is not a neutral source of information. Here is a great example. Im sorry if you take it personally. Its just the way wiki is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The article for the upcoming film does contain a Controversies section, and includes statements by the Catholic organization supporting a boycott. I think one point to consider, in light of 24.18.108.5's claims, is that Lewis has been around a lot longer than Pullman. Presumably, it will be possible in 30 years to cite as much notable criticism of Pullman as it is now possible to do so with Lewis. A thought to consider at least. Again: I do think it is possible (and I have participated in such editing) for editors of different POVs to work on an article together. But there are always those users, usually anonymous IPs, who content themselves with talking a lot and doing little in the way of editing. It's the easy way out. Too many people use wikipedia for the claim that it is not useful to feel convincing. I'm done with this thread. Best, Anthony Krupp 22:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But you don't need to wait 30 years for all that criticism Anthony. There is more criticism against Pullman than Lewis, you can find tons of it everywhere. Most of Lewis's criticism in his section actually COMES FROM PULLMAN (oh the bias irony!) LMAO. Pathetic. Call this article what you may, just don't call it neutral.

An afterthought: sorry to anyone reading for not being as clear as I could have been. By criticism I was thinking of thoughtful commentary based on ripe reflections, only possible when a corpus has been in the world a while. Though even on that count, I suppose there is criticism of Pullman as well. (Several books have been written about his trilogy.) Of course, even now there is controversy surrounding him. I've never disputed that. And I find it interesting to read about. Which is why this IPs claims don't hold water. By the way, I do find this article written well. If the IP (I'm going to use the term specter from now on, I think, to describe anonymous IPs who do nothing more than carp) has a problem with the CS Lewis page, let him or her go there and do something about it. Anthony Krupp 03:45, 13 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)

Please note that "anyone may edit" is not the same as "anyone may edit and have their words etched in stone."Anthony Krupp (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good try Anthony. You are part of the reason Wiki will become obsolete one day. With Google's Knol coming out in addition to the new wiki, there is demand for more accurate, unbiased articles. Its kind of sad, in a way, all those thousands of hours you spend here, thinking you are adding to the knowledge of the world by your biased spin-machine that you mask as NPOV through the all-powerful Criticisms section. You and thousands like you, use a criticisms section to destroy or promote (hence insert bias) any topic you wish. Then you spew a lie that states "if you dont like it, contribute" when you know dam well that is a LIE. Revert, revert, then throw the "3 revert" warning at them. Yea, you know what I'm talking about, and so does the rest of the world, which is why the demand for a better online world-encyclopedia exists. Had wiki actually had a fair system here, one that did not enable you to spin, control and domineer articles like you do, there would be no need for Knol. I'm looking forward to the day Wiki sinks. Keep spinning, Tony! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Statler & Waldorf for this enlightening comment.Anthony Krupp (talk) 15:17, 17 December 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)

Oh another thought I had, was that C.S. Lewis might be more criticized now because he wrote his books decades ago, when society and its norms were very different. Like in a class I'm in, we just learned about how West Side Story was considered progressive when it came out and didn't get questioned, but it is now considered very offensive because our understanding of race and diversity are a lot different than when it first came out. So for Narnia that might contribute to the growing number of people over the years who have come to object to it - because it's values have fallen out of sync with mainstream culture. And of course the Narnia movie being made only just now, but keeping the decades-old values of the books, would highlight that clash between past and present values.

Just a theory to think about. Hopefully more thought-provoking and useful than the idea that wikipedia is simply dominated by "secular atheistic socialist white Caucasian 'white-collar' wikis", LOL.VatoFirme 06:02, 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)

Plot spoiler?

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)

When a person looks up an encyclopedia entry on a book, it is expected that the article will contain a plot summary. Plot spoiler warnings are redundant and thus not necessary. TechBear (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA GA Comments: lede is inadequate

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)

First, 'is intended as' won't help us here. Or ever, in reading literature. Second, keep in mind that Pullman also described the religious impulse as 'a critical part of the wonder and awe that human beings feel.' What does that say about your claim? In any case (third), as far as controversy goes, please provide references. Controversy has surrounded the film, and only indirectly the books, as far as I have seen. And the lede of that article reflects this controversy. But if there is notable verifiable controversy surrounding the novel, of course I agree with you that it should be in the article, and if significant enough, in the lede. Fourth and finally: if you find the lede inadequate on the basis of some encyclopedic knowledge you have, then change it. Or make suggestions here on new wording. Otherwise, what is the point of your comment here?Anthony Krupp 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, thanks for filling me in on what's useful, or helpful, or whatever, here on Wikipedia... and for describing the point (if any) of my remarks. :-) The article was nommed for WP:GA. An insufficient lede (the WP:LEDE guideline is certainly useful; I recommend it) is, if I'm not mistaken, directly addressed in WP:WIAGA as grounds for failure of GA. The lede of this article does not mention any controversy. Now, I am not doing a GA review per se, but was merely pointing that deficiency out to those who are unaware of the various elements of Wikipedia's various style guidelines. However, since I frankly dunno what's useful, and I don't really have any point when commenting, I'll stop here. Bye! Ling.Nut 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ling Nut, thanks for this clarification. I wondered after I posted whether you weren't just (or primarily) commenting on its good-article-ness. Sorry for jumping down your throat. (My excuse: I've been trying to enlighten various knee-jerkers who are mischaracterizing Pullman, his novels, or the film. Was just coming from such an attempt when I replied to your statement above.) Anyway: sorry about the tone. It wasn't you. Best, Anthony Krupp 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

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)

As part of a quick revision, I've removed this statement:

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.'

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

• The article has in-universe problems. The article must approach the stories from the real world with real world sources.
• I used The Illuminatus! Trilogy has my model to judge this article. The organization of sub-headings ought to mimic – if reasonable – this article.

• Two observations. Why does the first book have alternate names? Presumably, this was a marketing reason. When was the trilogy title “His Dark Materials” first used? Was it after the trilogy was completed?

Setting

• In Northern Lights, the story takes place in a world with some similarities to our own; its society seems to resemble the 19th century with Victorian era dress style and steampunk technology level.

This sentence could be divided in two and the phrase ‘steampunk technology level’ is weird.

• It could also be speculated that...

Probably unnecessary padding to the sentence.

• One defining aspect of Pullman's story is his concept of dæmons.

I would say that daemons are a ‘device’ and not a concept. I don’t know much about the series – I listened to the podcast interviews to get up to speed – but the daemon device is central to Pullman’s conception of the stories. Perhaps it can be given more prominence.

• Witches and some humans have entered areas where dæmons cannot physically enter; as such, their dæmons can move as far away from their humans as desired.

I simply don’t understand this sentence.

• In-universe red alert: The section on daemons is written in-universe. The POV ought to be that of Pullman: “Pullman conceived a device bla bla bla …”

• In-universe yellow alert: The steam punk section is quite close to in-universe writing. Please see WP:WAF. The entire section has no citations and one method of keeping grounded in the real world is to reference secondary sources.

Plot summary

• Lord Asriel, followed by Lyra and Pantalaimon, journey through it separately in search of the source of Dust, unaware that they both mean to prevent the Church from destroying it.

I read this sentence twice before I understood it (I think). Probably should be revised.

• The plot summaries are brief (good!) and I think I understand what happens in the stories. Good job.

Character histories

• Character histories are inherently in-universe. This section should be a ‘character analysis’. There are no citations in this section at all. The character analysis should reference secondary sources and give a sense of authorial creation. These are fictional characters after all.

Influences and criticism

• The three major literary influences on His Dark Materials acknowledged by Pullman himself are the essay On the Marionette Theatre by Heinrich von Kleist (which can be found at southerncrossreview.org), the works of William Blake, and, most importantly, John Milton's Paradise Lost, from which the trilogy derives its title as well as many of its basic ideas.

The external link within the article has to be revised to an internal in-line citation. This is also a sentence that could be revised.

• In-universe red alert:

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.”

This whole section is in-univsere. I at first thought that Ruta Skadi was a real world literary critic. Upon reading it, I realized she/he is a character! Must be written with real world references.

• An observation: when discussing the religious implications, it would not be out of place to mention that Pullman’s grand-father was a Church of England priest and that he lived with him for a period.

• In terms of popularity, the trilogy is sometimes compared with fantasy books like A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle,[14] the Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling[15] and the Narnia Heptology itself.

Revise this sentence. It is vague. Quantification might help.

Awards

• This section is not chronological.
• The Amber Spyglass won the 2001 Whitbread Book of the Year award, a prestigious British literature award. This is the first time that such an award has been bestowed on a book from their "children's literature" category.”

There is no inline citation / no reference.

• For a series of books to have won such major awards, this article does not give any ‘feel’ of their literary importance. Also, such honours would imply a rich source of secondary references. I wouldn’t even be surprised if a few masters and PhD thesis were written around the series.

Adaptations

• It was made into a radio drama on BBC Radio 4 starring Terence Stamp as Lord Asriel and Lulu Popplewell (sister of Anna Popplewell, who plays Susan in the The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) as Lyra.”

Revise sentence: trivial and tangential digression.

• A film adaptation, titled The Golden Compass, is to be released in December 7, 2007 by New Line Cinema, the company behind The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. The film was to be directed by Chris Weitz, who also acts as screenwriter. Weitz felt himself unable to deal with the "technical challenges" of the film, and so was replaced for a time by Anand Tucker, but Tucker ultimately left the project due to creative differences and Weitz returned.

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]

Again this is full of tangential digressions. Note that “citation needed” tags are enough to quick-fail a GA nomination.

References in popular culture

• No citations at all. Is any of this stuff notable? Without a secondary source, out it goes.

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)

Wow! Thanks for taking the time to review this. That gives us a checklist to work with. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

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)

Pullman interviews

For keen contributing editors, you may wish to know about two interviews of Pullman in podcast form. See CBC Writers & Co podcasts. Specifically,

• Philp Pullman Part One Interview 48 min.
• Philip Pullman Part Two Interview 39 min.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Steampunk/genre

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 don't recall any specific mention of steam technology in Lyra's world. There was some "retro" tech like dirigibles and naphtha lamps, but there was also electricity and "atomcraft", i.e., nuclear power.--Jwwalker (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

History behind the books

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.

Secret societies have a long history with the Church. It is thought that the Magisterium represents the Inquisition at a time when it was fighting groups like the Carbonari and the Freemasons.

In the 18th century, Pope Clement lauched a decree called In Eminenti that ordered the destruction off all masonic lodges. The masons resisted the Inquisition and eventually became more powerful.

Many magisterial documents were launched agains these groups, including Providas Romanorum, Quo Graviora, Traditi Humilitati, Mirari Vos, Qui Pluribus, Multiplices Inter, Etsi Nos et Humanum Genus. They were accused of infiltrating governments and worshipping lucifer. (see Christianity and Freemasonry).

The books were also influenced by gnosticism, as in some instances he describes a demiurge, a pleroma and a pro-father, which is the gnostic Trinity, as opposed to the Chrstian Trinity.

Cheers, Anthony Krupp (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

References in popular culture

• In the second series of British television's Waterloo Road, an American Christian of unspecified denomination comes to sponsor the school and encourages pupils to burn books - Philip Pullman's works are clearly seen and mentioned by name as evil.

• Author/musician/actor Saul Williams refers to The Subtle Knife in his song "Talk To Strangers."

• Progressive rock band Odin's Court recorded a song on their 2003 album Driven by Fate called "His Dark Materials". The song summarized the trilogy lyrically, and was set to a surreal musical landscape.

• Jazz/Classical four-piece the Portico Quartet named a track on the debut album 'Cittàgazze' after the city in The Amber Spyglass.

• Folk-punk band Defiance, Ohio alluded to the series, specifically the first book, on the track "The Idea of North"

I've moved this here for now, as it's all uncited. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 08:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: what's the difference between 'popular culture' and (just for example) 'some guys in a band wrote a song about this'? Is it a matter of notability? As in: a television show is probably notable enough, given the exposure etc., but is there a notability threshold for the musicians? I'd be glad for any enlightenment on this point. I wouldn't mind there being such a section, but don't want it full of fan-cruft either. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To reduce fancruft and to put a limit on this sort of stuff, I would insist at a minimum that the band has a Wikipedia article. Also, to discourage the endless addition of 'pop references' and to conform to the Manual of Style the section should be written in full sentences within a traditional paragraph. There should be some referenced commentary from a secondary source as to why this pop ref is notable. In other words, it would be 'original research' for a Wikipedia editor to decide that so and so is referencing 'His Dark Materials': we need someone from outside of Wikipedia to tell us that. For further info check Wikipedia:Writing better articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and Wikipedia:Listcruft. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually remember seeing that episode of Waterloo Road... I've tried looking for some, but I can't find any reliable sources where someone specifically mentions that HDM was featured in that episode. Maybe we could get a screenshot or something? The books were actually shown on screen. (If I recall correctly, the episode was the series two finale.) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fansites: legitimate external link or not?

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)

Many fan sites don't meet the WP:EL criteria, but some do. For example, some of the more prominent and well-known ones might feature an interview with the subject of an article, or verifiably genuine materials related to it. In the end, all you can do is assess on a case-by-case basis. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of Pullman's position

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)

MrWhich, the sourced reference material from Pullman's website is unambiguous, and clearly supports his position in the controversy surrounding his views on organized religion that affect the evolution of these three stories. The wording that is used in my reference clarifies his position without using his material as a direct quote. I request that you not use weasle words to describe your views on an edit to a Wikipedia article, and desist in removing adequately worded and clear material that is in support of this article. 66.23.192.182 (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)6623192182

Your wording makes Pullman look unnecessarily "anti-God" with the out-of-context, highly-charged inclusions from what he wrote on his website. Find a flatter, more neutral way to include the material, that does a better job of incorporating the context of his written remarks. (I took the liberty of threading your response. I hope you don't mind.) Mr Which??? 06:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mary Malone

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

Genre

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. Her presentation is here; and her handouts are here.Sanddune777 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the Fantasy genre though; the genre is Steam Punk. It is perfectly common for Steam punk to intersect Fantasy. 129.142.143.67 (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed original research

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)

No discussion of the I Ching?

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)

It seems pretty peripheral to me.--Jwwalker (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sceptical view of the world?

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)

God Being an Angel

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)

Lantern Slides

Are they canon?Lord Of Demise (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

UK/NA Versions

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)

Would absence of a dæmon be counted as really unusual ??

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.

I found a passage which more or less says this: "A human being with no dæmon is like someone without a face, or with their ribs laid open and their heart torn out: something unnatural and uncanny that belonged to the world of night-ghasts, not the waking world of sense." It's right at the start of Capter 13 of Northern Lights. Bluewave (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned by Prince Charles on BBC

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.

Image copyright problem with File:TGCfilm.JPG

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

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)