Follow TV Tropes
Of all relatively recent fantasy series, His Dark Materials is probably one of those that deserves a mention as quite good. Indeed, its impossible to say Philip Pullman didn't made an efford, and shows how real fantasy authors are still existent (sadly overshadowed by shits like Twilight).
Besides finding the narrative and discussion quite interesting, it also made be wonder a lot about metaphysical concepts; its almost like a philosophy book divided in three and disguised as regular fantasy. Indeed, for those interested in philosophy this will be an interesting read. Most notably, the author also truly seems to have done some research or at least accidently made many accurate/almost accurate refferences to mythology, philosophical concepts and science.
That said, I would like to point out the God Is Evil thing isn't as shallow and ass pulled as many people think, though appearently most people can't be satisfied that "God" is just an old angel (leaving room for a real God, which is implied to be Dust) and that he wasn't killed, he just died. Granted, the author made outrageous statements, but weirdly the book doesn't come nowhere as anti-christian as presenting a non-militant atheist's view on Yahweh, which comes rather sympathetic with all the "betrayed by his underling" and "trapped in a flask" thing.
Thus, why the hell are there so many imbeciles that don't read the frekking book and instead go around moaning "oh God Is Evil Pullman's an ass bitch kill him plz" I cannot possibly understand.
My problem with Pullman is the whole C.S.Lewis thing. Okay, Lewis is heavy handed to say the least and his stories aren't unproblematic. I have no issue with Pullman criticises his works and saying that you shouldn't insert your own idealology as an alagory in fantasy stories. That's his opinion and he's entitled to it. But then he goes and does THE EXACT SAME THING from an atheistic view point! I mean dude, you can either say bitch and say that what C.S.Lewis is doing is wrong OR you can write your own counterpoint from your own view. YOU CAN'T DO BOTH YOU HYPOCRITE.
Meh. That being said I didn't actually mind the books all that much. However Pullman's attitude kinda tarnishes the books for me. YMMV.
True, though technically he started the first book before actually writing his critiques on Lewis. That said, by the last book he probably got a little too excited.
At least he handled things better than Christopher Paolini and his atheistic elves
I completely agree with what wellinever said. The story and characters of the books themselves aren't bad and Pullman's a good writer. But he's just so much of a hypocritical asshole that he often uses his gifts in the wrong way for the wrong reasons, which is what puts me and several others off of the books.
@Falconfly- And for that we are truely greatful. I didn't know that he did the Lewis critques after but that just increases the sense of insane troll logic in my mind.
@Manwiththe Plan- Thankyou! Gosh. Sometimes we need Death of the Author don't we? And no I'm not suggesting killing Pullman.
Was anyone else struck by the HUGE disconnect in Lord Asriel's character between books? At the end of the first book the reveal seems to be that instead of heroic and wise he is actually incredibly evil - more evil that Mrs. Coulter, since he shocks her with his plan - and insane. He claims he wants to kill God not to preserve free will but to destroy it. Then in the next book the reveal is basically undone completely and he is heroic again, and wants to kill God for noble reasons. This struck me as an actual about face on the part of Philip Pullman - as if he started off being anti religion but pro God, and then changed his mind between the first and second books. I think his throw away line later that lord Asriel was lying to trick Coulter into joining him was pure retcon. Does anyone know if Pullman has said something like this might be the case?
That retcon makes me angry to this day - he created an amazing monster and then uncreated him without even token character development (he did the same for Coulter, IMO). :(
Yes, that instance always struck me as a bit lazy. I don't think Pullman has said a lot about Lord Asriel, specially not anything regarding his motivations
Pullman is basically said 'you started it' to Lewis. hypocritical? Not really. Mature? umm... Nope.
I thought reviews were supposed to be spoiler free?
Okay, what? I started reading this review and it was quite good. Then near the end, it starts to descend into a rant about people who haven't read the book and the Christian/Atheist argument, which is, as you mentioned, quite stupid. And then the review ends in a trainwreck! What happened?!
I'm not gonna get too involved in this, but what proof do have that they haven't read the book? The fact that the people were discussing how the book changed in character should be quite alot of proof that they did. I know those type of people exist but they're not here and you shouldn't use the "You're just Complaining About Shows You Dont Watch card because it's an emotive and flame war lighting argument.
"Was anyone else struck by the HUGE disconnect in Lord Asriel's character between books?"
Lord Asriel says in the last book that he lied to Mrs Coulter about wanting to destroy dust because he thought that was what she wanted to hear and he wanted her to go with him.
He still never shows much remorse about killing Roger though even in terms of depriving Lyra of her friend.
I have to say, this review started off as insightful and actually would make someone want to read the series as a thought-provoking work of literature. Then... it descends into childish and quite frankly hypocritical ranting against Christians, automatically assuming that anyone who has a problem with the series must be an atheist-bashing Christian who didn't even read the series. Dude, really? The hypocrisy and logical holes are just so out of left field that I have to wonder if someone else didn't take over writing the last part of the review.
I\'ve read this series, and it is extremely anti-religous. Every religious character is portrayed as an evil tyrant who hates joy. Everything having to do with religion is shown in an entirely negative light. If somebody wrote a book about Ireland that showed the country as an unlivable hellhole populated by violent, drunken morons, wouldn\'t you think the book was anti-Irish?
Gotta agree with Mister Tambourine Man here. Even if we buy that idea God was portrayed as sympathetic (despite, you know, being basically fake in this book), the book isn\'t subtle at all in portraying all religions as evil. I mean seriously, even a random and otherwise friendly russian priest met by Will during his travel turns out to be a fanatic and is described as unlikable by the narrative, even though he has no direct connection to the Magisterium. In another chapter, a witch goes on a rant about how Religion in all its form is a horrible thing that only cares about crushing and destroying natural pulsions. And that\'s just two exemples I can think of at the top of my head (which by the way, should prove you I did read the book). I\'m sorry, but you can\'t argue this book isn\'t militantly anti-religious and expect to be taken seriously with things like this.
Leave a Comment:
Community Showcase More