Didn't read the books properly and nor the article, or atleast took it out of context. He was comparing his novels reception in the religious sector tDidn't read the books properly and nor the article, or atleast took it out of context. He was comparing his novels reception in the religious sector to the reception of Harry Potter and how he didn't understand why Harry was taking all the flack.
Also I'm guessing you just missed this entire paragraph, accident I'm sure, "Essentially, the trilogy is about the transition of innocence to experience, the triumph of knowledge over ignorance. When we're introduced to Lyra, we're told the inflexible church authorities in her world are anxious to stem the spread of "Dust". Only later do we find that Dust is good - "the totality of human wisdom and experience" is Pullman's description. It's the religious zealots trying to prevent the spread of wisdom who are the bad guys, even if they wear clerics' robes."
I don't appreciate you implying he's an athiest when he clearly state's he's agnostic. If you're going to quote the article why leave out the last line of the quote???
It was a very good article and enlightened me to a few things I wasn't aware of about the author and books. I thank you for that but I don't appreciate your inaccurate useage of those quote to serve your own purose. If you have a valid point you shouldn't have to use deception and omission to get said point across.
Finally I wanna leave with what I found to be the most interesting paragraphy in that article, direct and uncut. Pay close attention to the last line, I think it's the best. "That's not to say I disparage the religious impulse. I think the impulse is a critical part of the wonder and awe that human beings feel. What I am against is organised religion of the sort which persecutes people who don't believe. I'm against religious intolerance." ...more