The Golden Compass
discussion
doesn't anyone else hate this book?
Sue wrote: "I felt that the book seemed flat and almost dully written. I did not bother with the sequels, and as anyone can see, the sequels haven't made it onto the big screen. So I guess that most people wou..."No more movies have been made because the film did not make as much money as the studio would have liked (though it was more successful overseas - go figure). It has nothing to do with the quality of the remaining books. So, no.
Sam wrote: "That would be fine if he kept his religion to himself and not make it into a children's book. Do you know the whole reason he wrote the book was to turn kids atheist?"I don't get this criticism. It's akin to saying that C.S. Lewis should have kept his Christian allegory out of Narnia - "do you know the whole reason he wrote this book was to turn kids Christian!"
An author should feel free to espouse a philosophical view through writing of any genre, and atheism is as valid a belief as any religious one. Read them all and figure out what you want/like/believe - but I don't agree with the thought that only Christians can write stories meant to inspire young people. Good people and good writing come from all beliefs and backgrounds, just as bad people and bad writing. Judge the book by the book's merits, not by the author's.
In my own case, I illustrate this by my love of Ender's Game, and my less enthusiastic endorsement of Orson Scott Card's personal belief system. I'm not going to pass up a classic SF text just because I disagree with the author's world and religious views (vehemently), and I *think* that helps keep me both open-minded and well-read. :)
Greg wrote: "An author should feel free to espouse a philosophical view through writing of any genre, and atheism is as valid a belief as any religious one. Read them all and figure out what you want/like/believe - but I don't agree with the thought that only Christians can write stories meant to inspire young people. Good people and good writing come from all beliefs and backgrounds, just as bad people and bad writing. "Right on, Greg.
I actually liked the book.I think what Phillip Pullman is trying to explain is that maybe the church should not hold all the power.Also one girl and later on her friend were brave enough to fix what the church did wrong.
K-lee wrote: "I actually liked the book.I think what Phillip Pullman is trying to explain is that maybe the church should not hold all the power.Also one girl and later on her friend were brave enough to fix what the church did wrong."Well said, K-lee
I loved the book! I'm not Christian so the religion parts didn't bother me and I thought that the fantasy was amazing-difrent worlds, golden dust, talking bears and the daemon thing is great to.
Philip Pullman is one of my favorite authors!
Philip Pullman is one of my favorite authors!
Ashley wrote: "To be honest, I haven't even read the book and I already hate the book because its written by an athiest and that contradicts my religion. In plus, my church is bascally banning us from reading the..."What religion are you? I don't think it's against many religions to read books written by atheists.
But, anyway, I am sympathetic to this point of view. This book is anti-religious, and that rubs some people the wrong way. You don't have to read it.
But just because you disagree with the rhetoric doesn't make it a bad book. You can totally ignore the propaganda and just enjoy the story. The series has a lot of people's favorite romance ever, a slew of incredible characters, and has a totally epic fight between anthropomorphic polar bears. What more could you want?
Lynden wrote: "Another reason I dislike this story is that is marketed as young adult material. It is aiming at young people who may not have much of as religious grounding. It can be easily viewed as subversive. It is just another way of saying that black is white, and white is black. After a while nobody knows the difference between good and bad. As for myself, I go by the book - the Good Book (not casting aspersions upon any other religion). I do believe in being open minded; but not so open minded that your doors are unhinged. "Bet you have no objection to your favorite fantasy novel being read to kids, though, hmm?
These books are absolutely subversive and thank god, I mean Phil, for it. Teach kids to think for themselves before they get too brainwashed. We need more like them.
I really didn't like The Golden Compass--and it had nothing to do with the religious aspects at all.I felt that the world that Mr. Pullman created was original, and I enjoyed reading the book. It was easy to get into the story, and become invested in the characters.
That said, I felt the ending of the book was seriously lacking. I don't want to spoil the ending at all, so I'll just say that I felt like the last couple of chapters were just a huge bait-and-switch for drama's sake, followed by a clumsy cliffhanger for the next book.
While this may have made good sense in terms of the trilogy's story arc, I didn't have any sense of closure or denouement at the end of the book. Instead, I felt like the author was saying "Hey, now that you're invested in these characters, buy my next book!" right at the point where we would expect things to get wrapped up.
The whole thing left such a bad taste in my mouth that I haven't bothered to pick up the next two books in the series.
If you know it's three books, why would you expect anything to get wrapped up at the end of the first?You could always get the omnibus edition and read it that way.
Scott wrote: "If you know it's three books, why would you expect anything to get wrapped up at the end of the first?You could always get the omnibus edition and read it that way."
I don't know anything about the other two books, except for the descriptions about the story arc that I've read on the internet.
As to your question: I feel a book should stand on its own--especially if it's the first book in a series. Do I believe everything should be wrapped up at the end? Absolutely not...but there should be some sense of closure at the end of a story, even if there are tantalizing bits left out there to whet your appetite for the next book. Subsequent books can perhaps go easy on the exposition, since we already know the world and characters to some degree, but should also have satisfying endings.
This is what I felt was lacking from the first book, and I don't feel like I should have to buy the second book (or omnibus edition, as you suggest) in order to feel satisfied at the book's ending. This suggestion of yours that I have to buy more books to feel any sense of closure is exactly what led me to feel ripped off at the end of the Golden Compass.
It feels like some kind of cheesy cliffhanger gimmick engineered to sell me the next book by manipulating my need for resolution, rather than letting the strength of the story do that on its own. It's ironic, in a way, because if it hadn't been for the cliffhanger ending, I likely would have picked the second one up.
To be fair, I can't truthfully say that I hate this book with a passion because I never got more than a hundred pages in (though I did watch the movie). The plot, is just... BAD. I really have no other way to describe it. He probably lost money on this book after all the money for dope I'm sure he had to use to come up with something this brainless. Maybe it's just me, but I'm just putting it out there.
Gregory wrote: "This is what I felt was lacking from the first book, and I don't feel like I should have to buy the second book (or omnibus edition, as you suggest) in order to feel satisfied at the book's ending."If it were an indefinite series, I would feel the same, but it is a story spread out over three volumes (probably for practicality's sake), meant to stand as a unit. You shouldn't really pick up the first volume unless you plan to read the whole thing.
The Lord of the Rings (for example) is the same.
Peter wrote: "Keelin, get back to the other end of the internet. If you want to have a serious intellectual discussion about books and/or religion, use proper spelling, grammar, capitalisation and punctuation...."
You took the words right out of my mouth. :D Well, I read the book on a train journey, and the atmosphere seemed perfect. I enjoyed it, and didn't think too much about the religion part. I just enjoyed it as decent fiction. But perhaps I'm just shallow. ;) :D
Sam wrote: "Listen, believe me, I got this from a reliable source. The author was asked and he said that he wrote the books to turn kids atheist, OK?"Philip Pullman is not stupid enough to just blurt that out in an interview. Use your judgment, people. He wrote a philosophical novel to turn kids atheist? Don't make me laugh. He wanted you to be more critical towards religion, an advice you certainly could use. Don't believe everything you read because it agrees with you. It's called criticism!
Me! There is not enough detail in this book and then too much! No describing characters or anything.
thats crazy i admit but the thing is i think i would want an dark material religion.
don't believe in it because its not fact its (non fiction) thats the point of the word
I thought this was one of the best books in my top 3
When I read I read all I wanted to, know in description
Plus, most of our lives, our full of critism
and well done for Pullman being biased, in his own belief
His dark materials isn't a piece of atheist writing. It is actually a piece of gnostic writing, an early medieval religion popular in eastern Europe and middle East. It was almost entirely eradicated by the Catholic church and Islam.The beliefs of this religion are almost identical to the story of His dark materials, that a false god sits on a throne in heaven.
Many of the symbols and meanings of this religion have been taken and subverted to mean the opposite by the Catholic church.
1 - It's three books; fiction, fantasy - 3 great reads.2- I cried so much at the end of the third book. The separation of two people so in love just devastated me.
3 - I recently read that Lewis claimed Narnia was not religious. Tolkien claimed The Hobbit, et al, were the fight of Christianity against evil.
4 - They are all wonderful reads, isn't that the point? If you only read those writers who agree with you, your mind is never challenged to think. And isn't our ability to think was sets us apart? Never quit reading and learning; we are all a work in progress.
Peter wrote: "Keelin, get back to the other end of the internet. If you want to have a serious intellectual discussion about books and/or religion, use proper spelling, grammar, capitalisation and punctuation...."
I couldn't agree more. Reasonable people can discuss a point from both sides without resorting to whatever speech Keelin is speaking. I don't read his comments.
My greatest problem with this book it isn't because is anti-religion, anti-god or whatever. I can deal with that. It is because the children aren't children. Pullman is really, really, really BAD in writing children. If there is something I remember well is my childhood, which was kind of normal, is that don't remember a minute in which I acted and thought like Lyra in the book, or any of my friends. Kids like to play, like running around, like to make trouble, but Lyra and the other children are forced to do that by a writer who don't know how kids function psychologically. I began reading "The Subtle Knife" but couldn't put past Lyra being like the way she was written. She isn't a child, she is a copy of what Pullman think it is a child. But the mythology is ok.
The first novel was excellent. It was speculating on a Victorian England being run by the church. It had the classic adventure of a Jules Verne novel and the speculative wonder of an H.G. Wells book.
I didn't really enjoy the sequels as much. Though they were entertaining, more and more Phillip Pullman began to reveal his atheist allegory and that really distracts the reading experience. The first was fun, slightly controversial and overall, intriguing.
So besides the fact that this novel was written by a man who wasn't afraid to shed his beliefs (for the worst), he created something really memorable.
As for the movie. Well, if you actually did research or looked something up you would know it wasn't because the second story sucked (WHY WOULD THEY MAKE A MOVIE IN THE FIRST PLACE?!) it was because the church hated being presented in a negative light. I thought the idea was a socialist masterpiece until his allegory became clearer personally.
I didn't really enjoy the sequels as much. Though they were entertaining, more and more Phillip Pullman began to reveal his atheist allegory and that really distracts the reading experience. The first was fun, slightly controversial and overall, intriguing.
So besides the fact that this novel was written by a man who wasn't afraid to shed his beliefs (for the worst), he created something really memorable.
As for the movie. Well, if you actually did research or looked something up you would know it wasn't because the second story sucked (WHY WOULD THEY MAKE A MOVIE IN THE FIRST PLACE?!) it was because the church hated being presented in a negative light. I thought the idea was a socialist masterpiece until his allegory became clearer personally.
Ashley wrote: "To be honest, I haven't even read the book and I already hate the book because its written by an athiest and that contradicts my religion. In plus, my church is bascally banning us from reading the..."I would be more worried about a church which thinks it holds the power to 'Ban' it's congretation from reading a book. Are we not all free to choose?
chris wrote: "There are reasons for me hating The Golden Compass. First of all, I pretended to like it at the beginning of the year when I actually didn't like it, and then these kids made fun of me because they..."I am pleased to see our young people reading and intelligently discussing the books they are reading.
Chris, I am sorry the kids made fun of you at school, kids can be pretty mean at times. My best advice to you, is to be true to yourself. If you do not like a book, go with that. It is nobody else's business unless you want it to be. You sound like a pretty smart kid, keep,reading, it only gets better as you get older.
Ashley wrote: "To be honest, I haven't even read the book and I already hate the book because its written by an athiest and that contradicts my religion. In plus, my church is bascally banning us from reading the..."The church is NOT the be all and end all of anything.
Think for yourself. Allow NO ONE to tell you what to think or believe. Question EVERYTHING!
Maíra wrote: "My greatest problem with this book it isn't because is anti-religion, anti-god or whatever. I can deal with that. It is because the children aren't children. Pullman is really, really, really BAD i..."There are scenes in which the children run around and play in the first book. After that, they are too busy with other things. I had no trouble believing that these were children--intelligent children.
Scott wrote: "There are scenes in which the children run around and play in the first book. After that, they are too busy with other things. I had no trouble believing that these were children--intelligent children. "Besides, do kids in fantasy books tend to spend much time running around and playing? I haven't really thought about it before. Off the top of my head, I don't think so.
I can't say I've ever noticed it before either. Who wants to read about that anyway? The most boring parts of Harry Potter are the Quidditch matches. In The Golden Compass it sets the scene and introduces some characters, but otherwise it would just be filler.
Scott wrote: "Maíra wrote: "My greatest problem with this book it isn't because is anti-religion, anti-god or whatever. I can deal with that. It is because the children aren't children. Pullman is really, really..."There are, but they're written in a way which seems to lack the innocence, imagination and naivité of children. They seem like adults playing children. One book which children were written in great way was Momo, by Michael End.
Nothing makes me want to read a book more than someone telling me that it's something I shouldn't read. I liked these books and think the religious undertones are aimed more at eliminating idolatry and false gods, along with man's corruption of such, rather than a supreme being.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it really emphasized (in my unprofessional opinion) the idea that a more pure relationship with the universe is something worth striving for.
Having said that, I didn't find it overtly religious in any way and enjoyed it for the story it brought.
Maíra wrote: "My greatest problem with this book it isn't because is anti-religion, anti-god or whatever. I can deal with that. It is because the children aren't children. Pullman is really, really, really BAD i..."I read this book years ago when I was in my early teens, which is about the same age as the characters. (It's on my list right now of books I would like to re-read if I ever get time.) I found them very realistic and relatable. They aren't exactly children, and so the author shouldn't treat them as such. This story shows their transition from kids to adults. As Scott mentioned, when we first meet Lyra she's an innocent and playful child, but by the end of the story she has greatly matured, as manifested by the fact that at the very end her daemon settles on his final form.
I agree that the first book was better than the second and third.
Sandi wrote: "1 - It's three books; fiction, fantasy - 3 great reads.2- I cried so much at the end of the third book. The separation of two people so in love just devastated me.
3 - I recently read that Lewis..."
I love these books and proudly keep them on my main bookshelf. However, I was not at all satisfied with the ending of the third book, when the characters are "in love". I remember I read it maybe 8 or 9 years ago (I was around 19 or 20), and the final scene with them in love made me squirm. I kept thinking "How old are they???" If I remember well, she was 12 and he was either 13 or 14.
Maybe it's just me being an antagonist to romance, but I didn't think that mad love made sense.
I'm not a fan of this book. It didn't hook my attention and compel me to keep reading, but more importantly I just didn't like the story line. I also didn't care for the "killing God" bit, but the author may say what he likes about whatever religion he likes, and that in and of itself wasn't a reason for me to stop reading. It is a reason that I wouldn't recommend the book to a child.
I don't really see how the book is anti-religious. It does not promote anti-religion. And before you jump down my throat, the "God" that they were trying to kill was actually an angel posing as God. If you read the book you would know this. Sigh. Just because the book highlights flaws of the CHURCH does not mean that it is criticizing the RELIGION.
I've just caught up with the comments and find the religious versus nonreligious discussions fascinating. For me, reading the series as an adult, it was more mind opening to different ideas. Questions about God, church, etc., are always worth exploring. Every book that makes me pause and contemplate myself, the universe, faith, no faith, I appreciate reading. Busy lives sometimes get in the way of the "thinking" moments which our brains are more capable (we're told; no one will convince me my dog doesn't think, else why go get that toy and not the one in front of her) than other living things. It puts my "musts" in perspective. A good process.
When I read this book I thought it was a mix between Narnia and Harry Potter... but it wasn't that bad, I can't say I hated it but it was not what I really really expected.
i didnt like the movie but i havent read it and now tht its all about againts religion i have to read it myself to belive it
I have read just to many post on this book. I have seen the movie and read the book. I plan to read the next 2. If you want to take a religious look at the book then fine.. Just keep it to yourself! If we would have named the sprit animals instead of deamons, would that have made you happy! If you want to take that kind of look at his book, then look at it like this: The deamon's represent the evil or good in all of us. Everyone has two sides to them. As far as feelings about him not liking the church.. well open up a history book people! There have been more people killed in the name of religion then ego! So if he felt that way I think he had just cause.
I personally like the book.. can't wait to read the others. It is what it is fiction! Just as I like , Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and any other fiction writing. If you want to debate someones religion then read a work by that person talking about their religion. That is the only time it is up for debate.. when they put it down on paper for you to debate it.
Yeah, I read as kid thought it was stupid and kinda dumb. besides, the author point because describe his book as basically a "rebuttal of Chronicle Narnia, missus the 'religious propaganda'". The book was basically a atheists child's version of religious allegory novel such as Lord of the Rings and Chronicle of Narnia. So yes, it is anti-religion. Plus, it stupid and somewhat confusing to kids. I honestly didn't understand what it about and more of an adult book, with very dark themes.
I personally think it an overate adult anti-religious allegory. When a book so original, far fetch, and has dark, mystical themes, it usually label "good".
thats terrible. It is such a good book
I also disliked the heavy anti-religious themes in the series. I didn't feel like it got over the top until the last book, but I found it distracting from the plot.
Just because a book has different opinions on religion and the universe/world than you or your church does, doesn't mean that it's bad. If you do not expose yourself to many varying opinions on a consistent basis, then you become close-minded and ignorant.
Even has "different religious opinions " there still one thing about the book: the writing is terrible ! It thick and hard to understand, especially for a book market to 3-5 graders! Even if take religion out of the picture , it still Terrible!
Plus there is a difference between "religious" and anti - religious beliefs. Religious belief are a set of beliefs , anti-religious us when direct prove a set of religious belief are wrong. That what the writer set out to do.
Dani wrote: "Even has "different religious opinions " there still one thing about the book: the writing is terrible ! It thick and hard to understand, especially for a book market to 3-5 graders!
Even if take ..."
He wasn't trying to prove Christianity wrong. It states something to the effect of "god" being real, but a dictator no better than anyone else, but not that he's inexistent. If you want a book set on proving "god" wrong, you could always try Dawkins or whatever.
Also, I don't think it's marketed to 3rd-5th graders....
The content itself is clearly not elementary level, nor was is it appropriate for people of that age. It's about young-ish kids (Lyra and will are both 12, right?), but for adults.
Even if take ..."
He wasn't trying to prove Christianity wrong. It states something to the effect of "god" being real, but a dictator no better than anyone else, but not that he's inexistent. If you want a book set on proving "god" wrong, you could always try Dawkins or whatever.
Also, I don't think it's marketed to 3rd-5th graders....
The content itself is clearly not elementary level, nor was is it appropriate for people of that age. It's about young-ish kids (Lyra and will are both 12, right?), but for adults.
I don't think Compass in particular is all that anti-religious. Despite the dust-as-metaphor-for-sin, it still feels like a completely escapist experience. It's an adventure with a kid. Based on the later books, you can still question Pullman's motive--but I never felt lectured at all in Compass. The Amber Spyglass, absolutely, but Compass is still one my favorite books. Reread it every two years.
That said, the last two books are still extremely fun, even if they feel like a well disguised argument.
I don't hate it, but I wouldn't rate it one of my faves. I much prefer Narnia, Tamora Pierce, Madeleine l'Engle, and Paolini. Even the Dark Is Rising series is better.
Chris wrote: "Enough. I get the point. No one else hates it. I guess I'm an oddball again. Just keep in mind that everybody has their own opinion, some like it some don't, and I didn't like it. You know what? It..."Chris you're not an odd ball, you're just defending your beliefs. You are still very young, so don't be afraid to give it a second chance in 5 or so years. I'm 27, and there are books I really hated when I was 12, that I have re-read and discovered not as bad as I remembered. I think what this book is about is trying to answer a great philosophical question: ¿what if all we know until now is not true?, ¿what if free will is about finding knowledge and wisdom to live a peaceful life, and not particularly about deciding if heaven of hell are the rightful place to you? I'm Colombian, so I read the spanish version, which was, in my humble opinion, OK. I think Lyra, in books 2 and 3, looses some of her ingenuous charm as she is begging to be dependable of Will, which may suck to some persons, but gives Will a great personality. That doesn't make any of the characters thick or unloveable. I guess Pullman wrote this book as what it is: a book for young adults, persons who are deciding their lives and need to be questioned about many things, so their personalities and beliefs grow stronger (not children, do not sub-estimate them). I for one don't belive in the church, neither in God, at least not as the christian-catholic-islamic-judaistic institutions picture him, and yet, as you have verified ¡there is magic in this book!: there is fantasy, there are spirits, there are other worlds unbeknown to us, so I think you should really call the book "agnostic" not "atheistic", which is pretty different stuff. I guess what Pull is trying to say is: "it's arrogant to believe that a single church (an historically corrupt, over-morally, totally fanatic, and pro-banning institution), has the reason about who the "Autority" is and how it behaves. ¿What if you kill that God?, ¿What happens next?, Isn't there something bigger than us, so big that is not understandable to us? Think of that, don't swallow what I'm saying, I'm not interested in convincing you about nothing, you have to decide yourself, only think of it, get your own conclusions. Cheers! And happy holidays.
I have no religious axe to grind, but I found the book to be ok. Not as good as it's made out to be, and not that bad either. It does drag in places.
You wrote:it's arrogant to believe that a single church (an historically corrupt, over-morally, totally fanatic, and pro-banning institution), has the reason about who the "Autority" is and how it behaves. ¿What if you kill that God?, ¿What happens next?, Isn't there something bigger than us, so big that is not understandable to us?Actually, Pullman isn't the only author who tries to make that point. A key theme in Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar series is "There is no one true way."
But even if folks do have strong religious or political beliefs or whatever, I don't see why people have to nitpick and get hung up on what they perceive a book's alleged symbolism is. Isn't it possible any more to just read for entertainment and not worry about deeper meanings?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Subtle Knife (other topics)
His Dark Materials (other topics)
The Subtle Knife (other topics)
The Golden Compass (other topics)
H.P. Lovecraft (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Neil Gaiman (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
A Chance Beginning (other topics)The Subtle Knife (other topics)
His Dark Materials (other topics)
The Subtle Knife (other topics)
The Golden Compass (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Christopher Patterson (other topics)H.P. Lovecraft (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Neil Gaiman (other topics)
If one is not a fan of fantasy, don't read this book, because it certainly is; and at that point it is simply a matter of personal preference, which is fine. Is that a reason to negatively rate and publicly denounce a work, especially one you probably haven't finished? I doubt it. Though it is difficult, viewing novels in an objective manner, that is, regardless of personal preference, is a good habit to exercise.
And, of course, to address the "anti-religious" content of the book. First off, technically this is only a discussion based on the first novel, in which there is very of that to be seen. However, since that distinction is difficult to make, it falls upon the series as a whole. Do they seek to kill god? Yes. Note how I intentionally did not capitalize that noun, for, if one had payed attention and gave the book a fair due, it is mentioned several times that it is not God they seek to kill, but an angel setting himself up as a deity.
Does not the Bible state "worship no other gods before me?" To do anything but rebel against the literally false god in the series would actually be the sacrilegious route. As numerous other comments have stated, I shall reiterate: the series is more anti-dogma than anything else. Do you have firmly held individual beliefs? That's fine, but don't follow them blindly and without question just because someone tells you to, make you own choices, and stand fast behind them. THAT is the message of these novels.