The Amber Spyglass The Amber Spyglass discussion

Am I the only one that hated this series?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 105 (105 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

message 1: by Lori (last edited Aug 25, 2016 02:16PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Lori Anderson I see all these glowing reviews so I feel lonely in the world of Gee-I-Really-Hated-This.

Lori Anderson

Lori Anderson:The Store

Lori Anderson:The Blog

message 2: by Charles (last edited Aug 25, 2016 02:17PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Charles Lindsey I'm a mild dissenter, too. Me, I thought it started out as a tart, original, meaningful fantasy but fell prey to red herrings and soapboxing. The third book was terribly anticlimactic, considering its subject matter, and I lost track of how many appearances there were of the deus ex machina -- another irony, I guess.

message 3: by Lori (new) - rated it 1 star

Lori Anderson I felt that it was anticlimactic as well, regardless of how I felt about the series as a whole.

message 4: by Lori (new) - rated it 1 star

Lori Anderson I guess I was looking for people who thought the same way I did, rather than being told why I was an idiot. Oh well.

message 5: by Charles (last edited Feb 25, 2008 11:08AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Charles Lindsey Lori, you're certainly not an idiot. There are a lot of reasons to dislike, even hate, an ambitious book -- and this trilogy was surely ambitious, breaking conventions and taboos right and left. People will be arguing over it for years (case in point: my daughter's class is reading "Huckleberry Finn." 'Nuff said). Blasphemy is its middle name. Notice, also, that people are dissing the movie version of "The Golden Compass" for being both sacrilegious and not sacrilegious enough. It's also fair to dislike Lyra -- heroes and heroines are a matter of taste. (Anybody in an Ayn Rand novel makes me break out in hives.) Just looking at the Pullman trilogy as a "good read," I thought it was disappointing. So, in the spirit of Philip Pullman, more power to the iconoclasts!

message 6: by Lori (new) - rated it 1 star

Lori Anderson Thanks for your kind words (and I'm glad the nasty ones from another were deleted.

I think I was mostly surprised that this was supposed to be a kids/teen book, and it didn't strike me that way at all -- very serious stuff.

I liked Will a great deal, but not Lyra. I wonder if I would have felt differently about the series if Will had been the first main character introduced?

It's funny, I was on the third book when I realized they were going to kill God and I already wasn't grooving on the book. I have a very strong faith, kind of a mix of various religions, but have never felt the need to foist it on anyone else, so while that part bothered me, I certainly would never say to not read the book or ban it. It DOES make people think, which is good.

I've been swept away by certain books and I was hoping/expecting this one too and it didn't, darn it.

khrome I've read other people comment that they didn't like Lyra's transition through the series. I didn't have any personal attachments to her in the first book, so I accepted her change later on, and I can actually see the psychological reasons for the change. But I'm curious, you mention you didn't like her character - did you not like the Book 1 Lyra, or the Books 2/3 Lyra?

By the way, it's a big misconception that they kill God (see page 28.)

message 8: by Lori (new) - rated it 1 star

Lori Anderson I'll take the 2nd question first -- I missed that, apparently. I think by that time I was just slogging through it and was confused sometimes and wasn't always entirely sure what was what. I'm not a stupid person, but I think the fact I wasn't into the book contributed to my "duh, what?" moments.

To Lyra -- I really didn't like her in the first book and it kind of stuck. I liked Will's influence on her, and she ended up being more likeable, but again, the fact that the entire series just wasn't doing it for me made it hard.

I like Mary. I thought she was one cool chick and I liked her adaptability to things.

Claire Ok, so I'm going to have spoilers in this post, fyi.

Lori, I completely agree with you, and I think you and I are probably in the same boat. I am a person with quite a strong faith. I didn't know that the series was going to be so openly atheistic, but looking back I feel that that really didn't have a major effect on my overall opinion of the book.

1) I didn't like Lyra. I thought she was a bratty child, and I just couldn't relate. 2) I never understood why she hated her "parents" so much. It could have worked out, and I don't understand why the author pushed her against them so much. 3) The entire series just went downhill after the first book. It had SO much potential, but the third book was just terrible. I still can't really understand what happened. 4) What the EFF was the author thinking?!?! 12-year-olds having sex? Please. That was the biggest cop-out that I've ever read, and I feel that it was the most disturbing image in the entire series.

I read the series because I anticipated the movie. I doubt I'll see it anytime soon now, just because I so strongly disliked the progression of the book. I think I'm definitely getting too emotional about this, but so are all these religion/anti-religion busybodies out there. They get me worked up.

Now I'm all huffing and puffing. I just don't think anything will ever compare to Chronicles of Narnia. Just...never. I adore that series too much to even think of such a thing.

khrome Claire - I understand your dislike for the book, but I have to comment about Lyra hating her parents so much. She pretty much had no parental upbringing or discipline. There were plenty of adults around but it's not the same. Even in the real world, it's much more difficult to bring up a child as a single parent, let alone having no parents! And to find out later that you had been lied to and pretty much abandoned - it would take a while to regain (or gain, in Ms. Coulter's case) trust. Like I mentioned earlier, there are psychological reasons for all the characters' behaviours - Pullman just doesn't blatantly tell you what they are. You have to deduce it yourself by understanding the history of each person. For me, it made reading the books interesting.

I enjoyed the trilogy, but I do agree the last two books have quite a bit of violence and adult content, and would be better suited for older-young-adults, not elementary school children. I'm surprised that some bookstores shelve them in the children section.

message 11: by Jason (new)

Jason Piele I have always loved a good fantasy series, especially the ones that evoke that addictive, child-like wonder (e.g., Chronicles of Narnia, The Prydain Chronicles, Earthsea, etc.). I thought this series was going to be another one that did that for me - not so much.

Honestly, I REALLY enjoyed the first book; but have to agree with prior comments about Lyra not being a particularly sympathetic lead character. If the second and third books has continued in the same vein as the first, I would have been a happy camper. Unfortunately, the second book took this extreme right turn and ended up having a completely different "feel." At this point, I barely even remember how the series ended as it just didn't keep my interest.

I don't really understand all the hype around this trilogy. Good first book; but the rest was dreck in my opinion.

Sarah I don't think the 12 year olds had sex... I think they understood (like most of us when we hit puberty) that there was something there to be intersted in ... KNOWLEDGE of it.

But that being said, I loved Lyra in teh first book - fiesty, bratty, tough, and not afraid of anyone. And I hated Will - so fastidious and stuffy. And in the end, she became more willing to please him which pissed me off.

But I did find the character of Mrs. Coulter fascinating. Never was sure how I felt about her and sadly, couldn't stop picturing Nicole Kidman's face.

My final verdict - liked the Golden Compass quite a bit and didn't really like the other two very much. If I'm going to read a young adult fantasy, I'd prefer it to be a bit more fun or a bit more fantastic. All that crap about the Melufa and Mary Malone just bored me silly.

message 13: by John (new) - rated it 3 stars

John Stafiej I was torn on all 3 of these books. I want to give the author props for creativity, but sometimes (ok, most times) I could not tell whether he was trying to write to young children or adults. It lacked consistency and I think he tried to add a little too much fantastical happenings in these books.

My overall opinion is that he had a good concept, but it wasn't executed very well. Where was a good editor when he needed one?

Chris I was so disappointed in the third book! I listened to all three on audio. The first and second books were wonderful. Pullman narrates and all the characters are done by different actors and they are fantastic productions. (But if you don't like Lyra, you'll probably hate her voice when she really starts getting carried away with her lies!)

The third book seemed unfocused and anticlimatic. The author spent way too much time on Mary Malone's life with the Melufa (a plot that had no purpose, IMO) when he should have spent more time explaining other elements.

message 15: by Jac (new)

Jac i read the 1st book in-anticipation of the movie.... didn't enjoy it.... but i thought since i started the 1st why not try the 2nd... i dreaded it....

And I didn't bother with the last book....... now that i read the reviews that it's anti climatic... i'm so glad i didn't bother with it.

message 16: by Luke (new) - rated it 5 stars

Luke Man, I cant believe you all thought this series was anti-climatic. How is it possibly anticlimatic? I understand if your very religious and didnt like it because of that. (although this series is not about killing god, only the authority.. its more of a statement agianst organised religion than anything else.)

I just have to say: to everyone saying these aren't YA books, Pullman is english (from england), and they apparently expose children to things like this much earlier than americans would.

Charles Lindsey Spoilers OK?


Anticlimactic ... let me count the ways. One, the sheer heady pace of the first novel was never duplicated. It had downshifted by volume two and slowed to a molasses crawl by volume three. Then there was Lyra -- fiery, resourceful, iconoclastic at the start, hesitant and secondary at the close, finally shoehorned back into a world she had transcended 400 pages earlier (and in the end, deserted by her only real talent, her powerful intuition). The war between god and creation? A damp sparkler. A few guns, a few spooks, a little blood, and it's over. Even Luke Skywalker worked harder than that, not to mention Frodo. The final rassling match between the most powerful angel in the world and Lyra's folks? Ridiculous and unconvincing. They TOSSED HIM INTO A DITCH. This is the power that's enslaved all of creation since forever? What about Monkey Woman's change of heart toward Lyra? Unconvincing also, jarring and simplistic. Lord Asriel gets away with murder(Roger) and the author seems to have forgotten. Wonderful Iorek and the Gyptians are downgraded to a cast of extras. Lee Scoresby does such a great death scene that he gets to be killed twice. The harpies of hell set aside eons of deep evil so they can attend Story Time With Lyra. But the worst letdown ultimately is the shift from action to speechifying. The god-killing momentum that should have expressed itself in acts limps along under the burden of talk. By the close, you shouldn't have to rely on the musings of a backslidden nun to frame the war of rationality vs. religion. And when you end an epic with a new Adam and a new Eve, you need a new CREATION ... not Lyra meekly settling down for a future of book learning and for all I know needlepoint at a Jordan College where she's just another awkward tweener. Nor do you put Adam and Eve into separate rooms for the rest of their lives. C'mon, Genesis as just another long-distance relationship that didn't work out?? Anticlimactic, yes.

message 18: by Edmond (last edited Feb 24, 2008 02:06PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Edmond I guess I don't get the big deal. I thought Philip Pullman told an amazing story but it was just a story. He wasn't trying to write a new bible or anything. What I got from these books was that life is not easy but takes drive and determination. You need to think and imagine and learn to keep the world fresh and new. I think those are lessons that are important for children to learn and adults to remember and I believe those books emphasize them.

As for the religious elements, it's a STORY. If your faith is so weak as to be rocked or shattered by a work of fiction then you might want to go do a little personal introspection. My grandmother is a very devout christian and after reading these books she loved them. Half way through reading "The Subtle Knife" she called me and said she thought the books were rather anti-christian but she planned on finishing them reguardless. When she finished "Amber Spyglass" (which was my personal favorite and so far from anticlimatic as anything can be IMO) we went out for lunch to discuss the series and she told me that she was wrong about the books. She thought that the books definately highlighted the danger of corruption in organized religion, it also showed the that faith comes from within and being kind and compassionate and having love for all is what it truly means to be christian and that was what she thought was the main message. My point is that I think people are missing the truly bigger picture of these books and reguardless of your faith these books do teach valuable life lessons and it's just a great story to read.

message 19: by April (new)

April I completely agree with Charley!! The first book really seemed to have something, but it just never went anywhere!! And it was totally anticlimatic! If your fighting against God and angels, I'd expect it to be amazing to say the least. You know the saying, biblical proportions. WELL that's what I expected the war to be like, biblical!! Or that it would've taken much more to change everything. It seemed like Pullman came up with the ending as he went along and couldn't come up with real explanations for everything!

Charley said it best!

Brigid ✩ I loved the Golden Compass. But the second and third books are really horrible. It was just so bizarre by the third book that I could barely understand what was going on. I mean, they killed God? What?! The reason I did not like this is not because I'm religious (because I'm not) or even that I believe in God (which I'm not sure if I do), but just because it was really strange and random. I just didn't get it. I thought that the first book was amazing, but that the whole thing just went downhill after that.

Edmond Ok people they did not kill God. You obviously missed the part where the Angel Xaphania explained that the "Authority" was not in fact the creator. He was mearly the first angel to coalesce into consciousness. The universe and everything in it was already there he just claimed to have created everything because he was the 1st being to acheive a conscious state. Phillip Pullman didn't go into the creation of the Universe, the books were about how consciousness itself came into being. If anything or anyone in the series was "God" it would've been Dust itself. Dust was the catalyst that caused certain beings to become conscious. To quote the book "Matter loves matter and yearns to understand itself and all that which is around it." It's not really that difficult to grasp if you actually read the books thoroughly.

message 22: by Charles (last edited Mar 17, 2008 02:09PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Charles Lindsey "My books are about killing God." -- Philip Pullman, 2003. Why not take him at his word?

With more from the same interview:
"If we're talking on the scale of human life and the things we see around us, I'm an atheist. There's no God here. There never was. But if you go out into the vastness of space, well, I'm not so sure."

God as a person, as the petty tyrant over Earth and related worlds, as the monotheistic embodiment, the great father in the sky, Yahweh, Elohim, Allah ... but of course Pullman kills God. What he leaves open in that interview is what some consider a tamer way of declaring agnosticism: I've never visited the whole universe, so I can't say for sure that there isn't some force, sentient being, some immanence out there (my paraphrase). But lots of folks have always seen that as a cheap footnote. Bertrand Russell mocked it when he talked about the teapot orbiting in space: does a skeptic or agnostic have to DISprove the teapot's existence? Or should they rely on the ordinary, useful evidence of the senses -- you haven't proved the teapot, and it's highly implausible, so belief should be dismissed. By the same token, Pullman's concession that somewhere out there in space, in heaven, in Narnia, there miiiight be something ... well, I'd call that a sop. And an effort to keep an extremely expensive movie from bombing at the box office.

The books most certainly do kill God. God is a person, an Authority. After Pullman's deicide you have an impersonal realm that's something other than God. Given that Pullman calls it "dust," that suggests a completely materialistic world in the author's view. Everything ends up dust, as it began. Life forms and loses form without the involvement of anybody's (i.e., God's) will, not even that of a gnostic false God, and with a drive that's really only a drive of molecules. It's cloaked in a mythology ("matter loves matter"), but myths are just human attempts to make picture books out of unfathomable things. Consciousness in Pullman is self-generating. That's really nothing more than saying that life arose from inanimate matter, and conscious beings evolved from animals. It's an uncreated world in which beings arise that ponder their creation. It's our world.

Edmond Where is that interview from? I'd like to read the entire article. Could you send me the the link please. Thanks

Edmond 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 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."

Charles Lindsey It's very chivalrous of you to defend Pullman on the religious belief score, Edmond, especially since you don't seem to be very current with what he's actually said. Understandable -- the difference between an author's works and his life should be preserved, and in this case many people (even conventional Christians) find inspiration from the "Dark Materials" books. Philip Pullman doesn't want to discourage those people, and I don't, either.

However ... speaking of contex, which is important to us both, you do need to grapple a bit more with the author's stated, and repeatedly stated, unbelief. He can certainly defend his unbelief without your help, and he does it very eloquently. Here's another well-done interview (again, I'll assume you haven't read it)in a Christian magazine called Thirdway:

Pullman: "Can I elucidate my own position as far as atheism is concerned? I don’t know whether I’m an atheist or an agnostic. I’m both, depending on where the standpoint is.

"The totality of what I know is no more than the tiniest pinprick of light in an enormous encircling darkness of all the things I don’t know – which includes the number of atoms in the Atlantic Ocean, the thoughts going through the mind of my next-door neighbour at this moment and what is happening two miles above the surface of the planet Mars. In this illimitable darkness there may be God and I don’t know, because I don’t know.

"But if we look at this pinprick of light and come closer to it, like a camera zooming in, so that it gradually expands until here we are, sitting in this room, surrounded by all the things we do know – such as what the time is and how to drive to London and all the other things that we know, what we’ve read about history and what we can find out about science – nowhere in this knowledge that’s available to me do I see the slightest evidence for God.

"So, within this tiny circle of light I’m a convinced atheist; but when I step back I can see that the totality of what I know is very small compared to the totality of what I don’t know. So, that’s my position."

[the interviewer persists: "A lot of people assume from The Amber Spyglass that you must be an atheist."

Pullman: "Well, they can assume what they like. Of course, I don’t say, ‘There is no God.’ I say: ‘There is a God, and here he is dying’ – and this is what I was particularly pleased with, as a result of an act of charity. And he goes ‘with a sigh of the most profound and exhausted relief’."

Interviewer: "But God is an impostor –"

Pullman: "He’s the first angel –"

Interviewer: "Who is himself the accidental by-product of a meaningless universe."

Pullman: "It’s not meaningless. It was meaningless before, but it’s not meaningless any more.

"This is the mistake Christians make when they say that if you are an atheist you have to be a nihilist and there’s no meaning any more. Well, that’s nonsense, as Mary Malone discovers. Now that I’m conscious, now that I’m responsible, there is a meaning, and it is to make things better and to work for greater good and greater wisdom. That’s my meaning – and it comes from my understanding of my position. It’s not nihilism at all. It’s very far from it."

Read it all:

So the author is trying to describe his unbelief as the type that says "I can't know what's in the entire universe, so I suppose that could make me an agnostic," which is what I wrote in my post. He's making room, charitably, for Russell's teapot. He also says, quite clearly, that humanity is what brings meaning to the universe. And that the "Amber Spyglass" universe was "meaningless before," as in, the anthropomorphic God had and has no place in it.

You know, people who decline to "disparage the religious impulse" are not necessarily believers themselves. They may think that religion is a fairly good thing ... for other people. Or even that it's not a good thing, but a necessary thing (to keep cruelty in line, to give people day-to-day hope, or even (if they're cynical) as a way to manipulate people), or a neat survival trick for our evolving minds. In our culture, it's bad manners to say you're an atheist, and even worse manners to tell other people that they should consider being one. So no, unless you're Christopher Hitchens or someone equally well-armed in rhetoric (and bearing in mind you have a lucrative film project in your future), you're not going to attack religious belief even if you were so inclined. Pullman criticizes exploitative dogmas and dogmatists, and this seems to be the part everybody can agree on. But when you read him saying that he would be on the other side in "Paradise Lost," you know that what he means is he rejects everything you, and I, recognize as religious belief. He believes that the moral and the marveling impulses are human, not supernatural.

My apologies to all for my part in hijacking this thread. Last I checked, the title of this forum was "Am I the only one who hated this series?" so perhaps we should turn the thread back to that question. I didn't hate the "His Dark Materials" series. Only the last two-thirds of it, and only because it was weak storytelling.

Jessica they didn't really kill god though. there was no god. there was an 'angel' who claimed to be god (the Creator), and an evil angel who was trying to take over the racket. and am i completely off or did they take the old senile angel somewhere safe to take care of him?

and really, it's fantasy. the Dust is the Force. it's whatever animating life substance is in any other sci-fi book. it's like jk rowling said when people took harry potter literally - the children had no trouble discerning the books were fiction, why did adults? that said, book 3 got really preachy and the make-out scene with 12-year olds was definitely repulsive to my sensibilities. far more so than some re-imagined version of religion.

message 28: by chris (new) - rated it 1 star

chris papalexandrou I hated it, too.

Tegan yes, you are the only one. out of all the countless people who have read this series, you alone are the unique snowflake who didn't like it.

message 30: by Lori (new) - rated it 1 star

Lori Anderson LOL, Tegan, you said that SO much nicer than one person did!

message 31: by Tara (new) - rated it 1 star

Tara Lori,

You are definitely NOT alone. I enjoyed the first one, but after reading the last two in the series, I was disgusted and hated all three with a passion. What a mess of a trilogy, not only just by trying to throw in too much junk and opinions, but the writing just fell into the category of... sigh, can I just finish the book now?

Lori wrote: "I see all these glowing reviews so I feel lonely in the world of Gee-I-Really-Hated-This.

Lori Anderson

Lori Anderson:The Store

Lori Anderson:The Blog

message 32: by Carol (new) - rated it 1 star

Carol I was prepared to enjoy them, too, but lost interest in the series somewhere in the third book. I just didn't care anymore. Too bad, the Golden Compass was a promising start. Chronicles of Narnia are still my favorite "children's" fantasy series.

Pandy I can't stand the Chronicles of Narnia. They are so boring, in my opinion. I love His Dark Materials. The Golden Compass, is the best of the trilogy, but I still love the Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass. I'll admit the plots are not always very smooth, and there are plot holes, but I love almost every character. (This excludes the Church and priests, but Mrs. Coulter is my ultimate favorite.)

message 34: by Charles (last edited Jan 27, 2010 04:57PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Charles Lindsey By the power of Pullman ... bring this thread back to life! Amen.

message 35: by Gemma (new) - rated it 1 star

Gemma I hated this series. End of story.

message 36: by [deleted user] (new)


Night Fury Seriously, for me this book was a pathetic, pitiful attempt to capture the story in. And guyz. I mean it.

Of all the books I've read in my wholleee life, I never tried to look at the -ve aspects of each story. Unfortunately, the Amber Spyglass... I wanted to puke all over it. (which, considering me, is major serious)
For one, the story had no head or tail. One event begins, the other ends. Everthing was all muddled up and confused. Sure, the main IDEA did not get me ooohing and aaaahing over it, but the only aspect that did capture my interest (mind you. I'm talking about the 1st time I read this book. The second or third time. Honestly, I picked it up, riffled through the pages, tried to find something, didn't succeed.),
was the mufella or whatever they're called. And that too, only Their lifestyle. Not what the Dr. did over there.

Loathsome as your old gym socks are unbearable,
As pitiful as a runty toad,
I Despise This Book!!!!

Night Fury no offense please. =P

Olivia I liked the first book but hated the sequels.

Ebehi It started really well in the Golden Compass, but afterwards it got a too gory and it seemed like Pullman was sacrificing the entertainment value of the book so that he could push some sort of agenda. I really didn't like Will but I didn't mind Lyra. There were places where the book promised a lot but ended up falling short of my expectations. Plus, I didn't like the way they kept referring to Lyra as a liar. And the whole mufella, Mary Malone, making out thing was just... not great.

Vimes links in opening posts are usually considered spam.
Since its a controversial topic name I would say that assumption is probably true here.

georgia ☽ No, I loved this series!

*Kashi* dislike Lyra. loved the series.

Deborah Hate Lyra, love the books. Even though they are a bit weird.

Esoldra In no way loved it either - you are not alone. To me it was a good promising start that fell short

message 46: by Laerke (new)

Laerke I read it as a 13-year old and back then I liked it even though the third book was SO HARD TO GET THROUGH.
I don't know how I would feel about it if I read it today, though. Maybe it's time for a rereading. But I love the movie.

Scott I loved the trilogy, although I did find the third volume a tiny bit draggy.

The children DO kill god, or at least enable him to pass on by removing him from his crystal coffin.

I think it's sad that some people find love between two adolescents repulsive.

message 48: by Bri (new) - rated it 5 stars

Bri Spiekerman I guess I'm the only one who thought that the third book was the best of the three...

message 49: by S.G. (new) - rated it 1 star

S.G. G. Dean Lori wrote: "I see all these glowing reviews so I feel lonely in the world of Gee-I-Really-Hated-This.

Lori Anderson

Lori Anderson:The Store

Lori Anderson:The Blog"

No, you're not the only one who hates this series. I, too, hate it with a passion. It wasn't fun. It didn't go anywhere. There was absolutely no closure whatsoever. In the end, not only are the children robbed of the element that made them special in order for an author to make some stupid, self aggrandizing, childish, senselessly vindictive point, but the young couple is forced apart for the same exact idiotic reason.

For these reasons and many others, I will never read this author/series ever again. I despise authors who forget one of the principle purposes of writing fiction is to entertain your audience, not badger them with what you've decided is the only interpretation of a given reality.

Артём Багинский Brian wrote: "I guess I'm the only one who thought that the third book was the best of the three..."

No you aren't. I found the movie confusing, the first volume ok, the second exciting and the third excellent.

« previous 1 3
back to top