Pyrian on 1/11/2007 at 22:44
While I didn't find the message as heavy-handed - honestly, through most of the series I wasn't sure what message Pullman was going for, and atheism really was not what came across, witness the popularity of His Dark Materials amongst Wiccans - I do think that the first book was by far the strongest and that the material devolved sadly. I haven't even finished the last book. I keep thinking I ought to plow through it just so I can see where it goes, but...
fett on 2/11/2007 at 00:20
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I think it was the other way around fett.
But you take my point. What's really scary is that there's a lot of Americans who probably think the two are the same thing.
Pyrian - don't waste your time. Life is too short.
Uncia on 2/11/2007 at 18:14
I thought it was a mighty fine series. The second and third book are less easy to get into, in part because the issues become more complex, but well worth it.
Also, source for the "kill god in the minds of children" line or GTFO.
Shadow Creepr on 3/11/2007 at 09:47
I saw a trailer for this yesterday and it has been changed from the trailer they showed back during the summer. They seemed to have placed more of an emphasis on Nicole Kidman and her character's place in the story. They also explained more about what the deal was with the compass and the little girl. The only thing I can think of is that the other trailer wasn't being received well.
fett on 3/11/2007 at 18:39
Quote Posted by Uncia
Also, source for the "kill god in the minds of children" line or GTFO.
Can't find that exact quote, but he's said it, and variations on that theme in at least 4-5 interviews I've read including this one:
"Pullman, though, expected more. "I've been surprised by how little criticism I've got. Harry Potter's been taking all the flak. I'm a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people - mainly from America's Bible Belt - who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven't got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God.""
(
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125644900.html) Link to article.
Also more info at Snopes: (
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp) "My books are about killing God."
So nya nya nay. You GTFO.
Uncia on 3/11/2007 at 19:32
Or, you could learn how to read. I didn't ask for the "about killing God" quote because I actually read the series and know what he meant. It's about as controversial as Dogma is because it's "about killing angels" and Bill&Ted "about assaulting angels and robbing them". Context is fun. Religious victim syndrome? Not so much.
I asked for the second quote because that one actually would be contraversial. Except, like you guys, I couldn't find the source. I did however find dozens upon dozens of outraged religious blogs quoting it verbatim over and over, and bunching it up with the previous quote to add validity to it. Until someone gives me a real source of that one I'm calling religious alarmist bullshit.
fett on 4/11/2007 at 06:04
Quote Posted by Uncia
Or, you could learn how to read. I didn't ask for the "about killing God" quote because I actually read the series and know what he meant. It's about as controversial as Dogma is because it's "about killing angels" and Bill&Ted "about assaulting angels and robbing them". Context is fun. Religious victim syndrome? Not so much.
I asked for the
second quote because that one actually
would be contraversial. Except, like you guys, I couldn't find the source. I did however find dozens upon dozens of outraged religious blogs quoting it verbatim over and over, and bunching it up with the previous quote to add validity to it. Until someone gives me a real source of that one I'm calling religious alarmist bullshit.
Er...unless you're using invisible ink, I did read your post. What do you mean by 'the second quote'? You asked for a source, I gave you two. My original transliteration of what he said wasn't verbatim, so I posted the articles to clarify. You readily admit you know what he means (I read the series too, and I also know what he meant), so I guess you want to stand around picking hairs out of each others asses over the exact fucking wording. Do you need the guy to come to your door and say it to you personally or what?
Regardless, there are tons of sources reporting that he said the books are about killing God and destroying the concept of spirituality. And the books are specifically written and marketed for the children and YA publishing market. 2+2=?
The fact that religious blogs are quoting it doesn't somehow negate the validity of other non-religious columns that are reporting it as well. And whether or not religious alarmists are freaking out over it, he still said it. I didn't comment on how it was being received, or even what I thought about it, only on the fact that this was his stated intention and he let it override the plot of the series. What's the problem here?
Fafhrd on 4/11/2007 at 08:47
Quote Posted by fett
he hopes the series will "kill the concept of God in the minds of children."
vs
Quote Posted by fett
Also more info at Snopes: "My books are about killing God."
These have massively different connotations. Uncia's taking umbrage at the constant use of the first quote, which seems to have caught on memetically, which your Snopes link only proves, since it's only used in the "OMG ATHEIST MOVIE" e-mail, and not, in fact, in any interviews with Pullman himself. It's borderline libelous, since it's dramatically and alarmistically exaggerating his words, with a clear intent of rallying the fundies against him.
Koki on 4/11/2007 at 10:29
Quote Posted by oudeis
Apple
:weird:
