Sign in with Facebook
Bright's Reviews > The Golden Compass
The Golden Compass (His Dark Materials, #1)
by
by
the golden compass trilogy seems like a natural progression in christian literature. yes, it is christian literature, the same way the chronicles of narnia are. aslan is only a lion when the reader is about 10 or so in the united states. after a point, he unrepentantly becomes jesus. and the four children are like, the gospels or something. and the story is somewhat ruined then, because as an adult, you can't just shoehorn jesus into a lion outfit without snickering a little.
pullman however, has solved this problem. i can't continue without utterly spoiling the story for everyone who hasn't read it, so consider yourselves warned...
he made jesus into a little girl. even better, he made jesus into a little girl who doesn't even know she's jesus. now how's that for a new twist on the new testament? the part that's particularly brilliant about it, is that it actually worked. lyra is never really anything like christ... she just follows the path of his narrative. first, she has the absent father. lord asrael is desperately involved in his own ideas, so though he's not actually in heaven, he may as well be.
wait a sec, isn't this just dogma again? sort of, except dogma is really more relevant to catholicism in particular, rather than scriptures. and instead of linda fiorentino who is kind of a mopey christ, we get a 10 year old girl. 10 year old girls are the best focal point for any story. i've been one for years.
and this is a perfect choice, because she really never takes time to mope. she doesn't miss her faith or wrestle with it... she doesn't believe at all. and therein lies the genius of pullman's work, that has all the christians in a snit; she's also the antichrist.
why would he do that?
because the bible does. if you really take a look at the word antichrist, it does not mean "evil". khristos, from which christ is derived, means "anointed". so what does antichrist really mean? unanointed, or that which is against the anointed. there's a bunch of baggage on top of that meaning, which is how we got those omen movies, but at the heart of it, it just means smeared with fat. actually, it means recognized by the divine... but in ancient times, we did that by smearing the recognized thing with the fat of a sacrificed animal or person. and that, is why we celebrate the crucifixion. it was the point of christ's birth. as if it wasn't obvious enough, it's why he's referred to as the lamb.
wow. so this is heavy... pullman has gone all the way back to the origins of the judeo-christian faith and said, this important guy, was just the carrier of this magical stuff that we're obsessed with, that we don't even use anymore. it's like we're infected or poisoned by this idea. we need an antidote. we need an antichrist, to show us how far we've wandered from the truth, which had nothing to do with trooping along after some guy.
and this explains why christians are so antagonized by the books. they've been following the beast for years without recognizing it. the golden compass referred to in the book, is the bible we've all forgotten how to read. and in its stead, we've rallied around the church which claims to help us understand the symbols. but in reality, it is the beast referred to. the one which rose from rome, with many heads that change over time. so what really, is the golden compass about? it's about how to be human again. how to regain an understanding of the world, that doesn't rely on our fragile expectations for good and evil. all it requires, is that you give up everything, in order to discover what is important again. and i don't know how christians could have missed that primary message.
pullman however, has solved this problem. i can't continue without utterly spoiling the story for everyone who hasn't read it, so consider yourselves warned...
he made jesus into a little girl. even better, he made jesus into a little girl who doesn't even know she's jesus. now how's that for a new twist on the new testament? the part that's particularly brilliant about it, is that it actually worked. lyra is never really anything like christ... she just follows the path of his narrative. first, she has the absent father. lord asrael is desperately involved in his own ideas, so though he's not actually in heaven, he may as well be.
wait a sec, isn't this just dogma again? sort of, except dogma is really more relevant to catholicism in particular, rather than scriptures. and instead of linda fiorentino who is kind of a mopey christ, we get a 10 year old girl. 10 year old girls are the best focal point for any story. i've been one for years.
and this is a perfect choice, because she really never takes time to mope. she doesn't miss her faith or wrestle with it... she doesn't believe at all. and therein lies the genius of pullman's work, that has all the christians in a snit; she's also the antichrist.
why would he do that?
because the bible does. if you really take a look at the word antichrist, it does not mean "evil". khristos, from which christ is derived, means "anointed". so what does antichrist really mean? unanointed, or that which is against the anointed. there's a bunch of baggage on top of that meaning, which is how we got those omen movies, but at the heart of it, it just means smeared with fat. actually, it means recognized by the divine... but in ancient times, we did that by smearing the recognized thing with the fat of a sacrificed animal or person. and that, is why we celebrate the crucifixion. it was the point of christ's birth. as if it wasn't obvious enough, it's why he's referred to as the lamb.
wow. so this is heavy... pullman has gone all the way back to the origins of the judeo-christian faith and said, this important guy, was just the carrier of this magical stuff that we're obsessed with, that we don't even use anymore. it's like we're infected or poisoned by this idea. we need an antidote. we need an antichrist, to show us how far we've wandered from the truth, which had nothing to do with trooping along after some guy.
and this explains why christians are so antagonized by the books. they've been following the beast for years without recognizing it. the golden compass referred to in the book, is the bible we've all forgotten how to read. and in its stead, we've rallied around the church which claims to help us understand the symbols. but in reality, it is the beast referred to. the one which rose from rome, with many heads that change over time. so what really, is the golden compass about? it's about how to be human again. how to regain an understanding of the world, that doesn't rely on our fragile expectations for good and evil. all it requires, is that you give up everything, in order to discover what is important again. and i don't know how christians could have missed that primary message.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Golden Compass.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
January 1, 2003
–
Finished Reading
December 13, 2007
– Shelved
December 13, 2007
– Shelved as:
digested
Comments Showing 1-50 of 66 (66 new)
message 1:
by
Candice
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Jan 04, 2008 07:27AM
Thanks for the comments on this book. You helped verbalize what I've been thinking, since reading the book. There's something about the virtue in Lyra's character that I really gravitate to. I appreciated your thoughts on the book.
reply
|
flag
i appreciate your thoughts on the book. but they're very, very wrong. Pullman is an atheist. He does not want any ties to his books and the Bible. You're interpreting his books the wrong way. he's said before that his books are about killing God, which they are. he hates the Chronicles of Narnia, and he wrote his books as an attack against the Narnia books.
bright - remarkable review.
& oh my goshandgolly no (and yes to Squiggles). His Dark Materials is the Anti-Narnia, which while not its defining feature, it is an unequivocal one.
Pullman's philosophy is a matter of record, not interpretation.
as with any story, you are certainly free to bend the language and the narrative to your own world view, but it is the equivalent of me deciding to interpret C.S Lewis as an atheist philosopher: revisionism ad absurdum.
what a christian faces in this sort of fiction is that morality did not begin with Christ, or god - and the instinct toward integrity is a function not of looking out and back to a mythological narrative, but in.
it sounds as if the losses and distractions you speak of within the church/faith/country are just that to you - a departure from what you experience as your religious vision/practice. What His Dark Materials suggests is that loss of vision, distraction and corruption are essential to the church's institutional, doctrinal and political structure: that the church is not broken, the church's historical function is to break us by taking our moral agency away and locking it within a code of obedience and fear.
Hm, that's an interesting take on the book. I sort of buy it, for the same reason that I think Richard Dawkins is fundamentally very religious, even though he is on the surface an extreme atheist. As he says in one of his books (I believe it was the Ancestor's Tale): it's not exactly that he disagrees with religious people, it's just that they're not saying it right.
If you're a mainstream Christian reading this, here's a question for you. Why did Jesus throw the money-changers out of the Temple?
Chaotician wrote: "i appreciate your thoughts on the book. but they're very, very wrong. Pullman is an atheist. He does not want any ties to his books and the Bible. You're interpreting his books the wrong way. he's ..."I entirely agree with you I wasn't sure what @bright was saying there.
@Manny I totally disagree with you what would be the point of appearing an atheist? If you read The God Delusion alone he makes it very clear that God does not exist and I have trouble believing that he would pander to the populace considering the risk he takes in being so outspoken.
Zane wrote: "Chaotician wrote: "i appreciate your thoughts on the book. but they're very, very wrong. Pullman is an atheist. He does not want any ties to his books and the Bible. You're interpreting his books t..."simply because pullman is an atheist, doesn't mean he can't write books about christian theology. christianity and biblical tales are a huge part of western culture and the idea that atheists wouldn't incorporate those ideas into their works is just bizarre to me.
@Manny I totally disagree with you what would be the point of appearing an atheist? If you read The God Delusion alone he makes it very clear that God does not exist and I have trouble believing that he would pander to the populace considering the risk he takes in being so outspoken.
i also agree with manny that dawkins seems "religious". he's just religious about atheism. i'm personally an agnostic and i am not certain enough about my ideas about god to promote them much. dawkins however is extremely certain in a way that reminds me of the southern baptists of my youth. there is nothing wrong with that, and i think he provides an interesting counterpoint to the theists, though i don't always agree with what he says or how he presents himself.
Wow, you have completely misread this book. Yes, he is writing about Christian theology. But not at all in a positive way. Pullman is talking about how disgusting and hateful the central tenets of Christianity are.Religion in this trilogy is the stifler of individuality, of curiosity, of natural and healthy sexuality, of reason and rationality and wonder. This is a complex theme throughout the work, but the idea of 'dust' being bad is the fundamental mistake of the novels. This is the mistake the Church makes, and it is the doctrine of the fall. The Church in Pullman's books goes to horrific lengths, mutilating the children and crushing their spirits (i.e. cutting away their dæmons) under the impression that they are doing these kids a favour. If the children don't have their dæmons, they will never attract dust and will therefore remain 'pure'.
Pullman is saying that the whole doctrine of the fall is mistaken and, what's more, repellent. It is good for children to seek knowledge, to become adults, and grow in experience, including sexual experience. He is saying: all this time, we have been hating ourselves because we have seen dust as bad, as a contaminating force, but I believe humanity can be liberated from this through a rejection of Christianity. Not only is dust not bad, but it is the source of everything that is wonderful about humanity.
Surely you must see this in the scene in the last novel where Will feeds Lyra the red fruits? And it is also not a mistake, I believe, that Lyra is so close to Lyca from Blake's 'Little Girl Lost'. Lyra is not, absolutely NOT, a Jesus figure. She is an Eve figure, but Eve as she should have been, not punished by a jealous and petty deity for doing something that is actually admirable, for seeking knowledge.
Another example of this is in the way Pullman treats the dead. Christianity teaches that after death follows eternal life. Pullman presents that as the horrible idea that it is and resolves it in the glorious scene in which the dead are let out of the underworld and, with an enormous sense of relief, dissipate into the air, are allowed to become nothing.
Pullman, like Dawkins, is 'religious' in the sense that he feels a deep and profound wonder at the enormity and complexity of the universe. That sublime sense of awe that religious people interpret as sensing the power of god: they feel it too. Otherwise, there is nothing religious about atheism. Neither of them are religious in the sense that they feel the need to seek supernatural explanations for anything. They believe the truth of natural/scientific explanation is grander and more satisfying than the confined, unpleasant world of religious stories. I know this may sound like a contradiction in terms, since Pullman is telling a story, and a fantasy story with lots of supernatural elements in it at that, but the differences between poetic or mythological truth and scientific truth are obvious.
By the way, it may interest you to know that technically, or philosophically, Dawkins defines himself as an agnostic, but only to the extent that he is agnostic about the existence of unicorns.
Great comments Jude and Abi.Lyra goes to the underworld and rescues the dead, which is something Christians give Jesus credit for, but that is about it for any Christ-like comparisons. Lyra is clearly Eve. The professor in the Amber Spyglass being told she is the serpent should be your first clue.
This trilogy is a broadside at religion, especially Christianity. Pullman may have overdone it a bit, making everything wonderful after God and his able assistant are dead, but it is a great example of anti-Christian literature.
Bright, there is lots of religion symbolism in these books, but it went way over your head.
That review didn't make any sense. There were many stretches that didn't reach. As if to say "the color blue is blue, and you can tell Pullman is saying this because red."I've always heard this book is some sort of Christian work, and I'm waiting for that to happen. So far I haven't seen anything to make anyone who has read either the Bible or the Golden Compass think so. There are no paralells that I've seen. Other than the good guy is good and the bad guy is evil. This sounds like the same bunch of people who say the Lord of the Rings is an allegory. Please don't say things like that. You make us look like idiots.
Very happy to read your thoughts because despite Pullman being an avowed atheist he is absolutely not an atheist--agnostic more likely. He has a subtle profound longing for God but despises theology and the pretense of knowing. BTW it's not unusual for a writer, or anyone, to misinterpret their own beliefs--but the truth comes out in the writing. Weirdly, I think the longing makes these books both passionate and glorious--I use these words deliberately.
What the heck are you talking about? Lyra's Jesus? What in the world? Are you crazy? The man wrote a story to write a story. He didn't want to make Lyra Jesus. Let a girl be a girl, not Jesus!
Wow, you are completely wrong. Just read anything Pullman has said about religion and you will see he loathes it. Abi's comment is perfect, Lyra truly is Eve, in search for knowledge and experience and freedom from divine opression. This is the most anti-christian series ever, I'm not sure if you read the same book, and when you wrote this you certainly hadn't read the other two.
@ abiwhere did i say that pullman said christianity was good? i think you're lumping your baggage into my review. pullman (and by extension, lyra) are not out to save christianity. and they don't. they're out to save humanity. i actually considered the idea that she may be eve initially, (actually, my name is eve and i think of her as a hero in the bible, even though she is punished) but i decided later that she was actually the antichrist. eve is not a powerful enough character to accomplish what lyra does, nor does she share as many parallels. if you want to continue the allegory, lyra was not made from man. she wasn't actually disobedient. she wasn't tempted. i hope that clarifies.
@ paw
i actually did read the whole series way, way before i wrote this review. that's why i know she destroys the church. that's not in the first book. thank you for contributing though...
I'm all for interpretations on books in different ways and would never normally tell someone they're decidedly wrong. But here I'll make an exception, you're right to draw the parallels with Narnia, they're intentional. But HDM is meant to be the anti-Narnia. Pullman is a dedicated atheist and I dont know how he could make it more obvious that he scorns Christianity.
I haven't read the books myself, but I read the bible daily. Even your review doesn't make any sense in this context, because Hesus was the true purpose and son of God. Without Him there could be no salvation. Contrary to what you apparently think, he was not just a guy with magic stuff. Have you actually read the Bible? It's very, very clear about some things, and Jesus is definitely one of them.
Great review. I recommend this book to as many people I can, and definitely to Christians, being that they've often been given the wrong impression of the story by someone who didn't understand it's meaning.
Having read a few more of the above comments: this story if anything supports the existence of god, and it is indeed a story written to point out the flaws in organized religion, but it is not specifically an attack on Christianity, and the story is most definitely NOT about "killing god"...*edit for spelling*
Some very interesting comments on this review. I would just like to add that I feel this book actually disproves the power of God by the simple fact that in the story the multiverse theory is proved correct. There is a theory about subatomic particles that proves either the existence of God or the existence of multiple universes. It goes that only when subatomic particles are observed are they fixed in one reality, until then appear in all possible positions of the atom. So if subatomic particles are capable of being in every possible position then it follows that every possibility is playing out some where, in a different reality. However, if these particles require observation to be fixed into one possibility and one reality, then for only our single universe to exist they would have required to have been observed at the dawn of time, and this could only have done by an external being for example God. I'm not sure if I made any sense at all there, trying to explain it without rambling on haha! What I'm getting at though is that this theory only allows for either a belief in God or a belief in the existence of multiple universes and it seems like Phillip Pullman went with the multiverse idea therefore instantly allowing insight into his disbelief in God. Just a thought .....
Err!! I'm really annoyed at the fact that you have put the Jesus comparison on it sorry I'm probably being really sinicle here but I'm twelve and I'm at that age where spirituality of any kind is stupid (I honestly don't want to offend anyone here) I'm sure I'll find faith one day but at the moment I hate anything to do with religion. Anyway I'm a shamed to say I haven't completed the book (I'm at the bit where they've saved the children and are going to save lord Asriel but I thought the whole point was about how the church were a massive super power in this world and how they didn't want anyone to know about dust because it proved that their was more than just Heven and there world which kinda put's a massive dent in your theory. Plus you have kinda rewind Narnia for me now... not because it's crude to make a lion out to be Jesus but because Narnia was supposed to be this magic place and bringing religion into it just renews it.
I guess it all depends on how you view god. I don't see the god represented in the book as the same god in our world. He's portrayed as old and frail. If anything he was meant to be like the first angel or something. Impossibly old, but not really the being that created everything.
Um, maybe because it's not there.
Spoilers: I mean... at the end of the book the main characters final resolution is essentially to preserve what everyone else views as original sin. In addition the language and ideology is fairly obviously anti-christian I would think: everyone has "daemons" and these are somehow representative of their souls or their personalities, and when the church separates you from that you become a lifeless walking corpse devoid of independence. This alone made it obvious to me at least that the book was atheistic.
I'd have to disagree with this interpretation. Lyra is no Jesus. Lyra is the confluence of a trillion, trillion, actions. She just happens to be the person who can bring an end to destiny. Serafina pretty much spells it out when she says that the world is determinist, and Lyra can bring an end to the determinism; Lyra can bring free will to the infinite universes. I just don't see any Jesus correlation here, whatsoever.
this book is if anything anti religion.. though not anti christian
I don't get the debate. These books to me are fantasy novels. The story was excellent and I enjoyed all three.
I agree withSarah Bement. The series are fantasy,pure and simple. If anyone wants to read anything else into them, that is up to them but nevertheless they are works of fantasy--- and pagan fantasy at that!
"aslan is only a lion when the reader is about 10 or so in the united states.."Noooooooooooooo - Aslan has always been and will always be a Lion. Allowed me to make the books that i enjoyed when I was a child still palatable today. The magician's nephew read as a fun story is great; start layering "meaning" and it looses it's magic.
funny that you think its Christian literature when these books have been banned in Christian schools
Lyra and Will, as stated in the book, are newborn Adam and Eve. This trilogy recalls the history of the Old Testament, because Philip Pullman was a great admirer of Milton's Paradise Lost (the title and the epigraphs of the Amber Spyglass are taken from this work). What changes here, is that he sees the Paradise Lost in a humanist way, in factSPOILER
near the end of the Amber Spyglass, God dies. At the very end of the book Lyra says that they will build a Republic of Heaven on earth, because Pullman believes that our life are meant to be lived to the fullest here and now, on earth, because there's no god with heaven out there.
In the end, Lyra is no Jesus, it's the incarnation of Eve in the very human sense, with all her choices, mistakes and all what it means to be human.
All these infos are taken from many of his interviews and essays on His Dark Materials I've read.
Uhh... you obviously didn't get what this story was about. This was basically Pullman saying "How dare you?" to Lewis thinking and assuming the worst in what his Chronicles were about. This story involves killing "God." Not very Christian, right? Thought so.
Dude all I can say is ur stupid and I also hope very fervently that ur wrong
@Manny: someone call for a Christian? Well, let's lay it down, then.
This event can be found in Matthew 21: 12-17, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48, and John 2:13-22 (I have a very good bible.)
It is at this point in the Bible Jesus went into the Temple in Jerusalem, just after Passover. What he saw was people selling animals for sacrifice and moneychangers. And this angered him because it was his Father's house.
OK, let's pause here.
Think about it.
You go to your dad's house to find it filled with people who, with the utter disregard of it all, bring in their filthy livestock (diseased farm animals, here, because no one had invented vaccines or antibiotics for animals, much less humans) and let them roam around YOUR DAD'S house.
Not only are they bringing in their dirty little critters, but their selling them! Conducting business in your dad's house!
A house is only meant for its inhabitant to live in. Not for the outside to bring it's ugliness in.
Let's resume with Jesus, yeah?
When he saw this, he got angry, to say the least. The Temple is a holy place filled with God's presence, Jesus' Father's presence. His spirit lived within those walls. It wasn't confined to it, but it was the only place at the time where people could get close to God (since the crucification, the Great Divide had been filled and we CAN get close to God without the need for sacrifice in a temple. It's called: prayer. Weird, huh?). And all of that wonderful good stuff was stifled by the outside coming in.
So Jesus got angry.
The rest is history.
If anyone has any questions, message me.
@Bright: Very interesting review, by the way. I actually read this book when I was younger (maybe 8?) My dad is a pastor (at the time, he was a worship leader) and he was VERY against me reading it. I got it from my Black Sheep uncle, who also gave me a Spice Girls cassette (still not sure about how I feel about that gift). I didn't find it very interesting, unlike the Chronicles of Narnia, but I found it very instrumental in my faith today, as well as my political views.
I think you have a very interesting take on this book (surely no one has ever thought of it that way before) and a very creative mind, and I applaud you for it.
I am a Christian, however, and I do disagree on some points.
I do think the Church of today has truly lost sight of what truly matters.
I remember when my family and I heard of an atheist church a while back and my father said, "it's sad how easy it is to create a church. Fellowship is a real problem nowadays. If atheists can have better fellowship than we do, then we have a serious problem on our hands."
And it's true. Christians go to church for the worship, but they're not really worshipping.
They go because it's a megachurch, but they don't get the message nor the intimacy, fellowship, and friendship that you would get with your own friends.
People would rather stand outside in the cold for hours on end for stupid toys in Black Friday, but they won't go to church because it's too early and they'd rather have their day free to watch the game.
They'd rather devote their lives to FIFA rather than to the one thing that truly matters.
And it's sad.
And it's on both parts.
And this is where I can agree with you. Christians need to wake up.
But it doesn't take an Antichrist.
Because when that happens, you'll wish you'd done it sooner.
And some will find their way back. But it will be ugly. They will go through hell on earth, literally.
And when all is said and done, all the peace that people have been working for will come. But none of them will see it.
You won't want to see it.
I've never heard about the christian side of the book but am really interested in why Philip Pullman felt that a little girl could be represented as Jesus? I liked the idea of her being an independent girl who was curious about the world that surrounded her. I will have to reread the book with your outlook in mind!
Christian literature? Yeah . . . uh, whatever you say. Lol! Glad you enjoyed the book, Bright, but you are about as far off as I've ever seen anyone be on anything.
I do agree that the book is about Christianity, but in this story the Church is the antagonist. I think your ideas are a bit far fetched. I think Pullman used the Church for its powerful influence at the time, and its oppressing qualities.
To all the people saying that she is interpreting this wrong: once an author writes something it stops being theirs alone. Anyone can see whatever connections they want. Also many authors write the exact thing they say they dont write. Vonnegut for example always said that his books were not science fiction--even though he had time traveling aliens in Slaughterhouse 5. Authorial intent is murky even when an author comes right out and says what they think they wrote. And her analysis seems to just be another facet of what you all are saying anywau. Pullman wanted to call out the church as messed up. This reader just sees a difference between the chirch and religion.
Despite the author's intent I feel that the series does nothing but support the idea of the existence of a God. I don't know if I'd call it a "Christian" work but it is definitely a theistic work.Spoilers ahead!!!
I've read the series many times over the course of my life, and each time it takes on new meaning or I discover some aspect that I had overlooked. All the best works can be read on a number of levels after all. I feel that the God-like figure that the two of them "kill" in the end does not actually represent the creator. I felt like it was open ended enough to suggest that he was yet another who had assumed the post in God's absence. Someone correct me if I'm way off course here and there's evidence to disprove the theory.
For people that have actually read the work thoroughly I don't think you can really argue that it's atheistic. I don't find the subject matter to be negative in any way, but if it is then all you can really support is that it attacks the church, or maybe organized religion as a whole if you want to take it that far, and it's not really a bad thing in the long run.
At best you could call it a work of skeptical agnosticism, there is a heavily overt anti-christian message, and more specifically anti-catholic message. Pullman actively and thoroughly debunks christian myths throughout the text, but it does retain a sense of spirituality existing independent of traditionally theistic beliefs. If you're going to argue it is a text of belief, then it would be far easier to imagine a deity such as Aristotle's prime mover as the God Pullman would imagine, not the he actively rails in against in and out of print.
Dude you are just plain wrong in everyway bright . Nice try though lol .
Lyra is Eve! It couldn't be any plainer!
I hesitated to read Bright's review when I completely disagreed with the first premise. Upon reading it, however, all the way through, I can see where s/he and I agree. This is a book that rails against the Church. All who have read it know how vilified the Church is in Pullman's trilogy. I do not see Jesus in the writing, however. Sorry, Bright, but I may not know the story of Jesus enough to see the similarities, but I can see Eve in Lyra because Pullman made me think it. Perhaps a bit of your analogy resonates because, if I look back at the evolution of Lyra's character from innocence and child-like concerns to love and valuing the greater good, I can see the pre-apple Eve transition to a pre-crucifix Jesus? It isn't all clear, so I had better stop. What I want to say is, I didn't want to mention the anti-Christian Church theme for fear of ruining this book for those who can't support such books. The story is still wonderful and rich. Ultimately, beyond the beauty of the various descriptions, I was surprised by how much this book's anti-organized religion and all-part-of-the-same-matter sentiments mirrored my own. I kept waiting to find out I was wrong (a la Narnia's surprise, your protagonist is now Jesus!) but I did not. Thank you, Pullman, for giving me so many rich analogies to support my belief that what we have in NOW and how we live it makes all the difference in the world, no matter WHAT our religions may be.
Interesting analysis, but you're going in completely the wrong direction. This is an anti-religious book/series. It's about what happens when blind faith tries to control science and reason.
If you think this is a "christian" allegory, then you definitely should read the second book. Your misunderstanding will quickly be cleared up.
When I read this I felt so confused. I didn't relate the book to any kind of religion. I simply read it because I love the story and I don't know what Philip said about the Narnia books. I'm really sad that it seems a lot of ppl don't take it as a fantasy story like I do, some take it as a religion themed book, which may be right, to be honest I don't know, but I don't think it is right to argue about it. Take the story whatever way you want. I see it as a lovely, brave story of a little girl called Lyra, that discovers she is destined for bigger and better and I don't know about you but for me that's enough (: I'm sorry for my bad writig, english is not my mother tongue :/
*PLEASE FIX YOUR REVIEW*So I know it's been years since this review was written, but hopefully this makes its way to you. Please make a it more clear that the spoilers are RIGHT BELOW WHERE YOU MENTION THEM. To me it sounded as though you were going to write more before getting to the spoilers, then the next line *boom*. Anybody who is reading quickly or just skimming will just plow through like me. Not being critical, I am usually anti-whining about spoilers. I was planning on reading this and it would have been cool to start in ignorance of this, and appreciate the bliss of realization more. Since your review is first and will be read most often, the addition of a dash, asterisk, etc, might save dummies like me. Thanks!
One of the best descriptions of this series that I've read. Makes me want to go back an re-read them...
