Difference between revisions of "Talk:His Dark Materials (novel)"
m (Talk:His Dark Materials moved to Talk:His Dark Materials (novel): ensuring title of article reflects the fact that it is a novel) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
It's definitely worth a read, if you haven't gotten around to it yet. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:43, 10 December 2007 (EST) | It's definitely worth a read, if you haven't gotten around to it yet. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:43, 10 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | =="Interesting to note"== | ||
| + | "It is interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make the decisions. It is similar to Al Gore writing about global warming, and somehow being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." - this is ''supremely'' unencyclopedic. I see no reason not to remove this - it's clearly editorial content. Unless someone can come up with a reasonable defense of including it, I'm going to remove it within a few days. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:27, 29 July 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:27, July 30, 2008
Here's my take, and I haven't even read the book, so I'm insulated from all bias by my sheer ignorance. ;-)
The author thinks he can pull a fast one on us. He has created a satire of God and Christianity with the world's best "deniability" clause; see plausible denial.
He portrays God and Christians as viciously cruel. Any criticism that he has portrayed God in a bad light can be dismissed simply by denying that he was talking about God at all. --Ed Poor Talk 16:29, 10 December 2007 (EST)
- Interesting point, and it's one that the Archbishop of Canterbury raised when he was interviewed alongside Pullman - that this otherworldly church has no element of redemption, that it is purely a matter of control. Pullman's response was interesting, too - he said that Jesus' core teachings are antithetical to the organisation itself:
"I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."
It's definitely worth a read, if you haven't gotten around to it yet. :-D Underscoreb 22:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)
"Interesting to note"
"It is interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make the decisions. It is similar to Al Gore writing about global warming, and somehow being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." - this is supremely unencyclopedic. I see no reason not to remove this - it's clearly editorial content. Unless someone can come up with a reasonable defense of including it, I'm going to remove it within a few days. Wandering 20:27, 29 July 2008 (EDT)