Talk:His Dark Materials (novel)

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)

We are allowed to point out odd choices that would be of interest to conservative thought. That such a thing is even possible would be of interest to our demographics. To not put it in would be more of an oversite than its inclusion. Learn together 22:42, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

So personal insight (in the form of editorial commentary like "odd choice") in articles is a special feature of Conservapedia? Well, I suppose that's the choice of the people who run the site, but I hope you'll agree that it creates an uncomfortable grey area for an encyclopedia. Wandering 22:58, 29 July 2008 (EDT)