That being said, I wouldn’t expect most Christians to find them anything other than offensive. While I think many of a theological bent find them fascinating precisely because Pullman’s source material, and themes, are so much more explicit than you would normally find in young adult literature, that shouldn’t translate into a claim that the books are really “acceptable” for most variants of Christianity.

But, that being said, I found C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia offensive; as a young Jewish agnostic I felt terribly betrayed when, it finally dawned on me while reading the Last Battle, that I was being propagandized. Yet I still enjoy them, and intend to read them to my daughter. But that’s because I find them both fun and interesting; I also find His Dark Materials fun and interesting.

A few points:

1) While the necessity of closing the portals between the parallel worlds does serve Pullman’s message, it didn’t strike me as inappropriate. The Republic of Heaven cannot be established. Asrial’s vision is as flawed as that of the Authority he hopes to overcome. Indeed, it is ultimately his love for his daughter that redeems him, as it does Mrs. Coulter. We sometimes have to accept painful sacrifices, but those should not preclude us from living our lives if we emerge alive. Etc.

2) The end is consistent with a major thematic found in fantasy literature and its cognates: that of the passing of magic from the world,. Indeed, in such literature we also find the notion that the disenchantment of the world, and/or the removal of god/the gods/demigods from active participation in our world is a necessary cost for humanity’s self-determination. See Cooper, Alexander, Wagner, etc. Pullman’s doing the same thing, which even has parallels some particular understandings of salvation through Christ and why no miracles should occur after the redemption of humanity.

(Recall why the Alethiometer is diminished: Dust no longer intervenes in the world as it must during the rebellion, and now Lyra, who has read it through an act of grace, must learn to read it through hard work, study, and intellect.)

3) I disagree about Lyra. She goes through a significant arc in the novels. She’s an inveterate liar and general hooligan. By the end of the books, she’s learned to be true to herself in multiple senses of the term. See the above comment as well.

4) For a really superlative reading of the relationship between His Dark Materials and Milton’s epics, see Stephen Burt’s chapter in MILTON IN POPULAR CULTURE.

Anyway, apologies for typos and semi-coherence. I really must get back to work .

I have read the first two books of the “Dark Materials” trilogy, and that was quite enough, thank you! I found the characters two-dimensional and not that attractive–a result of Pullman’s atheism?

Anyway, I am not a careless reader, and I found that Freitas’s article missed the mark. I took Pullman at face value–as attacking God as an authoritarian figure. This is the role of “God” in the books, and of course it constitutes a slander against god.Does anybody really believe that the True Christian God is a tyrant? What about the image of God in Man, what about free will? So on this count, Pullman is blaspheming.

Now, if Pullman’s “God” is actually and angel, a demiurge, or a “bad” god, to be opposed by the “good” god of the dust, then P. has succumbed to the classic heresies of Gnosticism and /or Manicheianism. More blasphemy!

I interpreted “dust” as being acquired human experience, the building up of character through experimentation and the loss of innocence. (Well, don’t worry, Mr. Pullman, you won’t find a human being around who is primordially innocent!) I found Freitas’s interpretation of “dust” as the Holy Spirit just “off the wall.” Furthermore, Sophia is not the feminine aspect of the third person of the Trinity. Quite to the contrary, Sophia or the Wisdom of God is identified with the second person of the Trinity, the Logos.

Pullman’s books may be skillfully written, but give me Harry Potter any day. Though some say the movie is supposed to be good, last week “Mr. Moviephone” on CNN said he was panning it, not because it was anti-religious, but because it was just bad!

“Dust also reflects strains in feminist theology that reframe the divine as feminine and hold that Christians’ relationship with the divine is mutual, not hierarchical: We make ourselves vulnerable to God as God makes God’s self vulnerable to us. Many see this feminized God as a kind of heresy – a rejection literally embodied in the fact that women are forbidden to represent Jesus through the Catholic priesthood.”

There is nothing in the Church hierarchy that excludes a mutual relationship with God. Individuals are encouraged to develop a personal relationship with God as well as worship with others as a community and members of the Body of Christ. Implying otherwise seems disingenuous and indicative of an agenda on the part of this essayist.

As for my opinion on Pullman’s books, I’ll first require a trip to the library to read them.

What a surprise that they should publish this article the week the movie is released!

… By the way, “Golden Compass” originally had an anticipated opening weekend of $50 million. Last week that estimate was drastically dropped to $32 million, which was widely considered a rank failure for a movie costing between $180 mil and $250 mil (depending on whom you listen to).

The movie actually opened at $26 mil. There are rumors that the head of New Line will lose his job (i.e., not have his contract renewed next year) over this. I think we can assume that the 2nd and 3rd books are unlikely to be filmed. (Let’s just hope the foreign box office is as bad as domestic.)

…We have an inner longing to hear stories that meet our inmost spiritual needs — the need for heroes, the need for transcendance, the need for beauty, etc. — Stories, as it were, that reflect in some way the Great Story.

So should we be surprised that the movie, which would seem to be the opposite of what we long for, tanked?

So Pullman is not so subtle that a rather intelligent, theologically aware 12-year old can’t see his real meaning. (Unfortunately, many adults are not nearly as solid in their theological understanding as my son already is.)

“Golden Compass Loses Its Way at the Box Office”

It did about 25-30% of OOTP’s opening weekend.

“The trilogy is a retelling of Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” the classic epic poem from which Pullman borrowed a line, “His Dark Materials.” Milton tells of the battle between Lucifer’s army of fallen angels and God’s rule in heaven. In “Paradise Lost,” God prevails. But in Pullman’s book, the two child protagonists help to defeat the rule of the Authority and the Authority dies.”

I would have supposed a Professor of Theology at a major university who chose to cite Milton’s Paradise Lost would have at least been aware that Milton identifies Lucifer as being the holder of the office of “Light Bringer” while he is in Heaven, but renames him Satan immediately upon his fall, and scrupulously avoids using the term Lucifer to refer to him thereafter (c.f. The Dartmouth Site. Check the footnote to Book 10 line [425].) It is Satan, and not Lucifer, who commands an army of fallen angels in Milton’s work.

But then, she seems to me to quote many of her other sources in a very loose fashion as well. Is this perhaps the future of academia? Redefine selective mis-quotations from Ancient Masterworks to support the Politiosophical position du jour? If so I’m too old a dog to change. I’m going to keep barking in favor of accurate quotations and reasoned Philosophical discourse.

First, I am a Christian myself, but I am not easily offended by those who find fault with Christianity or who hate the instutution of the church. I think that many of their arguments are valid and come from the failings of the church and of Christians to live out the truth of their beliefs. We are all imperfect, after all, and we present our theology through our own flawed filters.

With that said, I can see where Pullman is coming from. He believes the church exists to keep people from truly living – through rules, through fear, and through manipulation. In his story, God himself is not omnipotent but rather an evolved, power-hungry being who has taken over the universe(s). His characters are on a mission not to kill a real God but a phony stand-in – there is no discussion beyond this imposter God about whether or not an actual God exists somewhere outside of the infinite universes in his story. And I can see how easily someone could form a view of the church like Pullman’s… all it would take would be one bad experience with one unbalanced Christian, who stressed fear and damnation and following the rules, and left out the part that above all, Christianity is about love and grace.

For Pullman, everything that makes you feel good is worth doing, and it is wrong to deny yourself these things. He seems to believe that people are innately good, and if the church and its “morals” would just excuse itself and leave them to their own devices, the world would be a loving, magical, wonderful place. It seems that Pullman doesn’t understand the joy and love and … life that can come from self-denial. That dying to your desires and your wants could have any positive results.

I’m glad I read these books if only for the following reason: they have opened my eyes to the fact that, as a Christian, I can do much, much more in my effort to show people what Christianity is truly about. It’s not just about rules and institutions and penance and guilt. It is about freedom and love and redemption and hope and… true life. God is not just a grumpy old fellow trying to keep us from having a good time. He wants to help us experience true life and love in a greater capacity than we could ever do on our own, imperfect as we are. This is an important part of the Christian message and reading these books has helped inspire me to shout it out a bit louder from now on.