Talk:Northern Lights (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Literature Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance)

Assessment comments

This article is part of WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to children's and young adult literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project.

Children and Young Adult Literature Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Tasks you can do:

[edit] "Citation needed?"

The article states that Pullman wrote in response the C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, but can this be substantiated with outside sources? 199.111.216.59 (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Enjoyment" warning

The "enjoyment" warning is definitely true, but does it conform to the NPOV policy? There is already a spoiler warning in place, and one implication of a spoiler warning is that you won't enjoy the materials as much if you proceed to read them later. Adding the "enjoyment" warning after this makes it sound like we're plugging the book. Juansmith 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should remove the enjoyment warning because while I do agree it will lessen the enjoyment warning it is firstly biased because ultimatly some people won't enjoy reading the book and wikipedia is supposed to be nuetral. Secondly the spoiler warning says the same thing but doens't have a point of view SirGrant

Agreed. I removed it. Juansmith 02:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Golden Compass"

Should perhaps a search for "Golden Compass" redirect to this page? Many American fans will probably use that term in the search.

The Golden Compass already did point here, and I added Golden Compass, so I think that should do what you suggest. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Lights image

What is that image doing here? Shouldn't we have the covers of the UK and US versions of the novel rather than random aurora images? - Cuivienen 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've uploaded the cover of the UK version. -- goncalopp 01:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternate covers should be placed near the bottom, just for completeness' sake. 68.225.240.87 20:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the change of name?

Does anybody know why the American publishers felt the need to change the name of the book, instead of just keeping it as it was? It seems pointless and unnecessary to me, but I'm sure there must have been a good reason. If anybody does know, perhaps it'd be worth adding that to the article too? (I'm just going to go and ask the same question about Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone/Sorceror's Stone. ;-) - Delaney 15:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

i thought it was a bit dumb because its called the alethometer in the book anyway, but i spose its harder to say. What ,if any, was the comment about the american name change of the philosopher's stone?Dyna Dude 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Not to offend anyone but I think again it has to do with book publishers' dim (but IMO, unjustified) view of American readers. They seem to think American kids would find names with the word "Philosopher" or "Northern Lights" too boring sounding, with "Sorcerer" and "Golden Compass" sounding much more fascinating, even if the result is then a name that doesn't really make sense. There is precedent for this other than Harry Potter; Bennett's play "The Madness of George III" was renamed "The Madness of King George" because they said they would mistake it for the third part in a trilogy on some guy called George. There is little evidence that Americans do make any of these mistakes or that they are unable to enjoy a book that doesn't have a flashy name, but it seems to be general production sentiment. Sad, in my opinion. "northen Lights" was a brilliant name.--Zoso Jade 08:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It was actually a miscommunication of some sort that resulted in the US title. I remember reading about it years ago, when I first read the book (7th grade...now I'm a year away from medical school!). --Sakredfire 10:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the claim made on HisDarkMaterials.net (an unofficial fansite) that the book was was originally called 'Golden Compass' and changed to 'Northern Lights' too late for the US edition — this is highly unlikely, given that the US edition was published a year later! On his website, Pullman states that the title was changed for the US market: "The editor who made that change was also responsible for ... 'Sorcerer's Stone' ... at the time, I didn't have enough clout to resist." Mrstonky 08:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the information. I was a lot more upset about the 'Sorcerer's Stone' thing though...especially since Philosopher's stone is the actual historic name for the substance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sakredfire (talk •

contribs) 11:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Got a link for that? I heard it directly from the authors mouth at a literary salon in Dundee earlier this year that The Golden Compasses (the instrument God used to divide the heavens, a motif from Paradise Lost iirc) was a working title that transformed without his knowlege or consent (whether by intention or mistake he didn't elaborate) to The Golden Compass (referring to the alethiometer). I don't know how explicit the reference on the site is, but given there was a "change", both anecdotes could conceivably be true. On the other hand, I can't exactly reference a talk I went to six months ago, but I'm fairly sure this is more than pure rumour. Confuseddave (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I like "The Golden Compass," it gives the titles more consistancy. Panserbjørn 23:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

--- tikalal: It was changed from The Northen Lights to The Golden Compass by the very same editor who changed The Philosopher's Stone to The Sorceror's Stone. Pullman states this in the FaQ section of his website. I apologise for not signing properly, the keyboard at this internet cafe is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.24.60 (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Golden Compass is actually the title of the book for both the US and Canada so I think the first line of this article "Northern Lights, known in the US as The Golden Compass, and published in 1995...." should actually read as "Northern Lights, known in English-speaking North America as The Golden Compass, and published in 1995...". Let's not just forget about a country of 35 million people quite that easily. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.135.182 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Andrea (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot "summary" shortened

The size of the plot summary was absolutely ridiculous, so I've shortened it to a reasonable length which people should actually be able to read without blanching. This article really needs some more info on how the book was recieved etc. I might see if I can find any more content for it. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Issues

Lord Asriel did not "accidently" sever the connection between Roger and his dæmon. He did it purposefully. His plan was to use the energy released by Roger to open a window to another world. Jessica91 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

User:Panser Born or other prominent editors of this page: I see multiple attempts by various editors to add a spoiler tag and repeated reverts citing the guidelines at Wikipedia:Spoiler.

I strongly feel that including a synopsis of the entire plot, one which lays bare every major plot twist and reveal present in the work, including how the story ends, qualifies as fulfilling the guideline "knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work." If the spoiler tag isn't appropriate for this case, when is its use justified? Ronaldscott 22:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Argh, well, I read WP:Spoiler a bit more closely and noticed this: "Spoiler warnings are redundant when used in "Plot", "Character history", "Synopsis", or other sections that are self-evidently going to discuss a plot or similar." While I disagree with this viewpoint it obviously applies here and I retract my call for a spoiler tag. Ronaldscott 23:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that part about being redundant is the bit I was referring to when I reverted the spoiler template addition. -Panser Born- (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film Budget

Somehow, I don't think it was $150. Rai27 12:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. That's a case of obvious vandalism and I have corrected it. Dfmclean 12:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

There seems to be something of a controversy about the movie, at least in some circles. Reference: http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp I've not added it to the article as I haven't substantiated it with other sources, but only know it's going around the parent forums and via email. - Ageekgal 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the aforementioned controversy-- you guys might wanna clean up the biases in the thing, or at least toss quotation marks around it. I mean, c'mon;

"Each book in the trilogy gets progressively worse regarding Pullman's hatred of Jesus Christ."

That's just abit biased, isn't it? As a sidenote, His Dark Materials has themes against religion in general-- he uses an antiquated church (more similar to the inquisition, than todays) to stress his beliefs. If I put it up, it'd be poorly written-- but I would like to see this changed, at the very /least/, removing the rather blatant criticism of the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.120.2 (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On a discussion on Fox news channel they said that in the book their was overt sexual activity involving a 12 year old girl and they read a passage that contain a very graphic description of two characters kissing can someone clarify this because if this is true i think i needs mentioning on this page -jobywonkanobi 8:23 november 15, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.23.79 (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"discussion . . . Fox news channel . . ." - ha ha ha! Seriously, though, in the time it took to watch mindless TV blather and then post about it here as though this were a blog rather than an encyclopedia, you could have read the relevant portion of the book. Full agreement with Dfmclean's comment below. -24.61.184.39 (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend actually reading the book and forming your own opinion. I actually have and I do not recall such a scene. Dfmclean 15:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment, the line quoted is definitely biased. Criticism doesn't equal hatred. And the use of the word "worse" implies that Pullman's criticism is necessarily a bad thing. It should definitely be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pania (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Now it's been changed so it says that he doesn't hate Jesus Christ, but is "a militant atheist". Except he's not, he's agnostic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pania (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be be a statement about him ssaying that his books are about "killing god". Here is the link: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125644900.html someone needs to stop candy-coating his books. He has a very definite purpose in his writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.249.34 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

All of this controversy stuff rightfully belongs in the author article (with a direct reference to the "Religious perspective" section). Dfmclean (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article sugar coats Mr. Pullman's anti-Christian sentiments. From articles I've read, he isn't bashful about saying that he is anti-religion and that his books are about killing God. He's also acknowledged that he's an atheist, saying "There's no God here." Review this article from 2003: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125644900.html So why doesn't the Wikipedia Golden Compass article call a spade a spade? As a comparison, please review the Wikipedia entry on the Chronicles of Narnia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicles_of_narnia This entry states that CS Lewis is an advocate of Christianity. Furthermore, the article goes on to articulate criticisms of the works of CS Lewis. If the religious convictions and themes of CS Lewis books are relevant, why not also the convictions of Mr. Pullman? I believe it is intellectually dishonest for Wikipedia to omit the anti-religious themes of Mr. Pullman's works. Jedunc 01:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Why is it dishonest Jedunc? Works containing Christian supersition don't come with warning labels (perhaps they should). 124.168.80.57 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And here's a quote in context: "Pullman has no qualms with critics who label his books sacrilegious, so how does he describe himself? 'If we're talking on the scale of human life and the things we see around us, I'm an atheist. There's no God here. There never was. But if you go out into the vastness of space, well, I'm not so sure. On that level, I'm an agnostic. That's not to say I disparage the religious impulse. I think the impulse is a critical part of the wonder and awe that human beings feel. What I am against is organised religion of the sort which persecutes people who don't believe. I'm against religious intolerance.'" Comments on selective quotation? Anthony Krupp 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no selective quotation; I provided a reference so that anyone could look up the quote and interpret Pullman's words as they may. The message that he imparts in his books is consistent with his comment that "There's no God here." Jedunc 01:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To call a spade a spade, as you put it, means that one cannot say that Pullman 'is anti-religion', when the reference supposedly supporting that claim has Pullman saying that 'the [religious] impulse is a critical part of the wonder and awe that human beings feel.' Rather, you could say that Pullman 'is anti-organized-religion'. That would be accurate. Does this correction make sense to you?Anthony Krupp 12:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, to be very precise, Pullman has problems with certain actions that are taken (whether by individuals or organizations) and the fact that those actions are taken "in God's name" only makes them even more repugnant. Catholic charities - good. Spanish Inquisition - bad. Dfmclean 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the point you’re making, but it seems like a debate over semantics - from what he has said in interviews and from the content of his book, I don't think it is inaccurate to say he is anti-religion. Regardless of the terms one wants to use, I believe the Wikipedia article should address how his negative views of Christianity have influenced his books. Also, it would be relevant to address what the current controversy is about. Given the size of the article, these topics don't need to be lengthy but I think their inclusion would make a better article. What do you think? Jedunc (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Jedunc, the pure anti-christian and atheist interpretation of that quote comes off as narrow minded and heavily biased. In the ultimate sense he is claiming agnosticism because he does not know what he does not know, nor does he care to. he abstains from the question of God but gives an opinion of likelihood as a God might apply to this planet and his experiences on it. Agnosticism if anything should be what defines his views, but to be more honest and clear, his metaphysical views of divine things are complex. With that he criticizes a theme in Christianity and offers another view in this book. Pullman writes: "...the book depicts the Temptation and Fall not as the source of all woe and misery, as in traditional Christian teaching, but as the beginning of true human freedom something to be celebrated, not lamented. And the Tempter is not an evil being like Satan, prompted by malice and envy, but a figure who might stand for Wisdom." People who are deriving controversy here are not completely wrong, but it's a mild controversy for deeply involved intellectuals to to consider, not for morons who only see the world as black or white.68.231.200.13 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like some obvious sugar-coating. There is contraversy over the book which has gotten notable coverage in the media. I came to this article to find out specifically what the contraversy was about. Whether or not Pullman's views are covered on his page is irrelevant. The article should state what is considered contraversial. 66.167.144.177 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that Jedunc's sentence is entirely out of context, and that only the broader writing gives a truer meaning. A friend of mine listens to a lot of right-wing radio and Fox News (now THERE's an oxymoron!) which focus on sound bytes promoting Pullman's supposed atheism. Out-of-context words are little better than piecing together edited tapes which makes one thing sound like another.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trepanning

Should the trepanning link maybe be removed from the 'see also' section? I know it plays a somewhat significant role in the book, but it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Someone who hasn't read the book would have no idea why it was there. Wheatin 15:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't heard any complaints so I'm going to go ahead and remove the link. Wheatin 17:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The real problem with this paragraph

Ok, I was wrong. The paragraph below is not unsourced (it all comes from the same article). However, it appears to be taken out of context in such a way as to deliberately twist the meaning and paint Pullman in a very bad light. I believe that this is a stark violation of NPOV.

Pullman has stated, "Atheism suggests a degree of certainty that I'm not quite willing to accede. I suppose, technically, you'd have to put me down as an agnostic. But if there is a God, and he is as the Christians describe him, then he deserves to be put down and rebelled against. As you look back over the history of the Christian church, it's a record of terrible infamy and cruelty and persecution and tyranny. How they have the bloody nerve to go on Thought for the Day and tell us all to be good when, given the slightest chance, they'd be hanging the rest of us and flogging the homosexuals and persecuting the witches." Pullman had a note which said "So: There is a God, but he is a liar and he's mortal", summarizing the spiritual message of his series. Pullman has not been reticent about whom he's targeting with that message: kids. "I wanted to reach everyone," he said, "and the best way I could do that was to write for children." ^[1]

Dfmclean 13:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is sourced. The quotes are Pullmans own words. Just because Pullmans views are controversial posting them does not violate NPOV. Deleting them does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmckeon ie (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right in that they are sourced (my error). You are right that they are his words. However, the way that they are taken out of context in that paragraph twists their meaning. Dfmclean 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The revised paragraph is a general comment by the author that is appropriate for the authors article but not for this one. Dfmclean 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dfmclean said; this paragraph/section does not belong in this article; it should go into the author's article, and there is actually a "Religious perspective" section there already. I'm going to be bold here and remove the section in this article. --SilentAria ^talk 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing about killing God is not adequately sourced. I don't think a blog that says he said it really is meaningful. The Snopes entry the blog links to mentions it as well, but I'm not sure whether that can be used as a primary source either. I'm not confident enough on the procedures to mess with it myself though. ThatDeadDude (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not use Snopes as a source. I contacted them about a quoted text in their GC article, telling them that it was a lie and giving them references. Barbara Mikkelson (a) thought I was accusing them of lying and (b) referred me to their FAQ, saying in other words "hey, sometimes we get it wrong, so you should check the sources yourself". I've also given them references for the Eagle-painted helicopter which they say "no longer exists", giving them a link to the air museum website. Twice in a year. No change, no reply. Don't rely on Snopes, they do good work but aren't infallible (and get a bit antsy when challenged). -- NickS (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK vs. US differences

The important question about the British versus the American versions is, what changed other than the title? There is a claim that the British had Pullman illustrations for each chapter, and the US does not. There are claims of many other differences: brass vs. gold, sections left out... But just gossip in forums. What is the truth?

"Does anyone know if there are any other differences in the different countries' versions? Beause you say it's brass but in the book i read it describes it as being made of gold.

Yeah a few of my friends have told me that some things were changed and left out of the American books, she even mentioned a big part of one chapter being left out, but I don't remember what it was." http://aurorahdm.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=NorthernLights&action=display&thread=1115407623 -69.87.203.170 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.bridgetothestars.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=235962 describes a difference in one paragraph.
UK version: "As Mary said that, Lyra felt something strange happen to her body. She found a stirring at the roots of her hair: she found herself breathing faster. She had never been on a roller-coaster, or anything like one, but if she had, she would have recognized the sensations in her breast: they were exciting and frightening at the same time, and she had not the slightest idea why."
US version: As Mary said that, Lyra felt something strange happen to her body. She felt as if she had been handed the key to a great house she hadn't known was there. A house that was somehow inside her, and as she turned the key, she felt other doors opening deep in the darkness, and lights coming on. She sat trembling as Mary went on.

Some people have described this as "Lyra's orgasm", which seems ridiculous to me - there's a big difference between excitement and satisfaction, as I'm sure many women would testify. - NickS 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy about religion?

The end of the lead section reads: "In recent times, however, there has been some controversy about the book's message regarding religion." In the first place, this needs a reference. Apart from that, though, it does seem a bit odd. There hasn't been much controversy here (the UK), and what little there has been hasn't really increased with the release of the film. I don't know about the US, but if this is a US-specific comment then it needs to say so. 81.153.111.37 (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point - that sentence seems a little barren sitting there without any context explanation, references or links. I have added a link to the discussion of the controversy on the author page. The major issues apply to the entire series and not just this book so they should be discussed at a higher level and not here. Dfmclean (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. The controversy is not specific to this book, and is better dealt with in a higher level entry (as in fact it is). I've removed a misleadingly titled link as a result. The link is included in a higher level article. --Robhu (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I put a "Religious controversy" item back in. Removal was clearly an attempt at suppressing information about the existing controversy. If "Awards" are relevant, then so is the Catholic Church's condemnation. To say that the Catholic Church's opposition to a book and film are irrelevant is laughable and displays an absolute bias. The paragraph I added is strictly NPOV, and simply cites the existence of a religious controversy, including a VERY BRIEF and NPOV synopsis of both sides of the issue. It is absolutely clear that repeated attempts at censoring any mention of a controversy are attempts at hiding the fact. VanBrigglePottery (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. While the religious opposition (as well as religious support) of Pullman's trilogy is important, any religious controversy included in this article should be specific to this first book in novel form. As far as I know the criticism made by the Catholic church is about the His Dark Materials trilogy as a whole rather than this book specifically, and so it would be better to include include that in the His Dark Materials Materials entry, not here. The "Awards" are relevant here because they're awards specifically for the novel form of the first book. As such the awards are legitimate in this article while the controversy section is not. The Catholic criticisms are not about specifically about the novel form of the first book. I propose we remove the Religious Controversy section. Perhaps it would be helpful to add a sentence in the first paragraph that lets people know that there is controversy about the series which is address in the His Dark Materials entry? Robhu (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that (ie with Robhu). Also, I agree that a "controversy" implies that there are 2 conflicting views. If the section were to remain, it ought to reflect both sides of the debate, not just the one which condemns the book. Bluewave (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the section is NPOV at the moment which is troubling. I think it is probably a greater problem that it doesn't belong here when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Dark_Materials#Controversies already covers this issue more extensively (and in a NPOV manner). If there are specific criticisms of the novel version of the first book then maybe they are best placed here, but that's not what we have at the moment. Let's see what others think before removing it though, I know tensions run high on this entry so let's be sure it's the best thing to do for Wikipedia first. --Robhu (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that what VanBrigglePottery added can work for this article. The first time I removed the section, it was talking about Pullman's personal religious opinions and not the trilogy in general, which is inappropriate for the article (see the discussion above under the "The real problem with this paragraph" heading). The following times AnthonyKrupp and I removed the section, it was because it only contained a quotation from Pullman without any explanation as to why it was included in the first place (these reasons were stated in our edit summaries). These were not attempts at "suppressing information about the existing controversy", nor were they attempts to "censor" any mention of the controversy; they were merely attempts to make sure that the contents of the article are appropriate for the discussion of the book. I hope you don't think I'm attacking you, VanBrigglePottery; I just want to clarify the reasons why the section had been removed. Anyway, I believe that it's quite alright to keep the text that VanBrigglePottery added, though perhaps there should be a link to the Controversies section of the His Dark Materials to note that there is a more detailed discussion of the matter. --SilentAria ^talk 09:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

But surely any controversy about the trilogy should go in the entry on the trilogy, not in the entry on the book version of the first in the trilogy? ISTM we'd be better off having a single sentence explaining there is controversy which is discussed in the HDM entry. If there is controversy which ought to be mentioned here it should be *specifically* about "Northern Lights (novel)" which AFAICT this isn't. --Robhu (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the full discussion of the controversy should remain in the article about the trilogy, I think that it is also necessary to note it in the article because the book is part of the trilogy. The paragraphs included here are not that detailed, which is why I mentioned that maybe there should be a note somewhere that there is further discussion about the controversy concerning the trilogy in another article. I also visited the WP:NOVELS article template recently, and it includes a "Literary significance and reception" section. Maybe we can just add that section and mention the controversy there instead? --SilentAria ^talk 14:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a synthesis of the preceding views by placing a short note about controversy concerning the film (GC) first and foremost -- there was no notable Catholic response to the novel until the film was nearing release -- and by implication the first novel (NL). Otherwise I think that detailed mention of controversy should be primarily on the GC film article and secondarily on the HDM trilogy article. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre?

After just seeing the movie today, I'm seriously curious on the genre definition of the book. As most of the society involved relies heavily on the use of technology (the title itself refers to the Alethiometer: also a piece of engineering) what makes this story strictly fantasy? It may just as much be science fiction (travelling between parallel universes) as there are a lot of scientific themes as well. At least in the film. For example, in the film, the Bolvangar facility was destroyed by Lyra activating the intercision chamber and causing a malfunction. I don't know to which extend this differs from the book, but the film clearly shows widespread use of technology we use today as well (e.g. electricity). The 'steampunk' definition may not also be completely accurate: Although the background is neo-Victorian, the film doesn't show any explicit use of steam-driven equipment. And generating electical power from steam engines doesn't define steampunk, otherwise, the 21st Century would be just as much a steampunk setting as most of the world's electricity is still being generated by steam (turbine) engines! Stoney3K (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, well if it helps, they actually went way overboard in the movie portraying the technology as something different and strange. In the book, they don't use those weird spinning gyro devices they had on vehicles in the movie, they just use regular electricity - the only difference is that they call it "anbaric" instead of electric.

So in the book, it's a very similar parallel world - things are just slightly off, or slight changes in history resulted in the same thing having different names (and talking bears, apparently). You shouldn't use the movie to judge the book, because the movie is very exaggerated for visual interest.VatoFirme (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger's death

The article says Roger is severed from his daemon from falling down a cliff, but I don't think that's true. Witches, shamans, and later Lyra and Will all get separated from their daemons - it hurts, but it doesn't break their bonds with their daemons. The book explains that the metal used in intercision (same stuff as in the subtle knife) is what separates the energy bond, and I believe Asriel's machine is equipped with something like that, which is how he severs Roger.VatoFirme (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Witches, Shaman, Lyra and Will are seperated and that is all, Roger however has the bond cut by a machine which uses a specific metal that stops the bond between. Though you are right they aren't severed due to falling down a cliff. Joeking16 (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Shoot. I realize now that we're going to have to reread some passages. Recall that when intercision is being described, there is discussion of how the separation used to be effected, included dragging children and daemons apart from one another... Thus, it could well be that his falling made this happen. Of course I think it more likely that Asriel had some metal involved, also in order to harness the energy... OK, so someone who has time please reread and fix this. But we can reword now to avoid stating the cause was falling.Anthony Krupp (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the difference is not that a machine was used but is the speed at which the separation occurs. In the books witches, Will and Lyra are all separated from their demons slowly and it causes them great pain. So at the least the sudden and intense pain killed roger unleashing the energy in the bond between him and his demon. But in the end I'm pretty sure it says in the book that the cause of the separation is from roger falling down a cliff --Cobsterjh (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuing with this OR: there's a good argument for speed, as you say. Someone who clung to a rapidly ascending balloon, leaving his daemon behind on the ground, also died a quick death. Whereas Tony Makari lingered on for days when separated from his daemon before dying. I suppose it's not meant to be quite clear. I would think that intercision is more like Mrs. Coulter, while harnessing energy from a fall-induced rip is more like Asriel. Again: all OR, but thought I'd share this speculation. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I had forgotten about the man being pulled up by the balloon. I can't quite remember but didn't intercision not release any energy because it was controlled? Hence why it didn't kill whoever the procedure was performed on (I think some of the nurses in the institution were separated from their daemon's) But it has been years since I read the books so my knowledge is far from 100% Though I agree with Asriel using the energy from the rip since all he needed was an uncontrolled burst of energy to open the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobsterjh (talk • contribs) 01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The book clearly says Lyra held Roger's body while deliberating about Dust and the parallel world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.244.167 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

I just moved this sentence, added yesterday, from the Lead. It's awkwardly written, needs a cite (re: Narnia), otherwise smacks of OR. If someone wants to rework it, here it is: "Pullman, a self proclaimed agnostic and atheist depending on the sense of the God in question, wrote the book as a response to the Chronicles of Narnia series written by C. S. Lewis." Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolvangar

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bolvangar, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Bolvangar. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre Sugestion?

I read the comment on the genre, and it raises a valid point. Wouldn't this be classified as "Science Fantasy", seeing as how it combines the two elements? Kaos Machina (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The classification of stories with parallel universes is exceptionally difficult if the natural laws of those universes are non-homogeneous. In truth, you could argue just about any classification that you wanted - but generally, science fantasy is applied to stories that are mostly science fiction but have non-science elements. A classic example is the Star Wars books/movies. Spaceships would normally make it science fiction but the Jedi mysticism doesn't really fit in the accepted bounds of science fiction, therefore it's Science Fantasy. Now in the case of this series (His Dark Materials) I would be inclined to label it as straight fantasy, taking the Amber series as the precedent. Dfmclean (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why it is labelled steampunk, surely this is a reference to how it is portrayed in the movie as I can remember no steampunk references in the book other than the use of balloons and blimps as transport, which I think is hardly enough to make it steampunk genre. --Cobsterjh (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Summary

In this paragraph:

The story begins when Lyra Belacqua (later Lyra Silvertongue)—an orphaned, eleven-year-old girl residing at Jordan College, Oxford—secretly enters the Retiring Room, despite resistance from her dæmon, Pantalaimon; an animal-formed, shape-shifting manifestation of her soul. Inside the room, they see the Master of the college attempt to poison Lord Asriel, Lyra's uncle. Lord Asriel shows the resident scholars a picture of mysterious elementary particles called Dust. Shortly afterwards Lord Asriel goes north, and Lyra continues with her normal life.

Is it really the Master of the college who attempts to poison Lord Asriel? I don't have the book handy, but I seem to recall it was a member of the Magisterium who attempted to poison Lord Asriel. The following paragraph seems to support this:

When “the Gobblers”, who are the subject of a recent urban legend, kidnap her friend Roger, Lyra vows to rescue him, and finds her chance when a visiting woman of great importance, Mrs. Marisa Coulter, offers to take Lyra away from Jordan College to become her apprentice. Lyra assents, but before she leaves, is entrusted with a priceless object by the Master of the College: an alethiometer. Resembling a golden compass, it is a device able to reveal the answer to any question asked by the user. Although initially unable to read or understand its complex meanings, Lyra takes it with her to Mrs. Coulter's flat. Lyra becomes suspicious of Mrs. Coulter's motives when Mrs. Coulter's dæmon (a golden monkey) searches Lyra's room for the alethiometer.

Why would the Master of the college first try to poison Lord Asriel and then provide the one item that will help Lyra in her attempt to save him? However, before I edit this paragraph I thought it would be best to confirm my memories of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakadher (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that in the book it was the Master, and in the movie it was a member of the Magisterium, but I don't have either in front of me. Murderbike (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was probably confusing the movie with the book then. Blakadher (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was the master, I'm pretty sure he did it so that the magisterium would not target the college --Cobsterjh (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)