Talk:His Dark Materials
Just wondering if this is on par. It's certainly worth a brainstar but I'm wondering if it's on the second tier yet. theist 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think we need to cite a few more specific examples of the criticism & outrage HDM has inspired in the religious right. & Maybe cut down the detail about the Conservapedia article a little. What CP say about it should be placed in the context of the wider reaction from fundy loons in general. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Unfortunately I'm not a HDM reader so know relatively little about it. I think the CP reference is okay in scope as it is, it certainly doesn't need to be longer but I think it covers the bases that it needs to. But yeah, that needs to be in the context of other responses if we can find any. I'll take a gander around the net. theist 00:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.librarianscf.org.uk/bookshelf/opinion/houghton.html This one is cited on WP. It's interesting as it bashes Pullman for using "pseudo physics" to which I'm thinking "dur, it's freaking fiction you may as well say that about Star Trek". theist 00:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.surefish.co.uk/culture/features/pullman_interview.htm Nice interview with Pullman. Interesting criticism of CS Lewis, although not much relevance to us. theist 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"The Creator himself is extremely weak and frail and, when he is liberated from his imprisonment, is unable to survive."
Unless I seriously misunderstood The Amber Spyglass while I read it last week, it was The Authority, not the Creator, who was frail and died on release. (Metatron, the Authority's regent, had been keeping him imprisoned until he was sure he had no further use for him.) The true Creator is actually never seen and hardly mentioned. If no-one pushes back with chapter and verse, I'll change the article. Dave Wise (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)