I did not think the representation of the Magisterium was that obvious (at least to kids or casual observers) an attack on religion. However, coming at it with the foreknowledge of the subject matter of the later two books, you have to wonder how subtle the sequels can be.

For those of you who have read the books, the “dust” reference to the fall may be more obvious, but I only caught one casual reference to that, and the theology behind the statement certainly was not clear.

I might read the books, but in spite of a good cast, the film came off as pretty flat. My son thought parts of it were okay, but he also said “I can see why the Catholics are so upset”.

I feel the same way. Pullman wrote 2/3 of a good trilogy, only to have the third book short circuit and nearly (but not quite) retroactively ruin my enjoyment of the first two. But the first two were good enough to overcome that.

Ditto. I’m all about literature that engages in thought experiments, even when those experiments might run counter to my beliefs. But they should be good and handled with a soft touch. “The Amber Spyglass” was like a brick to the head, and I didn’t care for it much.

you clearly don’t read your own comments. I have no paranoia, but you clearly have a blind side to your obvious contempt for all things that don’t agree with you. You clearly accused me of being of a kind with those that thoughtthe huge popularity of The Da Vinci Code [would] turn . . . most of the population into a bunch of Opus Dei-bashing, first-century Gnostic followers of the Priory of Sion. Oh.

You should think before being so cavalier as to engage in the fallacy of equivocation (along with several others).

At the very least, stop ascribing views to me I clearly don’t have.

Pullman is an enemy, just not an important one. In any “war” or “battle” or what have you, there are always people who are your enemy that you really shouldn’t concern yourself with. There were hundreds of Orcs in Lord of the Rings that were Frodo’s enemy, yet it would have been impractical for Frodo to worry about every single Orc in existence. There were several he would never, ever meet, or who would die before he ever met them – yet they were still his enemy. Most of the Orcs were “unimportant” enemies, but it would have been foolish to say “well, this Orc isn’t right in front of Frodo, so therefore he’s not an enemy, and is in fact an ally.”

Be careful who you consider to be your allies.

And I never claimed that you claimed that Pullman was going to lead to Mormon burnings–you need to get over this persecution complex. Even extremely popular works of art rarely convert anybody to anything. Dan Brown isn’t my enemy. He isn’t the Catholic Church’s enemy. He wasn’t out to “get” anybody. Neither is Philip Pullman.

Read the Time Magazine interview. I take him at his word. Then again, I don’t think Christopher Hitchens is out to “get” me, either, and he’s not my “enemy.” Mormons (if anyone) should think twice before so cavalierly tossing that stone about.

I feel the same way. Pullman wrote 2/3 of a good trilogy, only to have the third book short circuit and nearly (but not quite) retroactively ruin my enjoyment of the first two. But the first two were good enough to overcome that.

I kind of enjoyed the second book (which I read first) and found the first filled in some puzzles I’d had, but he just can’t pull it off in the third book and there is a reason the fourth has been delayed for so long.