Comments on: The Amber Spyglass http://heliologue.com/2008/01/18/the-amber-spyglass/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:56:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-RC1-10026 hourly 1 By: Jamie http://heliologue.com/2008/01/18/the-amber-spyglass/comment-page-1/#comment-150191 Jamie Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:33:00 +0000 http://heliologue.com/blog/2008/01/18/the-amber-spyglass/#comment-150191 Great review, and I think your thoughts are spot on for the most part. Especially how The Authority is an metaphor for organized religion --someone who is powerful and takes control yet who doesn't really live up to his own reputation. It's just that given that this is a fantasy book, he actually IS divine. Just not THAT divine. What I took away form the series is more along the lines of a exploration of free will and original sin (or lack thereof). The children of Pullman's world are free --they come and go as they please, immune to the attacks of spirits because they gather no Dust, and even their demons aren't locked down to one shape. It's only when they grow out of that innocence and starts to accumulate Dust that things go wrong. The Magistaroium sees Dust as original sin and thus tries to cut it away from children, but it seems clear that it has more to do with true consciousness and the capacity for free will. Kids grow up, take form, become conscious of the world around them, and can do good or ill. To me, that's a much more take on the books than the whole "BWAAAA! He wants to kill God! BWAAA!" thing. Great review, and I think your thoughts are spot on for the most part. Especially how The Authority is an metaphor for organized religion –someone who is powerful and takes control yet who doesn’t really live up to his own reputation. It’s just that given that this is a fantasy book, he actually IS divine. Just not THAT divine.

What I took away form the series is more along the lines of a exploration of free will and original sin (or lack thereof). The children of Pullman’s world are free –they come and go as they please, immune to the attacks of spirits because they gather no Dust, and even their demons aren’t locked down to one shape. It’s only when they grow out of that innocence and starts to accumulate Dust that things go wrong. The Magistaroium sees Dust as original sin and thus tries to cut it away from children, but it seems clear that it has more to do with true consciousness and the capacity for free will. Kids grow up, take form, become conscious of the world around them, and can do good or ill.

To me, that’s a much more take on the books than the whole "BWAAAA! He wants to kill God! BWAAA!" thing.

]]> By: Andy http://heliologue.com/2008/01/18/the-amber-spyglass/comment-page-1/#comment-150177 Andy Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:54:34 +0000 http://heliologue.com/blog/2008/01/18/the-amber-spyglass/#comment-150177 Having admittedly not read the preceding thousand pages of the trilogy, I was not privy to much of the context. But it still seems to me that, regardless of names and specific backstories, Pullman wasn't really masking his points. Does Pullman hate the Catholic church and their somewhat mafia-like tactics? Sure. But the Catholic conception of God the Father is shared by most Christian religions; it's their other interpretations and traditions where denominations part ways. So it's a related but separate idea. Pullman probably *would* think God was only "taking credit" for creating the Universe, making the book's description fit my notion more. Or at least Pullman would think that if he believed in God in the first place; probably Pullman calls God an "angel" because the prospect of calling God an actual god was too galling to him. Having admittedly not read the preceding thousand pages of the trilogy, I was not privy to much of the context. But it still seems to me that, regardless of names and specific backstories, Pullman wasn’t really masking his points. Does Pullman hate the Catholic church and their somewhat mafia-like tactics? Sure. But the Catholic conception of God the Father is shared by most Christian religions; it’s their other interpretations and traditions where denominations part ways. So it’s a related but separate idea. Pullman probably *would* think God was only "taking credit" for creating the Universe, making the book’s description fit my notion more. Or at least Pullman would think that if he believed in God in the first place; probably Pullman calls God an "angel" because the prospect of calling God an actual god was too galling to him.

]]>