Well said, incisive. Dangerous stuff, that re-reading thing, but it seems to pay off.

Lovely analysis on the books. I've heard many different views on this, for lack of better terms, "uproar", but yours have been one of the most well-stated and open-minded.

And I can't say I wouldn't be one of the ones asking more about the armored polar bears than the religious underlay of the books, too. :)

It's strikes me that Pullman may be "an atheist" less in the vein of Hawkins and Cutchens; and more in the camp of J.A.T.Robinson and Bishop Spong. It is remarkable how many pietistic "Christians" attempt to defend a straw 'god' that doesn't exist. Wherever and whatever God 'is', must be watching this human comedy and perpetually be rolling on the floor with divine laughter ---- the SWG can stay on strike - this provides ample entertainment.

If you've already read them, it's not radical to reread them. The radical thing would be for Christian naysayers to read them. I read them and they are anti God. If you don't see that, you aren't a very good reader.

This is old news. The churchy folk hate the atheists and vice versa. It's never gonna change. New topic for Blogcritics please. I am getting so bored and tired of people making the same points about this issue.

btw, I'm a churchy folk and I liked the book and the movie. Now that's radical.

Pardon my sentimentality ... I enjoyed your article. Don't you think Pullman should get a rest now? His points really aren't on the caliber of Lennon or anything like that.

as the (fallen catholic) parent of three children who thoroughly enjoyed pullman's adventures, i sincerely appreciate this article...

to be sure, denouncing those who denounce what they haven't read is an old theme, but it's still a worthy theme because the only thing more repugnant than the opinions of those who haven't read a given book is the silence of those who have...

Excellent article, Kati.

This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net , which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States, and to Boston.com. Nice work!

Um... the Church did not kill Galileo, so I'm pretty sure that it does, in fact, deny that one. It's hard to give much credence to the rest of your Random Knowledge when you don't even get something that well known correct.

Part of the reason there was a recent to-do about the Pullman books was that not that many people - especially adults - were even aware that they existed prior to the movie hype. Unlike the Narnia series, or the Harry Potter books, the Dark Materials series generated relatively modest interest. They just aren't in the same league, and perhaps for the very reason you indicate - they are pretty dark.

Moreover, there is nothing wrong with a Church, which is there for the very purpose of guiding its members' moral lives, actively urging its members to see or not see a movie, to read or not read a book. The Church never suggested that Pullman should be punished for writing the books, just that its members should avoid them. (And that parents and teachers be aware of what they were about, and what Pullman's stated agenda was. C.S. Lewis is inevitably called a "Christian author," whereas Pullman is merely referred to as a "British writer." Why not "Atheist author?")

Oh, and by the way, I did read the books.

You are right and I spoke incorrectly. The Catholic Church did not execute Galileo. They did, however, try him for heresy, force him to recant his wackadoo belief that the earth revolves around the sun and, even after he did recant his wackadoo notion, placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life. They banned his works and, when he finally did die, presumably of natural causes, the Church refused to allow him to be buried with the rest of his family in his family crypt.

So, you are absolutely correct. They didn't execute him, and a proud day in Vatican history was that I'm sure.

C.S. Lewis was directly related to Nazism. In other words, covered up with Christianity. Chronicles of Narnia does that also & that is also by C.S. Lewis. Coincidence? ;) -lol. Do the math.

David, I think I speak for everybody when I say that I can honestly think of no math that would make the slightest sense of your comment.

To speak of the His Dark Materials trilogy as atheistic is to miss the point. The story is based largely upon Gnosticism and William Blake's personal mythopoeia, which is heavily influenced by Gnosticism. For instance, The Authority is clearly patterned after the Demiruge; Metatron clearly patterned after one of the chief Archons, etc.

Please see: Gnosticism and William Blake's mythology.

I think it would be helpful, after familiarizing yourself with these and other related sources, to read the trilogy for the first time, or if you've already do so, to at least reconsider, or even to re-read the trilogy.

I loved these books in many ways and I'm an atheist, but there is no denying that these works are fundamentally anti-religious and specifically anti-Judeo-Christian. The Old Testament God himself does in fact die explicitly, after having been accused of lying, treachery and most of mankind's ills. I am truly astounded that religious leaders haven't made more of an issue than they have. I hope it's because they are disarmed by the books' other virtues (particularly Pan and the mulefa).

For two weeks my tv set and my telephone broke down. Alone in the house, I started reading His Dark Materials and had an amazing response to the book that has since that time transformed my life
Would like to send you the url of my response to the trilogy, but realize that urls can't be posted
Any suggestions
Austin Repath

Austin, you can post urls here but please format the links properly.