Thanks for the info! I will definitely search out that thread once I’m done.
I’m sufficiently hooked on Pullman that I’ve just come in here from a trip to Amazon.com to order the Sally Lockhart trilogy. 
The whole thing is one of those series that I liked while I was reading it (though I, too, thought the last book was a near disaster), but the more distance I get from it the more those horrifying images are the only ones I remember–so I’m left with a sense of unease about the trilogy as a whole. No idea if that makes any sort of sense.
Be warned: There’s some really dark, unhappy stuff there, too.
I gathered that from the reviews at Amazon.com, so hopefully I’ll be prepared. I’m not reading Pullman for sweetness and light, puppies and rainbows, that’s for sure.
Most people I know think The Amber Spyglass is the best of the series.
Personally, the part with the wheels was my least favorite part of book three.
In my mind, the odd thing about that series is that, at least here in Canada, it is marketed for children specifically.
While I’m not suggesting dark and/or upsetting stuff should not be provided to children who can handle it, the series always struck me as being, well, more appropriate for adults, generally - it has many deeply disturbing scenes depicting sadistic or callous cruelty, towards children in particular.
God, I found that little girl annoying through the whole first book and half the second book, and then just when I started liking her, I read the third book.
I was not particularly charmed by the series.
However, I am also one that MUST finish, so by all means, read it - just be prepared. I skimmed whole sections because there was just too many things to follow.
And evil monkeys.
Really evil monkeys who stub out cigarettes in people’s eyes!
Pullman does great evil monkeys.
I wish I’d never read The Amber Spyglass; I was so disappointed that I’ve never read any of them since. They sit there on my shelves like a toothache.
Sally Lockhart is pretty good. I like The Tin Princess best.
Yep. I read the “Damn you, Philip Pullman!” and thought, “Got to the third book, did you?” What a tedious, wretched slog, I remember that being.
Oddly, the problem with Amber Spyglass is similar to the problem with the (somewhat superior) Lord of the Rings: it is too short. Trying to write this story as a trilogy was an error; it forced Pullman to try to resolve things to quickly. The halfway rehabilitations of Azreal and Coulter are interesting ideas, but unconvincing because fo their brevity and haste.
On my first reading of The Amber Spyglass, I felt rather disappointed as well.
Rereading it a few months ago, I liked it a lot better.
I’m at a bit of a loss to explain why, although I wonder if having read it once, I had grasped enough of the general “shape” of the story that my second readthrough allowed me to fill in details that I’d glossed over the first time.
I agree that the last book was too short. I enjoyed the series otherwise, though the resolution wasn’t to my satisfacion. I tend to want to be told exactly what happens, rather than draw my own conclusions, even though I am rarely satisfied when that happens.
I think I went through about two and a half boxes of tissues - by no means a record - but then I didn’t have any idea what the plot was before I started. Someone bought m the trilogy and said “Read this!” I had no idea what I was in for, and the bleakness caught me off guard.
On a related note, anyone seen the Golden Compass movie? I know about the changes to the ending (and am unhappy with them) but I wasn’t sure if I should give it a go or not.
Right, but kids love reading about sadistic and callous cruelty.
I really loved the characters Pullman created in the first two books. The death of Lee and Hester is so powerful because even those two minor characters are so vivid and human.
And then, in the third volume, he takes those beautiful, rounded characters and turns them into pawns on a game board. They just become tokens that he shifts around to score philosophical points. All the lovely humanity and complexity of the first two books just drains away. Meh.
I haven’t, but I asked about it at a recent dinner party, mentioning that I was enjoying the first book of the trilogy, and got a resounding “Don’t go see it!!” from those who had.
An earlier discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of HDM. {WARNING: Giant spoilers, as in telling you the entire plot and the ending.}
The thread which spawned it: more good discussion of Pullman. {WARNING: More huge spoilers.}
I rather liked the movie, although it was too short: the casting was impeccable, with some great performances, {Sam Elliot was Lee Scoresby}, and the production design was immaculate: it looked exactly how I imagined it.
It didn’t take any major liberties with the plot, although it did condense in places. It did feel edited down from a much longer movie, though: the witches were practically non-existent, and Lord Asriel just sort of vanishes midway. The ending isn’t exactly altered from the book, but it does stop before the book does: Lyra hasn’t quite caught up with Asriel and Roger hasn’t been sacrificed yet; I guess that was being saved for the sequel that never happened.
The main problem was the length, in that we got to see what happened but not why: for instance, the bear fight. In the book it’s clear why Iorek won, because he knew who and what he was whereas Iofur was able to be tricked into defeat because he yearned to be something he wasn’t: in the movie, it’s just a sort of Sylvester Stallone fight with the hero getting the shit kicked out of him by a bigger opponent until he gets beaten up enough to suddenly vanquish his opponent with a sudden access of strength.
Those kind of omissions really undercut an adaptation of a novel in which character motivation is important: we always know why people do things in the novel - their actions and choices define their characters - but in the movie they do things because the plot tells them to. The movie runs to about 2 hours, but I get the feeling there’s a 3 hour Director’s Cut somewhere which is a lot more coherent.
Still well worth a watch, though.
Upon seeing the Golden Compass movie, my first thought was that, at some time in the past, Philip Pullman must have slept with Chris Weitz’s wife, or raped his daughter, or killed his dog, or something. The screenplay and direction of the movie are clearly Weitz’s revenge. I mean, good god–they REMOVED THE ATHEISM. That’s like making Frodo Baggins a six-foot-tall brunette quasi-Amazon with mad martial arts skills and a magic chakrum, and Sam his blond battling bard girlfriend. The tone is utterly wrong.
Skald, my dear, I know we are both happily married, but I have to admit I am wildly in love with your descriptive abilities! Your metaphors make me swoon. 
I guess I will give it a watch, and expect to be apalled. That way I can’t be disappointed, right? RIGHT??!!
Depends on how its done. In this case, I really think it would be too disturbing for younger children.