That article was surprisingly tame. In fact, I recommend it.

December 4, 2007 8:44 am | link

“Watkins writes that the relationship between humans and their daemons—”united yet distinct”—ironically models the Trinity.”

Erm… ironically? Intentionally is the word you are looking for, I believe.

December 4, 2007 10:40 am | link

A very level-headed article. I do agree with the “slippery” comment: some of Philip Pullman’s statements to the press seem inconsistent with what he’s said at other times.
It’s interesting that he reclarified what he meant by Dust (when Donna Freitas was interviewing him and likening Dust to the Devine, I thought he looked like he had some reservations, but he didn’t say anything then).

December 4, 2007 11:09 am | link

*Divine, not Devine, oops

December 4, 2007 11:10 am | link

yes, this was a great article. everything else i’v read to date seems to be either say that Pullman is some innocent victim and he doesn’t mean to attack anyone OR that he’s a crazy fanatic atheist with a heathen zeal like you wouldn’t believe. this one gives both sides to some extent. Obviously the man has an agenda and a strong point of view, but neither is he trying to tear down world religion as we know it by writing children’s books.

December 4, 2007 11:55 am | link

I liked the article… But i read one of the comments there which i just had to retort

December 4, 2007 6:08 pm | link

I also liked this article… It’s basically what I’ve been trying to tell everyone.

December 4, 2007 8:10 pm | link

This article is certainly worth reading, since it is more an evaluation than an attack on Pullman, despite its source.
Of course, I get really frustrated with all the *expletive deleted* who claim that Pullman is expressing Christian ideas with his works.
Yes, Pullman is an atheist*. Yes, these books express atheist (humanist) ideals. Yes, this is something to be celebrated, not shied away form. It’s that simple, really…

*There are many misconceptions are held about atheism, so I’ll give a clarification:
An atheist is not someone who KNOWS there is no god. An atheist is someone who knows there is no plausible reason for us to believe in a god. The actual possibility of a god existing is irrelevant.

December 5, 2007 5:16 pm | link

I think it was a long-winded way of saying that ‘Yes, HDM is atheistic’, not ‘disguised Christian’. Why should we try to invent false interpretations just to vindicate religion, when the author most certainly didn’t set out to do that himself?

I think we should embrace the trilogy for what it is — and really be proud of it! If the movies were banned for being truthful to the story, all the better for raising a scandal…

The time should be long-gone when ‘atheism’ was seen as a swear word. After all, atheism is not an attack against religion — rather it is an attack against forceful indoctrination and control — exactly the themes that HDM is based on.

So no, there is nothing wrong with the trilogy, precisely because it’s atheistic all the way.

December 6, 2007 12:52 am | link

In my view I like this article, because it expresses both sides of the story, I’ve read people saying that Pullman is trying to “Destroy god in the minds of children”. But in my mind: people who are old enough to stick with these books to the end and read them, are old enough to make up their own mind on christianity. And if they aren’t old enough to do that, they most likely not notice the Atheist side to the books.

December 8, 2007 1:23 am | link

[…] by Ian on December 8, 2007 at 4:02 am We reported a few days ago about an interview with Philip Pullman in Christianity Today. The journalist who […]

Trackback December 8, 2007 4:02 am | link