« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
His Dark Materials
Short review of a trilogy by Philip Pullman.
I kept hearing (mostly good things) about His Dark Materials for a long time; earlier this year I decided to finally bite the bullet and read the trilogy, all thousand pages of it. I even splashed on the hardcover edition.
The trilogy is billed as children's literature, but this is perhaps misleading. This is not another Harry Potter or Chronicles of Narnia.
The three books are called Northern Lights (The Golden Compass in the North American edition), The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass. A powerful object of magical-like qualities ("compass", knife, spyglass) is central to the plot of each book.
The main character is a 12-year old girl named Lyra, inquisitive, uncontrollable, and more special than she knows. She lives in Oxford, but it is immediately clear this isn't the Oxford we know. For one thing, everyone has a daemon, a physical manifestation (in the form of an animal) of part of one's personality. For another, there's magic, there are witches, the Church is all-powerful. But at the same time, there is plenty technology in this world - firearms, airships, trains. Oh, and there are polar bears - fighting bears.
The first book's plot revolves about abductions of children, terrifying experiments performed on those children (not terrifying in the way you probably think of), and a quest to save them. There isn't anything all that special about the first book; it is well written and flows nicely, but its main function is to set the stage for the other two books.
The second book also starts in Oxford, with a 12-year old boy named Will Parry. Only this is the Oxford as we know it. Will gets mixed up in some sticky business and while trying to escape, he stumbles upon a pathway to a parallel world where he soon runs into Lyra.
Here the plot gets a lot more complicated. There is a number of parallel worlds and with proper equipment, it is possible to open pathways between them (but there is a cost...). Lyra and Will become, not unwillingly, pieces - definitely not pawns - in a grand game.
In the third book, yet more complexity gets thrown into the mix, with a healthy topping of religion and philosophy. Here the writing is much more for 'young adults' rather than 'children'. The events finally culminate in an Armageddon style of battle between good and evil. And no, I'm not telling you who won.
The trilogy is easy to read, but it's never dumbed down or predictable. I found it very enjoyable and even thought-provoking, fairly serious but never boring.
The books have provoked some controversy. The author was accused of being anti-Christian, which is something he does not exactly deny. The Church in the books is painted in an unflattering light; it's a parallel world, but there are enough similarities for the criticism to find its mark.
It is ironic that a book that isn't very nice to organized religion includes angels and even a god (but what's the point in believing them when plainly exist?), and the plot is clearly inspired by Biblical motives (Adam and Eve or Armageddon). His Dark Materials is an expression borrowed from Milton's Paradise Lost. In some ways, Pullman's trilogy is the anti-Narnia, set in a similarly magical world but drawing sharply different conclusions.
Pullman himself is an agnostic but his books aren't really against religion per se; what he criticizes is religious dogmatism and the belief that the ends justify the means (exemplified in the character of a padre who is an assassin).
All in all, His Dark Materials is a modern classic.
I'm interested in hearing what others thought about the books (or the movie, which I haven't seen). What similar books or authors have you read?
Comments (66)
Hey, this time the formatting is hardly messed up at all!
And I'll take this as another opportunity to encourage others to post their own book reviews. It's more productive than bashing Hillary at this point.
June 7, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read this trilogy last fall, enjoyed it quite a lot. Definitely worthwhile and not the standard young adult fantasy fare.
And for those who watched the movie, that's no substitute for the books. Not even with Daniel Craig - and I ADORE Daniel Craig.
June 7, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That confirms what I heard - the movie isn't bad per se, but it can't hold a candle to the book. There's just too much going on in the book, and not all of it easy to express in a film. And of the trilogy, the first book would be by far the easiest to turn into a film.
Who did Craig play? I know Nicole Kidman was Miss Coulter.
This trilogy, I think, is different from eg. The Lord of the Rings, which is very long and complex, but it's an epic - it can be relatively easily turned into a moving picture without losing anything.
June 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't read these yet but I have also been hearing great things and meaning to pick them up one of these days. Haven't seen the movie since I hate to do that before reading the books.
But random aside on the Lord of the Rings trilogy - the movies were one of the few times (only?) I liked the movies as much as the books. I think the reason it was able to be translated to a movie so well is that so much of the written word is dedicated to setting the complex settings and backgrounds to the story (to the point where it becomes tedious at times) that in the movies, with the state of special effects, they were able to cut that all out with the grand backdrop of the movie and focus on the central plot line and character development.
The Hobbit, however, I'm not sure would make a better movie - that was my favorite of the books on the topic (even more so than the trilogy itself.)
Thanks for writing about something other than the horse race!
June 7, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, I didn't even think this one would make the rec list, since it's so non-controversial - unlike my previous book review:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-god-delusion.php
Must be a slow day.
Peter Jackson did an amazing job on Lord of the Rings. I didn't think it was possible, but he convinced me otherwise. And yes, I think it's because Lord of the Rings is simply a story, a complex one but still a story that can be told in pictures.
June 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel Craig plays Lyra's uncle. Being almost finished with Book One, and having seen the film "The Golden Compass", I can honestly say that the book is much better. I can't wait to move on to the second and third book.
June 7, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, "Uncle" Asriel. One of the most important characters in the trilogy.
June 7, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
codegen, It's a fine idea to try and start this up. And the additional offshoots are a good way to get it going. The problem will be getting enough recs to keep it in sight. That might require some recruiting. I fear I'm not a help in that regard since most of my "friends" at TPM are from the Dark Side.
I haven't read the books but read about them on the "anti-Christian" question, and in relationship to that general issue within that genre.
What's your opinion on this anti Christian bent, other than expressed in your piece ?
I'll check back in, hoping that others will join rather than clog the discussion up. I might have gone for a more sensational blog name. WHY trash Hillary when you can Trash Hillary. But would have gathered the wrong crowd. The trick here is to pick off a few folks from various crowds, and at least get them to rec.
June 7, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As they say, it's better to try and fail than not try at all.
As for the anti-Christian bent. The books are not anti-religion per se. In fact the Archbishop of Canterbury recommended them for study in religious education classes. But they are clearly against the more dogmatic and authoritarian aspects of organized religion (think inquisition). That said, non-religious organizations can be just as bad.
It's hard to discuss the details without giving away too much of the plot, but I'll say Pullman has a rather inventive idea about the identity of the Christian god (referred to as The Authority). It's not an idea most Christians would like.
I can certainly see why some Christians would not like the books, but it's mostly a knee-jerk reaction. Look at it this way - if William Donohue called for a boycott of the books, that's a good indicator they're worth reading.
June 7, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems it is often the case that books that are written from a perspective other than the Christian religion are criticized for being anti-Christian. An unfortunate occurrence, I think. But in stories that revolve around any other religion or spirituality, Christianity often becomes the antagonist.
I just pulled out The Mists of Avalon yesterday actually, haven't read it in years and for some reason I was reminded of it. (Post coming soon!) Anyway, for those not familiar, it's the telling of the Arthurian legend from the female characters' perspectives, and was also criticized for being anti-Christian. Mostly it's the struggle to hold onto the Celtic (Welsh?) traditions of the Goddess and women and non-Christian spirituality. Many of the women who were vilified in the traditional tellings were done so because their practices did not fit in with the spreading Christian view of women and their place in society. Anyway, I'm writing up a post about all this so I don't want to let too much out of the bag.
June 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Arthurian legend is an interesting mash-up of Christian, Roman, and Pagan (Celtic and other) influences.
A while back I played - for review purposes, believe it or not - a video game based on the Arthurian legend; the game may have passed for edutainment. A very interesting aspect of the game was that it interwove two versions of the story, one Celtic and one Christian. So for instance a pagan goddess in one version might be a Christian saint in the other, you get the idea.
June 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh. What game?
June 7, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't tell me you play adventure games...
The game I was talking about was called Arthur's Knights and was actually published as two titles:
http://www.mobygames.com/game-group/arthurs-knights-series
It was not the best video game I ever played (though not bad), but worth playing for anyone with interest in the Arthurian legend.
June 7, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have loved adventure PC games ever since I got a computer. For you women with a computer, try "Syberia" by AdventureCompany games. There's a great sequel called, aplty enough, "SyberiaII".
For those who like things that go bump in the night, "Scratches", by the same company, skeered the crap out of me.
These aren't new, but they are the best ones I can think of other than the "Dark Fall" series.
June 7, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The games were published, but not created, by the same company.
Believe it or not, I know the creator of Scratches and I'm even somewhere in the game's credits (under my real name though). And yes, that game is scary as hell. Unbelievably so.
June 7, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the correction, and thanks for being part of the "Scratches" team.
I love a puzzle. This game offered it. I love scary movies. This game brought it and then some. Still gives me chills.
I go back to a PC game years later just as I do a movie or a book. I tried playing Scratches again, pretty recently, and found it just as confounding as it was the first time. And just as scary.
One of the best out there.
June 7, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can tell you that the creator of Scratches is a major horror movie junkie. I think that shines through :)
I only played a very minor role in the development as a technical adviser and tester. But I'll let my friend know that Scratches fans are everywhere!
June 7, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Own it. ;) Been a while though. Come to think of it, I have no idea what I did with it.
I've always had a mini-obsession with the Arthurian legend, and I stumbled across that game one day and had to grab it. My brother is the big gamer but sometimes he gets me hooked on games. Warcraft, Diablo, Might and Magic, to think of a few off the top of my head. He's currently severely addicted to Ultima.
I've wished someone would do a new, great Arthurian legend movie. All the ones I've seen have been uber-cheesy or oversimplified.
June 7, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the 2004 movie with Clive Owen wasn't bad. Yet another perspective, distinctly less mystical. Obviously a lot was simplified, since there's only so much you can fit into a 2-hour movie.
Play (or replay) the Arthur game. Heck, I should dust off my old review copy too. The reason why I said the game was kind of edutainment is that there was a lot of background information in the game on the period and on the legend.
Some modern video games are actually a new literary form that flies completely under the radar. In some of them (say Baldur's Gate series or Fallout) there is a serious amount of writing.
June 7, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen that one. I'll check it out one of these days.
I think if they approached it by doing it as a multi-part series it could be truly fantastic. Kind of similar to the way they did the Rings trilogy.
June 7, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clive Owen film gave a whole new perspective just as the "Mists of Avalon" book gave one.
The Clive Owen film makes it more about the Romans than any other legend I've seen yet. The character of Guinivere is entirely rewritten, as compared to the legend and the "Mists of Avalon".
AND there's no hanky panky between her and Lancelot, for once.
June 7, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read "The Mists of Avalon" when I was in my teens, and have re-read it quite a few times since.
I find it to be a very honest retelling of a tale already well-told, with the perspectives of the women in the story being the most refreshing part.
Having been an agnostic for ages, I had no stumbling blocks to get past when I read it from Morgaine's perspective. I just loved her for her attempt to be "worldly", only to go back to the Isle she loved best.
June 7, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a little rusty even talking about it and really only remember my general impression of the book right now, but I really did love it. It captured the contradictions of her character not fully seen in the other tellings.
Have you read any of her other stuff? Didn't she end up starting a series about Avalon after that book?
June 7, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
codegen86,
I was just about to post a book recommendation, and saw the title of this post.
I'd agree on the trilogy - great reading and a series that I enjoyed, though I understand some people got really upset about their philosophy not a surprise :-)
Just out of curiosity, anyone ever hear of calls for boycotting "chronicles of narnia" or other C S Lewis books?
Also a quick question - I've never tried to open a new thread. Where do I go to create a new topic?
June 7, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think non-religious people tend to be a bit more tolerant of other views, hence no calls for boycott :)
There is a 'BLOG NOW!' link near the top of the page, on the right side.
June 7, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thought that was it, just wasn't positive. Thanks!
June 7, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I went through an extensive "young adult lit phase" -- and I can add that there's a lot of stuff out there for young adults that's deeper/more serious than the much of the "adult" literature out there, especially when it comes to Sci-Fi/Fantasy. First this series then Harry Potter hit the mainstream, but before that there were books by Dianna Wynne Jones, Jane Yolan, Ursula K. LeGuin -- and plenty more.
June 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are Ursula K. LeGuin's books marketed as 'young adult' literature? I always thought she was with 'adult' sci-fi writers, and what little I read from her did not suggest otherwise.
I read a few books by Diana Wynne Jones; some were clearly of the 'young adult' type (Howl's Moving Castle, Dark Lord of Derkholm - that one was fun), others were not (Deep Secret).
June 7, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually like the fact that books like these are marketed as childrens' books. Gives them more openings to get into good literature.
I loved Harry Potter. It was such a brilliant weaving of an entirely new and fantastical world you couldn't help but fall into it. I picked up the first one randomly one day from my little sister when I didn't have any other unread books lying around. My interest in the series outlasted hers. But it drove so many kids to the bookstore which was such a wonderful thing to see.
And with that series, and others like it, I think one of the great things is that it can have multiple audiences. It kind of reminds me of some of the more recent kid's movies. (what can I say: my TV has a lot more Shrek and Toy Story running on it these days.)
But, it's a great move past the excruciating days of Barney and the Teletubbies. They've started making movies that the whole family actually can enjoy. Shrek and Toy Story, and even some of the later Disney movies like Aladdin, have several layers of humor. Jokes that are funny to adults that pretty much fly over the kids heads, but plenty of stuff for them to laugh at as well.
June 7, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the first three Harry Potter books but the hype was a major turn-off for me. It's not that the books are bad, they are not... they just can't live up to the hype. I don't think Rowling is better than Tolkien or Pratchett or Pullman, not by a long shot.
That said, getting kids to the bookstore can't be a bad thing.
For a really funny "family movie" that both kids and adults can enjoy, I can recommend Hoodwinked!: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/
The way that movie tells the same story from the viewpoints of different protagonists is great.
June 7, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't seen it. Definitely will check it out. I am getting a little tired of Buzz and Woody. ;)
No, she's definitely not. But in a sense the hype was a bit of a good thing since it made reading seem cool for a lot of kids. For me, I usually try to just zone out of all that hype. With books, movies. I don't want to hear about them at all. I'll avoid reading book and movie reviews on ones I have personally experienced yet.June 7, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good policy. With Harry Potter, the hype was unfortunately impossible to escape.
June 7, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: LeGuin -- some are "young adult", and some aren't... E.g.: "The Dispossessed": definitely NOT young adult; "Wizard of Earthsea" series: young adult.
Madeline L'Engle is another interesting one -- I read "A Wrinkle in Time" when I was in grade school, and I remember thinking about it much later and realizing how intense that whole series is. I haven't actually gone back to read it as an adult, so I can't fully vouch for it on that level, but I bet it'd still read well.
June 7, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true. I think that so many layers of meaning were lost on a lot of us in the literature we read in middle and high school. (or at least me!) I remember reading The Grapes of Wrath in 9th grade. I hated it. I read it a few years later and loved it. Maybe too much for my 14-year-old self.
Certain ones always seem to stick out in our memories. I loved reading the Canterbury Tales in school. I think I was the only one.
The one that sticks out the most in my memory I love as much now as I did then: The Giver. Think I was in 6th or 7th grade reading that. It's had some of its own controversy as well. Maybe this is weird, but I often just randomly pick up a book off my shelf I read as a kid and read it again to see if it's still as great. I'm not ashamed to tell you some of my favorite books are those ones. ;) The Phantom Tollbooth. Most of the Roald Dahl books.
I am a little embarrassed to tell you I've still never read A Wrinkle in Time. I always forget about it when I'm at the bookstore or library and am reminded of it times like this.
I feel a list coming on.
June 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it with women and lists... (just kidding!)
Hope you'll share the list with us.
Roald Dahl is great. I think I read most of his books for children when I was a teenager and I loved them. They're sort of fairy tales on LSD. His stories for adults aren't bad either.
June 7, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A Wrinkle in Time" comes to mind right away.
June 7, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last thing I've read in the genre was Lord of the Rings many years back, in fact during the blackout of several days in New York in the 60's, and reading it by candlelight was kind of cozy. I can't get back to it in any way today.
Your summary is good. Sounds expensive. Is there a paper book version?
June 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you mean paperback, yes, of course there are paperback editions. Now that a "major motion picture" is out (because they never make a minor motion picture, as one of my favorite authors says), it's probably not very expensive either.
His Dark Materials is not much like Lord of the Rings. I very much enjoyed both trilogies, but they are quite different. For one thing, Pullman is much more modern. Also, Tolkien created his own world, with its own consistent set of rules. Pullman mixes our world with other worlds, and his rules are rather more flexible.
June 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bought the boxed paperback set for $15 on amazon.com two weeks ago. I would've finished it except politics kept getting in the way, heh heh.
June 7, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Random plug for my favorite bargain book site: bookcloseouts.com.
It's not always the kind of place you can go looking for something specific (though it's worth a shot) but you can find some good books (and children's books, if anyone is in the market) for amazingly cheap prices.
June 7, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
We just watched "The Golden Compass" movie and loved it. No movie can include as much detail as there is in a book, but overall it was pretty true to the book. Agree that the trilogy of books are good fun.
It is interesting that in the movie, the overt reference to the church is played down. The "church" establishment doesn't go by that name in the movie, but between the outfits they wear, the medallions on necklaces, the authoritarian attitude and censorship efforts, the reference is clear to all.
Reportedly the author, Pullman, agreed to change the screenplay to remove overt references to the church, because he wants to make movies from the second and third books, also, and was afraid of generating too much controversy. [The religious right wingnuts were all over the making of this movie, apparently, even before the first frame was shot.] But really, nothing is lost, I even thought the anti-religion message was stronger for being more subtle.
Thanks for post about a topic other than the Presidential race!!
June 7, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first two books were excellent. The third did not fulfill my expectations. I particularly found the death of that assassin cleric anticlimactic, and I had grudges against two characters that didn't jibe with their rehabilitation in the finale.
June 7, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to jump off topic a little bit, Harry Potter is not necessarily a children's book either. Although I haven't read the first 4 books in quite awhile, I read books 5 and 6 last summer. Afterwards, I was so moved by the philosophy (in book 6 in particular) that I had to write my English teacher an e-mail--this was when I was still in high school.
In book 6 particularly, there are definitely Nietzschean themes running throughout the book, which of course leads you straight into existentialism. Also, there are traces (and no I haven't read the 7th book, so I might be off on this one) of transcendentalism, as well.
So, I wouldn't necessarily place Harry Potter in the realm of merely children's literature.
Indeed, here is a portion of the letter that I sent to my English teacher:
"Indeed, Nietzsche, like Foucault, focuses on power, particularly within a moral context. Often, however, he discusses power in the form of deceit, destruction, and domination. But I have come to realize that most of his writings are de Tocqueville-like observations; indeed, in Beyond Good and Evil he outlines the connection between power and morality from a historical perspective, eventually coming to the conclusion that there are only two moralities, the masters-morality and the slave-morality. However, I believe that Nietzsche was saying more about power. I believe that his observations concerning morality were correct, but I also believe that he was simultaneously positing a challenge to humanity. Nietzsche was asking us: will we continue to use our power to serve the ends of destruction, deceit, and domination or will we use our power to create, to be merciful, and to be benevolent. His existentialism comes through very clearly at this point, by leaving open the possibility for transformation he was simultaneously telling us that the choice is ours. His proclomation that 'God is dead' has been egregiously misinterpreted. God is dead simply means that capital [G]od is dead precisely because the power to shape our destiny and control the world in which we live resides in us.
Which, leads me to the conclusion that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the classic Nietzschean foil. On the one hand, you have Lord Voldemort who uses fear, manipulation, and deceit to dominate individuals juxtaposed against Harry Potter who appears to be the embodiment of hope and the power of community and creation. Specifically we have the power of love against the power of evil. Dumbledore tells Harry that the one thing that makes him more powerful than Lord Voldemort can ever comprehend is his capacity to love. After reading Harry Potter I have been shaken to my core and profoundly moved. Nietzsche is in effect telling us that there are two types of power: the power to create and the power to destroy, the power to be merciful and the power to forgive, the power to hate and the power to love. Thus, there are two types of courage: the courage to embrace life or the courage to embrace death. Lord Voldemort has clearly embraced death, he destroys at will, he kills at will, etc. while clinging to the belief that his murderous campaign will make him immortal. However, the author tries to show us that this is clearly a delusion when juxtaposed against Harry Potter. Harry Potter has embraced life, he did not die when attacked by Lord Voldemort, his parents died to keep him alive, and even though Sirius has died as well as Dumbledore he continues on his journey. As per The Way of Transformation he has challenged life in order to transcend. He will not cower away from life like Lord Voldemort and seek protection in immortality, he will challenge life in all its adversity, he will allow himself to be battered and bruised in order for that, which is indestructible, to rise within himself to meet Lord Voldemort. Thus, the Harry Potter series is simply an allegory illustrating two diametrically opposed ways of living."
June 7, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either you're a woman or you've just single-handedly destroyed my stereotypes of American male high-schoolers. Congratulations.
I've not read the last three HP books, so take the following with a grain of salt...
It's very tempting to analyze and interpret literature. The catch is that this usually says a lot more about the person doing the interpreting than about the author or the work itself. The human mind is extremely good at finding patterns, and it has a tendency to see them even where there aren't any.
It's certainly possible - and perhaps even helpful - to project a Nietzschean perspective onto Harry Potter, but something tells me there are lots of books that could be subjected to the same treatment with much the same results.
June 7, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure you're right, because I do it to almost every book I read. (I even do it to cartoons!). But mostly I see my way of interpreting literature as a statement against people who trivialize certain types of literature.
I'm thoroughly convinced that there's philosophy in almost everything; this view, coupled with the fact that I never feel a need to assume authorial intent, allows me to expand the literature and take it to levels that it may not have been intended for. I feel that if I have to interpret the literature by always presupposing that this is what the author intended to say, then that defeats the purpose of reading. If you only interpret literature by trying to figure out what the author is trying to say, then you have foreclosed the discussion that the book was intended to open up.
By the way, I'm a boy. Consider that stereotype destroyed!!!
June 7, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now tell me you're a typical product of the US education system and I'll be really stoked :)
Which cartoons do you do this to? Something like Batman, or something like Sandman?
People who trivialize certain types of art are usually snobs who do not have the good sense to enjoy themselves when they can.
One of the most beautiful aspects of art, and especially literature, is that it's very open to interpretation. There's always an interplay between the reader and the author, and not two people will read the same book in quite the same way; in fact the same person reading the book at a different time will likely see the book in a different light.
June 7, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you got an A+ for that.
June 7, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, this was only in a letter that I sent to my English teacher the summer after I graduated high school.
By the way, sorry, I thought I was still in high school when I wrote this letter, but I had actually already graduated. I though it was two years ago, but when I re-read the letter it was written right after I had gotten into college.
June 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used to see Nietzsche in everything I would read too. It means his words resonated with you.
I love your quotes. I've got another one for you - The overexamined life is not worth living. Saul Bellow. ;)
June 7, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Pullman trilogy - I loved them. My favorite aspect of the novels were the human-daemon relationships.
The Subtle Knife, reminded me of C.J. Cherryh's Morgaine Trilogy.
Some years back, I found Cherryh's trilogy in a used bookstore in Seattle. I picked it up thinking it might be about the Arthurian tales. Instead, I discovered another author.
June 7, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the The Bartimaeus Trilogy, by Jonathan Stroud, a few years back and really liked it (even though I went into it thinking he had done nothing more than rip off the Harry Potter series). It's in the Harry Potter genre. George Orwellian premise where humans are seperated into two classes, wizards who rule and can use magic, and everyone else. The catch is that wizards can only summon demons who then perform the magic for the wizards. The demons are basically slaves to the wizards that must perform the summoning wizards exact command. The demons know they are bound in slavery and will kill the summoner/reek havoc if summoners wording is not exact (or if they know the summoner's name). IMO, Stroud does a good job weaving in multiple real historical naratives about ruling/subjucated class, religous perspective (through demon vs. common viewpoints), the corruption of power, and redemption.
I would also suggest:
The Dragonlance Trilogy, by Margret Weis and Tracy Hickman
The Dark Elf Trilogy, by R. A. Salvatore
And, 'The Sandman', which is a graphic novel by Neil Gaiman.
June 7, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You won me over at the mention of Neil Gaiman.
June 7, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hee Hee! Thanks. I read it many years ago, but I still remember it as absolutely captivating.
I'm about to blog about Hillary's speech today, let's see how much I won you over (spoiler: nothing negative, I'm sick of that).
June 7, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want a daemon.
Also terrific are the Garth Nix Sabriel books, and Jonathan Stroud's Bartemeus trilogy. And Nancy Farmer, The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm and The House of the Scorpion.
If you have not read Louis Sachar's Holes, its a must.
But I think the Pullman books (along with Harry Potter and the All too Humans) are the tops, and I say that recognizing the third is sort of a mess.
June 7, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, someone got to Bartameous. More Gaiman: Stardust and also Neverwhere. And Coraline!
June 7, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Garth Nix and Gaiman, yes!
Also Pratchett's Discworld, specially the witches.
June 7, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weirdly, I've never been able to get into Pratchett--except I loved Equal Rites.
June 7, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Esk at Unseen Univerity. ;)
His playing with language got me.
I also like Octavia Butler.
June 8, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The lady with the sword knows whereof she speaks.
I seriously recommend Pratchett. The only catch is that it's hard to jump into the middle of the series. The books are all standalone stories, but you'll miss some references and won't know the character backgrounds. Try Monstrous Regiment, or even better, Small Gods. Those are fairly independent of the preceding books.
Also, if it hasn't been mentioned on this thread, Good Omens by Gaiman & Pratchett is excellent.
June 8, 2008 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read the "kiddie" witch books? The Wee Free Men and the sequels? If not, you definitely should :)
June 8, 2008 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an elementary school librarian, so I'm sort of ashamed that I haven't read the His Dark Materials books yet. Apart from it being job-related, I have a guilty pleasure for good young adult fiction, and I'm really excited by the return to fantasy settings since the rise of Harry Potter. The themes are grander, translate better across kids with disparate backgrounds, and it's a good draw away from the more shallow YA lit that's all about cliques and being cool.
Anyway, based on your description I think I might have to bump it up the list of things to read a few spaces.
June 8, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Demo, what are your favorite YA and MG fantasies?
And yes, you have to read this trilogy!
June 8, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any Tamora Pierce is usually well-received, particularly by girls -- I myself enjoyed the Alanna series, but I haven't read it since I was in middle school myself. I don't know if they're marked as such but L.E. Modesitt's Saga of Recluse and Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy are both great coming of age series. Harry Potter -- well, it seems almost cliche, but the books are big for a reason. Who doesn't find something to like? I sometimes recommend Redwall, but I haven't cared for what parts of the series I've read. Eragon I don't recommend. I consider Watership Down a fantasy, but that's a part of the general curriculum anyway. The NIMH books... It pains me because I'd like to recommend G.R.R. Martin to some of the more advanced readers, but my district is pretty conservative to say the least and it wouldn't be taken well.
June 8, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh NIMH, I just loved those. Totally forgot about them.
I read the whole (or most?) of the Redwall series when I was younger and really got into them. Liked certain ones better than others though. I remember just really liking the part where they made all the food from woodland stuff. (Maybe the early chef in me!)
June 8, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I should throw in some recommendations too.
Mercedes Lackey's books. Many of those probably count as 'young adult' lit. Most are classic fantasy novels set on a different world, but she also wrote a series called The Elemental Masters which is a bit different - set on Earth in early 20th century, only on this Earth some (very few) people can actually do magic. There are (I think) six books in the series and each is very loosely based on a classic fairy tale - Cinderella, Snow White, etc.
Gregory Maguire - Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, Son of a Witch, and others. Everyone must have heard of the Wicked musical by now. Wonderful retelling of Wizard of Oz from a different perspective (it's called "revisionist") - be prepared to learn that nearly everything Frank Baum told you is a lie. The two books I named are actually more adult oriented, but Maguire wrote lots of books for children and young adults as well.
June 8, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a couple of old school recommendations: "The Last Unicorn" by Peter S. Beagle. I first read as a kid in 1968 and it still works for me today. It manages to be both genuinely moving and snarky (sometimes in the same sentence).
"Red Moon Black Mountain" by Joy Chant. A bit of a "Narnia/Lord of the Rings" crossover from the very early 70s. The difference is Chant brings the character development C.S. Lewis tended to skimp on in his stories, while at the same time creating a world that's just as vivid as Middle Earth, and in some ways even more real.
Also, my shame: I am addicted to Stephanie Meyer and her Twilight series. I'm a 52-year-old man and I'm down with all teen-age girls counting down to the publication date for "Breaking Dawn."
The horror...the horror
June 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment