Comment

  1. NeuroticPlatypus on 28 September 2010, 10:12 said:

    Wow, I’ve never read any of these, but this one sounds pretty bad. Elephants with wheels?

  2. Nate Winchester on 28 September 2010, 12:01 said:

    The sound disparity between when you are on camera and when you’re not is high. If you can’t equalize them, maybe just stay off camera as you come in louder and clearer in those segments.

  3. Jeni on 28 September 2010, 19:48 said:

    1) SVALBARD IS NOT RUSSIA

    2) Why do you need fighting? Just because it’s “cool”?

    3) What, seriously, you’re criticising the zeppelin? It’s from his world. That’s his technology. SURE, let’s go look for advanced technology and completely ruin the tone of the novel. GOOD JOB.

    4) The amount of awards and literary love this book has received would disagree with you about the pace and tone. And I certainly do.

    5) For pete’s sake, what is your obsession with action? read an action book if you want this, this is not freaking James Bond. And it’s not aimed at 9-11 year olds.

    6) A lot was right with the book.

    7) No. It’s not about the “power of love” stop making it up. As the bearer, Will is emotionally and mentally in tune with the knife. His love for his mother overwhelms his concentration, causing his mind to fracture, and therefore the knife.

    I may love these books, but you’re pointing criticism in completely the wrong places.

  4. Dia on 28 September 2010, 22:41 said:

    I second what Jeni said. I didn’t like The Amber Spyglass, but it wasn’t for the reasons you stated. It was because of Pullman hammering his beliefs down my throat. I thought that he was so intent on getting his opinions across that he let the story suffer for it.

  5. Asahel on 28 September 2010, 23:28 said:

    7) No. It’s not about the “power of love” stop making it up. As the bearer, Will is emotionally and mentally in tune with the knife. His love for his mother overwhelms his concentration, causing his mind to fracture, and therefore the knife.

    Wait, seriously? I actually think I like it better when it’s the silliness and goofiness of the “power of love” explanation instead of the downright preposterous “my mind has been fractured by love” explanation.

  6. Jeni on 29 September 2010, 05:29 said:

    of the downright preposterous “my mind has been fractured by love” explanation

    I’m sorry, I don’t think you read what I typed.

    His mind was in two different places — cutting holes to different worlds requires complete concentration. By getting distracted by the memory of his mother, Will breaks this concentration and the Knife shatters.

  7. Jeni on 29 September 2010, 05:33 said:

    It was because of Pullman hammering his beliefs down my throat

    Oh man, yes. Pullman is completely unsubtle, and has the tact of a sledgehammer. I think that’s why people have such problems with Subtle Knife and Amber Spyglass, the tone/aim of the story has such a dramatic shift. I almost wish Northern Lights was part of another series, because I think it builds expectation in the wrong manner.

  8. Komedic on 29 September 2010, 12:47 said:

    1) SVALBARD IS NOT RUSSIA

    Yes. And the scene’s set in Russia, not Svalbard, which dosen’t feature in this installment, except briefly near the beggining, rendering your point moot.

    3) What, seriously, you’re criticising the zeppelin? It’s from his world. That’s his technology. SURE, let’s go look for advanced technology and completely ruin the tone of the novel. GOOD JOB.

    He’s not in his world anymore, so he shouldn’t have to settle for its 1930s technology. Surely, out of the almost infinite number of worlds he has access to, at least some must have better war machines to offer than big balloons?

    Also, there’s no reason why advanced technology shouldn’t gel with the tone of the novel, especially since it already features VERY prominently in it, to the point of, y’know, FORMING THE BASIS OF THE PLOT. Granted, the aletheiometer and the demon-cutting device, among others, are magitek, but they still count.

    5) For pete’s sake, what is your obsession with action? read an action book if you want this, this is not freaking James Bond. And it’s not aimed at 9-11 year olds.

    My point wasn’t so much that there wasn’t enough action as it was that in this case an action scene made more logical sense plot-wise, but still, when you read about an armored polar bear warrior king, you don’t exactly expect him to just sit around on his arse all day.

    And pre-teens are most definately the series’ primary demographic, no matter what you think its merits are, or how broad its appeal may be.

    7) No. It’s not about the “power of love” stop making it up. As the bearer, Will is emotionally and mentally in tune with the knife. His love for his mother overwhelms his concentration, causing his mind to fracture, and therefore the knife.

    … which is a pretentious, overly elaborate way of saying the power of love caused the knife to shatter.

  9. Asahel on 29 September 2010, 12:55 said:

    I’m sorry, I don’t think you read what I typed.
    His mind was in two different places — cutting holes to different worlds requires complete concentration. By getting distracted by the memory of his mother, Will breaks this concentration and the Knife shatters.

    Oh, I read what you typed. It was preposterous. You’re telling me that in all the other times he’s used the Knife, he’s never ever had distracting influences around him before? This was the first time ever that he attempted to use the Knife under even slightly adverse circumstances? Ever? Really?

  10. Nate Winchester on 29 September 2010, 13:40 said:

    Now now guys, when imps fight, bad authors win. Either be extra nice to each other or extra insulting (so over the top it becomes fun – think classic SNL).

    Oh, I read what you typed. It was preposterous. You’re telling me that in all the other times he’s used the Knife, he’s never ever had distracting influences around him before? This was the first time ever that he attempted to use the Knife under even slightly adverse circumstances? Ever? Really?

    Oh man, I’m laughing now at the thought of the boy (who’s starting to hit puberty) starting to use the knife right as a gorgeous gal walks by…

    Either the knife shatters or gets longer, not sure which.

  11. Jeni on 29 September 2010, 18:00 said:

    rendering your point moot

    Ok, I got scenes mixed up, I apologise.

    He’s not in his world anymore, so he shouldn’t have to settle for its 1930s technology.

    There’s settling and using technology that you’re used to and know.

    Granted, the aletheiometer and the demon-cutting device, among others, are magitek, but they still count.

    They are part of the world. You start bringing in fighter jets and it’s going to start getting weird. I’m saying your claim is unreasonable nitpicking and would create a worser novel.

    My point wasn’t so much that there wasn’t enough action as it was that in this case an action scene made more logical sense plot-wise

    Not really. If I remember correctly, they wanted to keep Lyra safe. Since obtaining the Knife, Will was all about the subtle (lawl) course of action, preferring to sneak in. Besides, Mrs. Coulter isn’t evil.

    And pre-teens are most definately the series’ primary demographic, no matter what you think its merits are, or how broad its appeal may be.

    No. No they are not.

    “Pullman has specifically denied targeting the books at any particular age group.”

    http://www.hisdarkmaterials.org/srafopedia/index.php/His_Dark_Materials

    Northern Lights may well have been suitable for 9-11, but five years later, those who grew up with it were then in their mid-teens.

    … which is a pretentious, overly elaborate way of saying the power of love caused the knife to shatter.

    Yeah. No.

    Oh, I read what you typed. It was preposterous. You’re telling me that in all the other times he’s used the Knife, he’s never ever had distracting influences around him before? This was the first time ever that he attempted to use the Knife under even slightly adverse circumstances? Ever? Really?

    Oh, right, I see, so you haven’t read the books?

    Now now guys, when imps fight, bad authors win.

    Or, when “criticism” is misdirected, good authors lose.

  12. Asahel on 29 September 2010, 21:52 said:

    Oh, right, I see, so you haven’t read the books?

    That’s correct. So, I infer from this that I was actually correct and he’d never ever had any distracting influences around him at any other point in trying to use the Knife?

    Wow.

    How very conveeeeeeeeeenient.

    Or, when “criticism” is misdirected, good authors lose.

    That may be true, but I didn’t see any good authors being criticized. Zing! Snap!

  13. Nate Winchester on 29 September 2010, 22:12 said:

    That may be true, but I didn’t see any good authors being criticized. Zing! Snap!

    Daaaaamn. (reference s in the Devil review)

  14. Jeni on 30 September 2010, 03:02 said:

    That’s correct. So, I infer from this that I was actually correct and he’d never ever had any distracting influences around him at any other point in trying to use the Knife?

    Wow.

    How very conveeeeeeeeeenient.

    No. You you may not. My point is you know nothing about the situation or the characters. And this is why I object so much to this baseless nitpicking. It could put off people from genuinely good novels, presenting situations without context can make anything sound ridiculous.

    Take the mulefa, they are some brilliant wordbuilding and some of my favourite characters, but KK boils them down to “elephants on wheels”. Yeah. No.

    That may be true, but I didn’t see any good authors being criticized. Zing! Snap!

    You’re right. There’s a good author being baselessly nitpicked. Zing! Snap!

  15. Asahel on 30 September 2010, 11:22 said:

    You’re right. There’s a good author being baselessly nitpicked. Zing! Snap!

    Really? Who is it? I thought we were talking about Pullman…

  16. Nate Winchester on 30 September 2010, 11:34 said:

    Apparently everything I’ve heard, Pullman was a good author in book 1 then… something went horribly wrong in book 3.

  17. Jeni on 30 September 2010, 19:10 said:

    Really? Who is it? I thought we were talking about Pullman…

    LOL. YOU’RE NOT SAYING ANYTHING NOW. I WIN. LOL.

    Apparently everything I’ve heard, Pullman was a good author in book 1 then… something went horribly wrong in book 3.

    Hah, now that is well written and funny. I do have issues about the ending, but not in that vein, I actually think Pullman does the smaller scenes best anyway. But, most of my criticism is directed at somewhat inconsistent characterisation. That and not liking Will. Heh.

  18. Asahel on 30 September 2010, 21:10 said:

    LOL. YOU’RE NOT SAYING ANYTHING NOW. I WIN. LOL.

    Ok, I guess you really want to do this, so who am I not to give you exactly what you want? Let’s begin with:

    My point is you know nothing about the situation or the characters.

    False. I said I hadn’t read the books. This is not the same as knowing “nothing” about the situation or the characters. Let me list what I know about this particular situation and the characters involved.

    1) Will runs into Mrs. Coulter at the cave.
    2) Will has issues regarding his mentally ill mother, but resists Mrs. Coulter’s efforts to manipulate him through that.
    3) Will’s plan is as follows: Use the Knife to go to a parallel universe, go to the equivalent point of where Lyra would be, use the Knife again to go back into universe where Lyra is, and rescue her right from under the nose of Mrs. Coulter.
    4) This needlessly convoluted plan goes well until the point where he’s supposed to escape back into the parallel universe with Lyra, whereupon glimpsing Mrs. Coulter reminds him of his mother, breaks his concentration (one could even say “fractures his mind”), and the Knife breaks.

    Now, if you look at the above and conclude I know “nothing” about the situation, then we need to stop trying to communicate because your perception of reality is so off that I doubt I’d recognize the color of the sky in your world.

    From my understanding of the situation, it was a poor plan to begin with. Getting the armored polar bear to help would’ve been vastly superior (not just as a plan, mind you, but also as a scene). And the Knife breaking smacks of contrivance. Now, I will admit that I do not know which of the following possibilities are true, but none of them are good.

    1) Perhaps Will has used the Knife many times but never under even slightly adverse circumstances that could break his concentration. This smacks of convenience.

    2) Perhaps Will has used the Knife many times under adverse circumstances and lots of distractions around, but this one is the one that actually gets him to break the Knife. Preposterous.

    3) Perhaps Will has not used the Knife very often, and this time just so happened to be the one time a distraction presented itself. Contrivance. Also, it demonstrates why the polar bear plan (among many, many others) would’ve been far superior.

    You’ve so far refused to tell me which of these possibilities is correct (or if there is another that I haven’t speculated on), and I don’t know why. Until you’re willing to provide me more information, I’m going to assume the truth is one of the three possibilities I’ve enumerated above, all of which are seriously lacking from a storytelling perspective.

    Next, let me point out that you wrote both this:

    Pullman is completely unsubtle, and has the tact of a sledgehammer.

    and this:

    And this is why I object so much to this baseless nitpicking. It could put off people from genuinely good novels

    You appear to be saying that Amber Spyglass (that’s the book we’re criticizing, yes?) is a genuinely good novel and that it was written with no subtlety and the tact of a sledgehammer. You see, that would qualify it as poor in the universe I come from. Perhaps if you find a Subtle Knife, you could join me here where genuinely good novels do not beat you over the head with their messages. You might like it, and if you don’t, you could always go back to your own parallel universe (unless I remind you of your mother, of course).

    There. Happy now?

  19. Syndod on 4 October 2010, 02:31 said:

    Note to the following: I am only going to point out something in regards to the lack of primary information on the part of Asahel’s arguments and Nate Winchester’s comments.

    It was the first time Will had interacted with any person that resembled his mother since becoming the bearer. He did not just have “issues” with his mother; he had no friends because he was scared of their discovering his mother’s instability and the possibility of his removal from her. He was both dependent on and protective of his mother in a way no child should have to be. Asahel, condensing that to “he has issues regarding his mentally ill mother” is absurd, made even more so by your taking it from the above video, which I won’t even talk about. It is the first thing readers learn of Will. You clearly need to read the books before you pass judgment because all your scenarios are unsound.

    Until Mrs Coulter, there simply were not any people he identified mother figures; i.e. caring of their child, made all the more poignant to Will because he had had to care for his mother. Remember, he’s prepubescent, just like Lyra. Nate Winchester, your joke also showed you know nothing about the books apart from what you have “heard” because Will never uses the knife again upon the onset of puberty except on the occasion that he shatters it at the end of the novel.

    By the way, Asahel, it is possible for a novel to be unsubtle and still be “good.” Moreover, you were twisting words there, because I believe they may have only extended to themes, which most people agree were egregious. If a novel has, largely, admirable prose, characterisation, and structure, people consider it good. I do not agree with those claims of unsubtlety, myself – mainly because they all seem to hinge on his ostensible attacking of the Church and the killing of God, when he focuses on only blind dogmatism and the representation of God is clearly Dust, which grows only stronger upon the resolution of the series.

    So, anyway, read the books before you attack them. It at least deserves the respect a site like this would give Twilight and Inheritance, especially considering how this series is culturally significant. I am not saying awards and glowing reviews are of the utmost importance, yet I should think the Carnegie, Guardian, and Whitbread judges had actually read the book when they credited Pullman. I mention them in the context that they obviously have more meaning than your comments by virtue of actually having access to pertinent information complete with personal biases.

  20. Asahel on 4 October 2010, 15:28 said:

    First of all, I would like to thank Syndod for giving me more information on which to form a better opinion. That said, the new information has not exactly let Pullman off the hook. In some ways, it makes it even worse.

    Based on what you said, Will’s plan becomes even more baffling. He should know that even glimpsing Mrs. Coulter would be too great a distraction to him. Even if he doesn’t understand that losing his concentration would destroy the knife, it should at least be obvious to him that losing his concentration would make him unable to escape.

    It’s just a very bad plan. Are Will’s plans usually that bad? I guess if it’s part of his character that he comes up with the most asinine plans imaginable, I might mark the scene as passable, but still—that’s the kind of protagonist that I’d rather not read about (except in a comedy, and I assume this is not meant to be a comedy).

    it is possible for a novel to be unsubtle and still be “good.”

    Perhaps, but if it is unsubtle AND lacks tact (i.e. it beats you over the head with its message), then, no, we’ll have to remain in disagreement over that. Amiable prose and characterisation and structure? That makes a novel passable.

    So, anyway, read the books before you attack them.

    I’ll also decline from that. I’ve read Inheritance, but I haven’t read Twilight. I’ve done criticisms of both. If I criticize something and use incorrect facts, feel free to correct me. I’ll amend my statements if I’m wrong, and I’ll even correct my position if that needs to happen. It didn’t happen in this case because I figured Will’s “issues” with his mother probably were deep-seated and scarring. Finding out that they were indeed deep-seated and scarring therefore had little effect on my position regarding the scene in question.

    I am not saying awards and glowing reviews are of the utmost importance, yet I should think the Carnegie, Guardian, and Whitbread judges had actually read the book when they credited Pullman. I mention them in the context that they obviously have more meaning than your comments by virtue of actually having access to pertinent information complete with personal biases.

    Perhaps so, but what’s your point? I’d agree with you that if you are deciding on whether or not to read something, it’s best to get the information from someone that’s actually read the books. Some people that have read the books have liked them. Guess what? There are also some people who have read the books that haven’t liked them.

    You don’t need me (a person that hasn’t read the books) to tell you that the third story is poor. There are plenty of other people that have read the books that will say the same thing. Obviously, their opinion on the matter is better than mine. I just don’t feel like slogging through those books just to obtain a better opinion on them. Call it a cost/benefit analysis. High cost. Low benefit. If it means my opinion on the subject isn’t worth as much, I’ll just accept that and move on.

  21. swenson on 4 October 2010, 15:57 said:

    I haven’t read the books either, and I’m still unsure about the whole knife-breaking thing (which, OK, does sound awfully convenient), but… I’m not sure there’s any way Will would have known that seeing Mrs. Coulter would break his concentration. It sounds (from my uninformed position, anyway) that he didn’t realize it beforehand, so while the plan may have been risky and there may have been better ones at his disposal that he didn’t think of, he didn’t really have a way to predict whether or not the knife would break.

    And come on, guys, how many times have we heard that silly “you can’t possibly take a stance on something until you’ve read/played/watched it” argument from Twilight fans? A million times at least! We all know it’s a bad argument. Asahel finds a particular scene to sound contrived; others do not. S/he’s allowed to find it contrived, just like people who have never read Twilight are allowed to find it poorly-written and with disturbing messages; likewise, others are allowed to find that particular scene to be well done or something. (I draw the line at finding Twilight to be well-written and a good influence, though!)

    tl;dr: each side has valid points (and I don’t completely agree with either) and, as beings with free will, are capable of forming their own opinions. Can we all stop arguing now? Imps fighting is a Very Bad Thing, especially when it’s over something subjective.

  22. Syndod on 4 October 2010, 21:34 said:

    I’m sorry if I came across as rude, Swenson, but discussing is not fighting. And I’m siding with the Twilight fans, if what you’re saying is true. Have you ever heard of a critic not reading the text they are reviewing? Does a student ever do well in exams without personal opinions to inform their criticism? Beside that point, you have Critical Research Failure, Dan Browned, Did Not Do the Research, etc.(And I’m sorry if I’m misusing these tropes, but I don’t think I am.) You just don’t talk about what you don’t know unless you want to get called out on it.

    Asahel, Will’s plan was actually quite simple: enter cave, get Lyra, cut through to another world. He had no way of knowing what would occur with Mrs Coulter because it was the first time Mrs Coulter herself had had an opportunity to act like a mother to Lyra. Aside from a strong scene in Northern Lights, there was no explicit foreshadowing of this. And Will didn’t even feature in Northern Lights. So again, you don’t know the first thing about another character, Mrs Coulter. Readers will probably still find this scene ridiculous, but they are welcome to do so.

    In fact, Swenson, I think the arguments that come from Twilight fans are “Why don’t you write a book, then?” which violates Ebert’s Law, a man who always watches the films he reviews, I hope, and “Why are you wasting your time reading the book, then, if it’s sooooo bad?” – this tells me that the majority of people on this site actually hold with reading the text. As for Twilight and its themes, most people who resist reading it on account of them simply don’t read it and when asked simply say they don’t want to read it.

    Again, I apologise if this constitutes fighting, but Asahel did have queries. As for the rude and obvious “Guess what?” bit, Asahel, people who have read the book and disliked it, yea, like Komedic, are welcome to their opinions.

  23. swenson on 4 October 2010, 22:50 said:

    Look, I really, really don’t want to get into this, as I hate fighting discussing things on the Internet. I’m merely pointing out that this sort of discussion very easily flares up into argument, often without the participants even noticing. Having had my say, I’m not going to post any more.

    (ohhh, me and my big mouth, I just can’t shut up… OK, just one more thing, and then I really am going to leave before I make things worse! If you’re going to do a critical review of something, of course you need to have read/played/watched it first. But that’s unnecessary to have a valid opinion on it. I can criticize the leader of a different country without having lived under his/her rule. I can say I don’t like a particular dish without tasting it. And I can say that a description of a particular book or a particular scene within that book sounds contrived/poorly-written/whatever to me without having actually read the book. The key is that you must have something on which to base your opinions—you’ve learned from others who have experienced it (people in that country, people who’ve eaten that dish, people who’ve read the book) or you’ve done research on the topic (news reports, knowledge that you hate mushrooms no matter what someone puts on them, descriptions and explanations of the book). So yes, you have to experience something to review it. But I don’t believe you necessarily have to experience something merely to hold an opinion on it. YMMV, I suppose.)

  24. Syndod on 4 October 2010, 23:35 said:

    Was it necessary to do the whole strikethrough thing? Were you trying to make me feel awful? What you’re saying seems inflammatory to me, as if you’re trying to shut me up for having a different opinion. YMMV.
    As to what you said? You shouldn’t criticise a leader of a different country if you have no idea as to what you’re talking about, culturally: look at how “Western” women are criticised for how they dress and act, at First-world approaches to hot-topic issues, and at controversies ranging from genocide to euthanasia; I won’t mention specifics because they genuinely start arguments. Furthermore, if you’re getting your opinions from a secondary source, how do you know they are true? You don’t. You can’t. Even if they’re a trusted source. It’s like how good students don’t trust sparknotes/cliffnotes/equivalent.
    Moreover, you can’t say you don’t like a particular dish without tasting it, unless you’re allergic to a component, because you will seem like a toddler and logical people will call you out on it. I overheard a conversation with a five-year-old just last night. Likewise, as I’ve pointed out, Asahel’s comments, which aren’t even his opinion, are inherently flawed because he has no real knowledge of the series because he hasn’t read the series. What you’re describing pretty much sounds like innuendo.

  25. Asahel on 5 October 2010, 11:34 said:

    Likewise, as I’ve pointed out, Asahel’s comments, which aren’t even his opinion, are inherently flawed because he has no real knowledge of the series because he hasn’t read the series.

    On a whim, I checked out the definition of opinion. The first definition was “a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.” So, yes, my comments on the scene DO constitute my opinion. Also, I freely admit that they are inherently flawed because I do not have primary knowledge. In fact, I admitted that before. Will I have to admit it again?

    If you wished (for whatever reason) to persuade me that the scene was not poor, you don’t need to waste any effort telling me how uninformed my opinion is (I already knew that). You’d need to give me information that showed my opinion was flawed. You did attempt to do that twice—once with a more complete look at Will’s relationship with his mother and, thus, Mrs. Coulter and again with a claim that Will would have had no way of knowing what would’ve happened with Mrs. Coulter because he’d never seen her as motherly before.

    My opinion has been altered by the second bit of information, but I’m not going to say how because I’m done with this discussion. It’s turning out very poorly, and I apologize deeply for my role in getting it to this point. It’s not worth it, and I’m done. I’m just going to sit here and keep my flawed opinion to myself.

  26. Syndod on 5 October 2010, 18:27 said:

    Look, I’m going to apologise again. This is the last I’ll speak of it; mainly because this has been a bad experience. You seem to have mistaken me for a fan of Pullman. I don’t know how you could have gotten that. I’m not. I didn’t attack the negative criticisms from Komedic and I have nothing personal against Asahel based on his views. It’s how he got his ‘opinion’.

    (If I’m not to post again) And I haven’t been arguing: if anything, from Swenson, I count emotional bullying – the strikethroughs, pretending conflict, the addendums that were longer than the post, deliberately inflammatory comments, complaining on the forum, and attempting to place guilt on me for having an opinion, when you were the one inciting conflict with your comments. There’s a five-letter word for that.

    My problem was with a site that had previously professed to know what it talked about before speaking of it, in response to a certain two authors who haven’t. Where I come from, it is plain wrong not to do as such. Before complaining starts on the forum, saying this is ‘trivial’, think again, because this is the reason for this site’s existence, in my opinion. People like who haven’t read any book don’t deserve this; it’s not as if it needs a safety warning. In addition, no, your mileage should not vary. This has gone on far too long.
    http://impishidea.com/Info/323/our-purpose

    Should any poster have to apologise for having an opinion different to another poster’s opinion?

  27. Anonymous on 5 October 2010, 21:37 said:

    No, but that’s no excuse to personally attack another user.

  28. Asahel on 5 October 2010, 22:47 said:

    My problem was with a site that had previously professed to know what it talked about before speaking of it, in response to a certain two authors who haven’t.

    I’ll be honest, I don’t get the problem here. I wasn’t doing a critique. I would never venture to do a critique of something I haven’t read. When I do criticism, I read first.

    In this thread, I gave my impression of the description of a scene. That’s it. Syndod, do you really think it’s impossible to form an opinion except on firsthand knowledge? If you do, I hope you never get called for jury duty, because it’ll be a hung jury. I think it’s an apt metaphor because juries aren’t infallible just as my opinion based on secondhand information isn’t infallible. However, it can still be formed just as a jury can still render a verdict.

    One last thing, yes, I’m aware I mentioned not having read Twilight, but having done a criticism of it. My criticism of Twilight was not a textual criticism, however; it was a kind of “fanfiction.” I believe I learned enough about Twilight from other sources to write the fan fic (i.e. I’ve watched the movies, read large portions quoting from the books, and my wife has read the books and answers questions for me). So, although I’d never use that limited knowledge to write a critique, I felt I had enough to write the fanfiction.

    In conclusion, don’t worry, the integrity of the site is still in tact.

  29. Syndod on 5 October 2010, 23:54 said:

    So much for not saying more.
    Juries interpret based on primary evidence: they are ‘finders of fact’, not opinion. If the evidence isn’t good enough – poor secondary, as in witness statements from dubious people – they will acquit the defendent because the onus of proof is on the prosecutor. Your metaphor is inappropriate. And I don’t care about your fanfiction; in fact, I like it and showed it to a teacher and everything. I never said anything about that specifically.
    Compare what you’ve said in Thrown with great force-Amber Spyglass comments to those said by Neurotic Platypus, the Drunk Fox, and falconempress, who have also not read the Amber Spyglass, but managed to be a lot more civil and don’t profess to have an ‘opinion’.

    I don’t think the integrity of the site is intact because, if say a Twilight fan came along, they would be like, “OMG? You haven’t read a book and yet you criticise it? How can you then criticise Stephenie Meyer for not, say, having been to Forks, or researched vampires, properly?” It’s totally against the ethos of this site: to learn from the mistakes of published authors so that we in turn grow. And you wouldn’t be the one to suffer for it, if I turned this over to a fansite and they chose to jump on it. For that matter, any legitimate reviewer/blogger would be aghast. In debates, in most of life, your approach would be useless. Also, I wasn’t going to say it, but you misinterpreted your definition and the definition I’m going by is ‘An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts.’ You had neither facts nor emotions that were your own, therefore you had no opinion.

    I’m going to ignore the anonymous, they make no sense and they’re anonymous.

  30. Syndod on 6 October 2010, 00:04 said:

    *defendant, just so you don’t jump on it.

  31. Asahel on 6 October 2010, 09:53 said:

    So much for not saying more.

    Nice dig to start with. I was done with the discussion of the scene. I’m still done with the discussion of the scene. And, in fact, I would have been done with the entire thing if you hadn’t decided to attack the entire site because of my comments. Did you really think you could blame me for the entire website losing integrity and I wouldn’t say anything?

    I don’t think the integrity of the site is intact because, if say a Twilight fan came along, they would be like, “OMG? You haven’t read a book and yet you criticise it? How can you then criticise Stephenie Meyer for not, say, having been to Forks, or researched vampires, properly?”

    Because it would be an invalid complaint. I didn’t criticize Meyer for not having been to Forks, for not researching vampires properly. You see?

    You had neither facts nor emotions that were your own, therefore you had no opinion.

    I had as many facts regarding the scene as you do regarding whether or not I’ve read the book. That’s right. I have no firsthand knowledge of the scene because I haven’t read it. You have no firsthand knowledge of whether I’ve read the book because you haven’t looked in my library to see whether the books are there or not. All of my information about the scene came from Komedic, Jeni, and you. All of your information about whether I’ve read the book came from me. And, as you wrote earlier,

    if you’re getting your opinions from a secondary source, how do you know they are true? You don’t. You can’t. Even if they’re a trusted source.

    Get that? Even if you trust me, you can’t know that I haven’t read the book because you don’t know if what I told you was true. So, your opinion about me is as inherently flawed as my opinion about the scene.

    When you were a child, did you burn your hand on the stove after your mother told you not to put your hand on the burner because it was hot and would hurt you? I didn’t. I must admit, my opinion on whether or not a stove would burn my hand is inherently flawed because I’ve never actually burned my hand on a stove, but I DO have an opinion on it, and I DO think it’s a good opinion. I wonder, do you consider that a valid opinion? Or even an opinion at all?

    But enough of this. This is foolishness and quibbling over words and opinions, which profits a person nothing. I call a truce. You stop attacking me and (more importantly) the entire site, and I stop arguing about what constitutes an opinion. Accept?

  32. Syndod on 6 October 2010, 18:44 said:

    Because it would be an invalid complaint. I didn’t criticize Meyer for not having been to Forks, for not researching vampires properly. You see?

    This is why I said you would not suffer, others would. Did you not read what I wrote? And as for your new analogy? Hot things burn. That is a fact. You based your opinion on a fact. How can you trust this? Because it comes from a trusted source, yes, but because you could also probably feel the heat without touching the stove. Your mother is not a dubious secondary source that you can’t see, is she? It’s based on facts and your own biases, therefore opinion. About sources, all I wrote was sources you had no trace on, but never mind. Another silliness.

    As for digs?

    Get that?

    Will I have to admit it again?

    In conclusion, don’t worry, the integrity of the site is still in tact [sic].

    How patronising are these? They’re the one’s solely for you.

    For that matter,

    You stop attacking me and (more importantly) the entire site, and I stop arguing about what constitutes an opinion. Accept?

    I love how I am attacking and you are merely arguing. I love how you bring the entire site into it, when I said what other member did, in the same scenario, would be the worldwide appropriate thing to do. I love how a site administrator said the exact same thing as me, only ruder, and no mention.

    I accept the truce.

  33. Asahel on 6 October 2010, 22:59 said:

    I accept the truce.

    Good. I certainly helped keep this going far beyond when it should have died, and I bet Komedic’s tired of us filling up his e-mail anyway.

    Speaking of that, I definitely owe him an apology, so here it is:

    Sorry, Komedic. I get argumentative sometimes. I do try, though, and I promise not get anything similar started on your next Thrown with Great Force segment.

  34. Jeni on 13 October 2010, 21:02 said:

    Whoo. Sorry for returning late. Real life, you know?

    @swenson

    And come on, guys, how many times have we heard that silly “you can’t possibly take a stance on something until you’ve read/played/watched it” argument from Twilight fans? A million times at least! We all know it’s a bad argument.

    Actually, no, I don’t think it is a bad argument. That’s why I don’t critique Twilight, because I haven’t read it. SURE, I can have an opinion that, upon reading the infamous scene in Breaking Dawn that it is batshit crazy. But if a fan tries to convince me there is more to that scene than I realise, I would listen.

    This is why I read Inheritance, I don’t like it, I don’t enjoy it. But it validates my criticisms.

    @Asahel

    False. I said I hadn’t read the books. This is not the same as knowing “nothing” about the situation or the characters.

    Perhaps a better way of saying it is that you have a superficial perception of the characters on account of not reading the books.

    You appear to be saying that Amber Spyglass (that’s the book we’re criticizing, yes?) is a genuinely good novel and that it was written with no subtlety and the tact of a sledgehammer. You see, that would qualify it as poor in the universe I come from.

    Not really. A book may have an unsubtle message, bu that, by itself, in no way qualifies it as a poor book. The author’s message may be obvious to the reader, but that does not detract from the characterisation or storytelling.

    There. Happy now?

    Ecstatic.

    I love how a site administrator said the exact same thing as me, only ruder

    Oi! Stop being right!

    …I get emotionally protective over the books I love, and I think that this site can sometimes convince itself that it is better at criticism than it actually is. I use my emotional response as a balance to that.

    And I’m not an official site administrator.

  35. Jeni on 13 October 2010, 21:07 said:

    Oops, missed a response.

    You’ve so far refused to tell me which of these possibilities is correct (or if there is another that I haven’t speculated on), and I don’t know why.

    Because I haven’t read the books recently. When I do, I’ll let you know. Whee.

  36. Komedic on 18 October 2010, 12:39 said:

    To elaborate on the “power of love” explanation:
    To use the Subtle Knife, Will’s mind must be perfectly “in tune” with it, which requires a great deal of concentration. Being reminded of his mother distracts him by triggering intense emotions associated with her. This create a sort of mental block, and since he’s mentally bonded to the knife, it also physically blocks (and shatters) the knife.
    Whether this makes it more or less ridiculous is up to you, but still, it basically boils down to “the knife gets broken by his Oedipus complex.”

  37. ProserpinaFC on 20 October 2010, 08:53 said:

    Nah, still not buying the knife shattering because of love/lack of concentration. Not working because of it, sure. Then that takes the focus of the knife and back on the boy, which is internal conflict and character development for him to get the knife working for him again.

    Besides, if the universe-cutting knife is that mystically fragile, wouldn’t it have shattered a long time ago?

    See, this is the flaw with highlighting the magic or magical technology in a fantasy story to such a degree as it distracts from not only character development, but also gives us chances to question the credibilty of the story world.

    Also, u guise r hilarious!

  38. Reece on 11 January 2011, 20:31 said:

    Yeah, Pullman isn’t subtle at all. It makes me sad that the Golden Compass is in the same series as the Subtle Knife and the Amber Spyglass. The Subtle Knife completely destroys the build up from the last book of Lyra finally going through the portal and makes it a huge joke about angel monsters. The Amber Spyglass is littered with plot holes, uninteresting characters, nonsensical events, and an anticlimatic ending. That’s why I hate these books.

  39. Ali on 3 August 2011, 03:17 said:

    I LOVED the Golden Compass and The subtle knife was ok as well. (Not as good.) But the Amber Spyglass Ruined the whole series.

    My reasons:

    1. Some of it just didn’t make sense!

    2.Very undescriptive.
    Ex.
    1. I didn’t know the mulefa where like Elephants until almost the end of the book. (I thought they were some sort of plant/tree thing on wheels)
    2.I didn’t understand that Mrs.Coulter and lord Asriel were dead until my like, 3rd time re-reading it.
    3. Tons of others

    3.I hated that he made Lyra and Will fall in love, then made them never able to see each other again. Plus, I hated that neither of them were super emotional either

    4. Was there even a War? If there was any fighting besides the part with Lee Scorsby then I didn’t notice.

    5. I missed Iorek. He was made like, A background character but I think he was too important to be shoved back like that all of a sudden

    6. Very Sad about Pan’s form. I was hoping something more wild, representing Lyra. Like a tiger, or a leopard. The martin really didn’t match.

    7.Philip Pullman Killed Lyra. The Real Lyra. The Brave, strong Lyra that couldn’t be tamed, the Lyra that explored the roofs of Jordan With her best friend. The Lyra that never wanted to grow up. The Lyra that was so wild she could only be compared to the wildness of her hair, or a beautiful animal of the forest. The Lyra who is the character I can relate to the most in any book I have ever read. I happen to be 13 years old, untamed and free. I love running through the forest, climbing trees and exploring. Lyra is pretty much a description of me, a mirror image in personality as well as looks. He did not do her justice by ending the book like that, where she would never be the same Lyra that I could to relate to.

    8.The book seemed unfinished. Where is the part where Will builds the Republic of Heaven? Is Lyra just going to sit around and let the Magesterium Boss her and her world around? That’s not the Lyra I know. But then again, She is dead. (Read Section #7)

    Rant over.