Who ever said kids don't read enough these days?

[Moonbear]

I'm in the middle of the Dark Materials Trilogy myself. I'm really enjoying it. Can't believe I didn't read it before this. I don't think the movie did the first book justice though.

I'm reading them now too. Never heard of them until the movie came out, but when I heard such controversy of people vehemently trying to get others to not see it, I figured I had to read the books and find out if they were as good as the controversy made me think they might be. I have purposely chosen not to see the movie so I won't ruin the books.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the books, and I think much of the controversy is that people just don't understand what they're really about. Other than having a small child or children on sort of an epic quest with talking animals, I don't see much similarity to Narnia at all...it's way better. Anyone who is comparing it to children's books is really not understanding the book at all. I don't think I'd hand those books to anyone younger than 14 or 15. Understanding the book requires some understanding of science, politics, religion, and even the language used is not at a child's reading level. I think it would ruin the story to read it before you can appreciate all the depth of meaning within it.

As for kids not having heard of the Narnia series, when I was a kid, I knew about The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, but did not know there was an entire series of books. And when I read that book, I didn't even "get" it, so wouldn't have likely read the others if I knew about them anyway. I read the series as an adult, and they made a lot more sense, because I understood the Biblical references. At the age of 10 or so, I was probably working my way through the Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys series.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Reading is not a necessarily personal experience thing. Its more of a life skill.

For me, it's just as much about 'keeping up with the Joneses' in the sense of communicating. The folks I hang out with do know Ophelia from Lady of Shallot (See Evo's 1888 Waterhouse avatar). And those kinds of references convey long-sentence-meanings in one word. As does Evo's avatar. And JW did Ophelia also. Twice.

Posters here on PF seldom make reference to anything historical or literary -- the only scientific figure from history with frequent mentiobn is Darwin.

I don't play the reference card out of deference to the crowd - mostly 'cause I'd lose the under-20 types when I'm trying to answer a question.

It may very well be that I've been around for so long I got the chance to read stuff they may actually read when tidal hormones subside, so I should cut the young'uns a break.

 

[Moonbear]

Note that I was trying to be sarcastic. It is obvious that the series have some critique of religion embedded in them. I am all for propagating one's world view in one's writing.

Actually, while there's some critique, it's not what the press would have you think that it's "atheist propaganda" either. In fact, the story revolves strongly around faith and beliefs and the existence of souls and higher powers, but what it is rejecting is the abuse of religious authority to promote political agendas.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Moonbear - that's how I read it, too.

I think a lot of Science background-types have a single negative gut reaction to religion because of Fundmentalists and their attempts at diddling with Science. Anything that appears anti-religion in a story for them comes to the foreground. And equals good.

 

[binzing]

I'm reading them now too. Never heard of them until the movie came out, but when I heard such controversy of people vehemently trying to get others to not see it, I figured I had to read the books and find out if they were as good as the controversy made me think they might be. I have purposely chosen not to see the movie so I won't ruin the books.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the books, and I think much of the controversy is that people just don't understand what they're really about. Other than having a small child or children on sort of an epic quest with talking animals, I don't see much similarity to Narnia at all...it's way better. Anyone who is comparing it to children's books is really not understanding the book at all. I don't think I'd hand those books to anyone younger than 14 or 15. Understanding the book requires some understanding of science, politics, religion, and even the language used is not at a child's reading level. I think it would ruin the story to read it before you can appreciate all the depth of meaning within it.

As for kids not having heard of the Narnia series, when I was a kid, I knew about The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, but did not know there was an entire series of books. And when I read that book, I didn't even "get" it, so wouldn't have likely read the others if I knew about them anyway. I read the series as an adult, and they made a lot more sense, because I understood the Biblical references. At the age of 10 or so, I was probably working my way through the Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys series.

Yeah, they are really good aren't they? And there's even history put into them. When it starts talking about the Tartars, its talking about Russians. I found on an old map of the world that Russia was once Tartaria. Anyways, they are very well-written and don't push atheism or slam Christianity IMO.

 

[GeorginaS]

Other than having a small child or children on sort of an epic quest with talking animals, I don't see much similarity to Narnia at all...it's way better. Anyone who is comparing it to children's books is really not understanding the book at all. I don't think I'd hand those books to anyone younger than 14 or 15.

His Dark Materials were written as Young Adult novels, Moonbear, and not children's books. So introducing them to 14 or 15 year-olds to read idea is spot-on.

I didn't know that about the books when I first read The Golden Compass, and I think that was a big factor in turning me off from reading the rest of the series. I'd heard about the series on a literature site long before the movie came out and was disappointed by the simplicity of the language. I was expecting far more from the writing, (because of the site I'd heard about them from) although, I suppose, if I went back and approached the books again as YA fiction, maybe they'd annoy me less. I'm not much of a fantasy genre reader in the first place, so The Golden Compass didn't catch my imagination.

Oddly, for all of the C.S. Lewis I've read, I've never read the Narnia series. They weren't at my disposal or brought to my attention as a kid, and it was only recently I stumbled onto the knowledge that this Lewis fellow -- whose work I'd read so much of -- wrote The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. I suppose, just for the sake of cultural references, I should likely read the books. I was more a Nancy Drew/Bobbsey Twins fan as a kid too.

And I've always, always had a passion for reading, even if it was cereal boxes or shampooing instructions on the side of bottles.

 

[Moonbear]

His Dark Materials were written as Young Adult novels, Moonbear, and not children's books. So introducing them to 14 or 15 year-olds to read idea is spot-on.

Ah, that explains it. I had heard people ranting about the movie, talking about the books as if they were children's books.

I didn't know that about the books when I first read The Golden Compass, and I think that was a big factor in turning me off from reading the rest of the series. I'd heard about the series on a literature site long before the movie came out and was disappointed by the simplicity of the language. I was expecting far more from the writing, (because of the site I'd heard about them from) although, I suppose, if I went back and approached the books again as YA fiction, maybe they'd annoy me less. I'm not much of a fantasy genre reader in the first place, so The Golden Compass didn't catch my imagination.

Yeah, I can see that happening. And, I think they're more fun for me to read because I had so much lower expectations than what they are. I had heard so many people referring to them in the same category as Harry Potter and Narnia that I was expecting very simple books. Mostly, I got the books because I really wanted to see if these "anti-religion" themes that had people screaming and protesting were really there...as suspected, the people ranting about the books have likely never read them, or entirely missed the point. It makes it a little more fun for me to read that we had discussed the Multiple Universe Hypothesis around here not long ago, and that forms much of the foundation of the theme to the book. I also get a giggle that in the world that the main character comes from, they call physics "Experimental Theology," and their instrumentation is called "Philosophical Instruments." :rofl: Zz would have a conniption fit! But that's kind of the point, that in our world (introduced in the second book), those things are separate from science, while in this alternate world, science never separated from religion and philosophy.

And I've always, always had a passion for reading, even if it was cereal boxes or shampooing instructions on the side of bottles.

:rofl: Me too.