Talk:The Amber Spyglass/Archive 1

"Enjoyment" warning removed
I have removed the "severely reduce your enjoyment" warning in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please see the Talk page for the first book to see the related discussion. Juansmith 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know there was such thing as an "enjoyment warning".

Infobox Preceding Book
I removed the Northern Lights from the Preceding Books section in the Infobox books, as this is the first novel I have come across that lists more than one preceding novel. Not knowing the story, can I read either book before reading The Amber Spyglass? Grey Shadow 05:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason it has two books in the preceding books is because it is a trilogy. The Northern Lights is the first book followed by The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass is the third book in the trilogy so that is why both books are considered preceding books. I would read them in order otherwise you will have trouble understaning what is happening in the series SirGrant 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the first trilogy that has listed more than the direct preceding novel that I have come across. All others I have looked at only have volume 2 listed as preceding if the book is volume 3, and not volumes 1 and 2. Grey Shadow 07:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok could you throw up some examples, you are probably right since I haven't looked at many other trilogys and if that is the format wikipedia is using we can go through and change it I'd just like to see some other trilogys before we do SirGrant 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, sorry
I just wanted to note that there's no need to put every single detail into a spoiler section. It looks like a lot of people put a lot of time into this, and I'm almost sad to delete so much of it. I have nothing against what is written or this story, but this spoiler section still needs to be about 1/3 of what it is. 71.227.218.148 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I added a link to a graphical timeline. Mhcole mt 04:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
IMHO, the article below sorely needs to be cleaned up; it's not necessarily the length I mind (although Wikipedia does say it's too long) but that it reads like an incredibly biased review, especially the last quarter or so, plus it's too airy and light, at least for my liking. I'm not going to just do a mass delete, because that's not really proper, and more to the point, it could be combined with the above "low detail" plot to make a good, moderately descriptive synopsis. However, despite that fact that David probably took ages to write this, if anyone has the time it would be very helpful if they could spend some time cleaning this up. It certainly needs it. If anyone could edit the "high detail" portion of this page, it would be greatly appreciated. --Rikushix


 * I agree. And I don't know who David is, I wrote these synopses. Pretty quickly... and yes I love the books. But anyway; I don't have time to clean them myself righ now, though I'm all for someone else cutting them down and merging the low-detail ones.--Alfakim 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is far too long. Even if the summary isn't cleared up, it could be split into sections. Is the book split into sections? (I can't remember because I haven't read the book for a while). If so, it could be split into sections according to those in the book. Oli 15:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Naw the book isn't really split into sections, not in the sense that you could really split it up into seperate articles. SirGrant 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The plt summary needs some severe trimming. -- Whpq 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The plt summary needs to be written by someone who really liked the book or somethg, cause it hardly gets into the good stuff. But maybe certain persons were worried at what the church would say, cause the book is rather incompatible with Christian beliefs.Mathematicus 13:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up
Obviously this article is in serious need of clean-up. The spoiler section is WAY too long. I have begun taking out things which are not of the utmost importance. Afterall, there's no need to put so much information that there's no need to even read the novel.

An idea for making this article shorter would be to create separate wiki articles on some of the creatures, making it so there is no need to explain what they are and what their characteristics are (such as the galevspians). The Golden Compass is currently being made into a movie, so I'm guessing if it makes enough they'll create the whole trilogy. If this is so, separate articles would definitely be notable enough to remain on wikipedia.

Just some thoughts. 71.227.218.148 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the movie's title (His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass, I would say that they'll do all three regardless of profits. Mathematicus 02:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler in intro
It is neccessary to mention that the character resembling God dies in the intro paragraph because I haven't read the book I imagine it may spoil it a bit. Max white (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncaught vandalism or mistake?
On November 10, 2007, someone changed the text from

"This side of the war wants to preserve Dust, not destroy it, for they see the Church as trying to take all enjoyment out of life by categorizing as 'sin' that which is not evil."

to

"This side of the war wants to preserve Dust, not destroy it, for they see the Church as trying to take all enjoyment out of life by categorizing as 'sin' that which is evil."

I haven't read the book, but it seems that the second phrase is probably more correct (though still probably poorly phrased). If someone who's familiar with the work can verify it, this should be fixed. Incidentally, it would probably be better phrased as something like:

"This side of the war wants to preserve Dust, not destroy it, for they see the Church as trying to take all enjoyment out of life by categorizing as 'sin' certain things that are not evil."

Or something along those lines. As originally worded, it kind of sounds like all non-evil things are categorized as sin (and conversely, evil things are not categorized thusly), which I'm doubting is the case.

— Matthew0028  19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Who Wins the War?
Does it say in the novel who wins the final battle? I haven't read it for a while, so I forget. If it does, it should be put in the article's plot summary.

In the end, no one wins really. God and his Regent are both dead, but the Republic of Heaven will fail because it is in no one's world own world. It has to be built wherever people are. Mathematicus 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't they Kill God in that Mel Gibson movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in plot summary?
In the plot summary, it first says that the knife shatters. Later, it says that "they decide to go to the highest point in the land of the dead, where Will cuts a door into another world." How does Will cut such a door if the knife is shattered? — Matthew0028 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It gets repaired. 84.12.137.248 (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary problem
Doesn't seem objective, at least not the first paragraph - this sounds more like it would belong in a themes and influences section. Plot summaries, as I understand them, are supposed to be very straight-forward, objective outlines of the plot and nothing more.VatoFirme (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section
I've removed the section labelled "Controversies" because it doesn't describe any controversies pertaining to the novel, but only contains a quote from the author stating his opinion on the lack of controversy the book had attracted. --Tony Sidaway 14:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Our World?
We really don't know that Will's world is our own - it is merely very much like it. We know that there are millions of worlds in His Dark Materials, so the similarity is not enough to call it our own. So, this claim is WP:OR 71.145.189.152 (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC).


 * No it's not; the second book contains a prefatory note saying that "This book begins in our own world." Zompist (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh. Okay, my edition does not but I'll take your word for it.  71.145.152.70 (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about "plot" Section
I've not really edited much on wiki before, thus I'm not so sure if i should comment at all on this, but the "plot" section is terribly confusing. The use of English and paragraph construstion leads to an over complication of the story itself. Also many of the assertations in it are pure conjecture and subjective in nature. I feel this part of the article at the very least needs tidied up, or maybe even a complete rewrite. However I dont want to step on anyones toes by editing the thing or insult anyone through these comments. So apologies in advance if I shouldnt have voiced my concerns. If however I am allowed to amend this article, please tell me and I'll get on with it. It's not one of my favorite pieces of fiction but it at least deserves a clear and understandable wiki page. -- 82.46.237.197 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Amber Spyglass Is A Phenomonal Book
''The Amber Spyglass is an amazing read. It is the sequel to The Subtle Knife which is the sequel to The Golden Compass...There is a companion novel called Lyra's Oxford which is very intriguing...our future lies in the past..that may be true!! And I absolutely can't wait for The Book of Dust!! It will not be a sequel, but it will be a companion novel, explaining things like dust, possibly how Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter met, which would be what I would REALLY look forward to reading and finding out, etc...Well, thanks...'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueSpirit (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you writing this on the talk page. Also, the first book in the series is called The Northen Lights, not The Golden Compass.#

Unsigned because of strange keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.24.60 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1. There's a link you can click on to sign your username, just below the warning about copying text from other websites on the editing page. 2. Golden Compass is the American name 3. Yes, why are you writing this? Strdst grl (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Concerns About Plot Section
I'm not sure which side of this the other guy was on, and these concerns are different, which is why I'm setting up my own section. Anyway, I'm not sure what we did to the plot section is such a good idea; the plot section before was overly long, but now it doesn't actually provide any information about the plot whatsoever (it only provides general thematic information; useless for someone reading this to find out what happens). If anyone has any objections, put them here. If I get none, I will partially revert the changes.
 * I agree, it's far too short now and tells almost nothing about the actual plot of the novel. Andrea (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pivotal Moment
The summary seems to lack the fact that Lyra and Will, from recollection, have sex which is pivotal to the plot and the idea of "sin" --172.202.213.145 (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Errr.... when did that happen, as ive just finished reading it and i must have missed that. I can remeber them falling in love and kissing each others faces off a distubing amount of the time (considering that they are both about 12 years old) but i dont think it ever states that they have sex. -- 82.46.237.197 (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue is actually somewhat heated amongst some fans, apparently. Exactly what they do is never stated, but it definitely does not mention sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.134.111 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The spend the night together in the woods after a bout of heavy "making-out". I presume they're not playing "LOST" so it must be that. Also, Lyra loses her "innocence" and thus the ability to read the alethiometer subsequent to this "night out". I guess its rather inferential,the author does not explicitly state the kids having sex though. Although the language used to describe what the Doc sees when they come back from the forest the next morning does indicate that the kids did indeed have sex. 122.167.13.212 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for minor change
Current:

"Iorek Byrnison repairs the subtle knife, but with regret. Will, Lyra, Tialys and Salmakia enter the world of the dead, leaving their dæmons (worldly identities) behind."

My Suggestion:

"Iorek Byrnison repairs the subtle knife, but with regret. Will, Lyra, Tialys and Salmakia enter the world of the dead, leaving their dæmons behind as dæmons can not enter the world of the dead."

or simply:

"Iorek Byrnison repairs the subtle knife, but with regret. Will, Lyra, Tialys and Salmakia enter the world of the dead, leaving their dæmons behind."

Reason

Calling dæmons "worldly identities" in here, implies that world of the dead is not a world, which is obviously wrong. I also searched the text and could not find any instance of calling dæmons that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrahimi (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Asriel's motives
The paragraph:

"Asriel in fact wants to preserve Dust forever, not destroy it. He does not think 'sin' as the Church defines it is bad. Like the angels desire flesh, 'sin' is no more than enjoyment of life. Without such 'sin' there'd be no story to tell the harpies. It is not really 'sin', it is in fact freedom."

is just POV. It probably represents Pullman's opinion, but I don't recall any evidence that Asriel believed it. As far as I can tell, Asriel is making war because he is arrogant and dislikes the notion of any entity more powerful than himself. He is not a liberating hero by any means; it was he who cold-bloodedly murdered Roger, placing him on the same low moral level as the experimenters in GOLDEN COMPASS. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While the first quote is perhaps slightly POV, the reasons given are even more suspect. Aseriel's motives are complex, and his self-sacrifice opposing Metatron breaks any claim of pure hunger for power. His murder of Roger is never used to align him with the experimenters, but rather shows something of the amorality of someone so driven. I would leave the first paragraph unless you can present a compelling SOURCED opposition to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.251.248 (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad Links
I noticed today that the link for reference 3( ^ "The Man Behind the Magic: An Interview with Philip Pullman". Retrieved 2007-03-08.), actually leads to the Barnes & Noble online bookshop (with no interview). I'm not sure of the procedure in this case but am going to delete the reference as it seemed inappropriate. I hope people are still watching this and that maybe someone can restore a link to the real interview.Pincrete (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Censorship
The His Dark Materials page mentions that the US edition of The Amber Spyglass was censored due to sexuality. That deserves a mention here, I believe 64.81.161.245 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and it has been added. Fallenangei (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It is wrong to refer to the changes to the U.S. edition as "censorship." The book released in the U.S. was edited, presumably with the authorization of Philip Pullman. Use of the word "censorship" implies that some body other than the author/publisher removed references to sexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.201.52 (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

from wiktionary "Verb censor:(transitive) To remove objectionable content" This definition seems pretty acrurate in discribing the ommision in the US Canada editions. 216.154.71.158 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that censorship does not seem an inappropriate word. Certainly the content was 'pruned', because it was thought unacceptable to a US audience by the publisher. Whatever term is used, the event seems worthy of coverage.Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)