Talk:His Dark Materials
|
|
| Contents |
|
1 High Detail Synopsis |
Intro to talk page
Hope everyone's OK with the changes in this talk page, since it's getting pretty large I thought at least a start at organization might be in order. Nothing's been deleted from the page, just re-arranged (unless I screwed up). There might need to be a division of 'current events' and archived discussion or something along those lines. I don't know if there's a consensus (or at least a convention) on how to create a well-organized talk page on wikipedia, but I figured this was better than nothing. --Overand 05:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Article Meta-architechture Changes
What's everyone's opinions on changing Northern Lights, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass pages to redirect here and merge their content into His Dark Materials? They're all plot-synopsis stubs, and considering their content is more or less duplicated here, they seem a little pointless...? - Taliswolf 11:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I think keeping anything but general plot summaries here is probably a Bad Idea. Keeping the more detailed plot summaries in the links to the other books (and saying so in this article) is probably a good idea. --Overand 05:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I've just made the individual pages much longer by giving them full synopses of the boks that aren't appropriate on this all-embracing page. Work perhaps towards focussing more sprecific information on the individual pages, and more general information on these HDM pages.--alfakim 00:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Removal of 'Gyrocopter' + other Esoterics
I've removed this definition from the 'esoteric' section, as a gyrocopter is a very real and very current (at least in use if not inovation) flying machine in the real world. see: gyrocopter
- The word Pullman uses is gyROPter, not gyROCOPter, and in either case, it seems worthwhile saying that Pullman is not saying Asriel has gyrocopters, but is saying that he has helicopters or a very similar variant.
I also think this may be more appropriate to remove, as naptha is also very real, although it's a bit odd that naptha is used as the main fuel, it's not an esoteric renaming/modification of a word. *Naphtha: Oil (as in oil-lamp, rather than naphtha-lamp). --Overand 05:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- In either case (this or above), I don't mind the removal.
Misc
In section Theatre One sentence was removed.
- Before
- A theatrical version of the books has been produced by Nicholas Hytner as a two-part, 6 hour performance for London's Royal National Theatre in Q1 of 2004. All 126 performances at the 1110-seat Olivier Theatre sold out before the opening day. The play returned for a second run in November of 2004.
- After
- A theatrical version of the books has been produced by Nicholas Hytner as a two-part, 6 hour performance for London's Royal National Theatre in Q1 of 2004. The play returned for a second run in November of 2004.
I thought the sentence was interesting. I could put it back but don't want to start an edit war - any other opinions? -- SGBailey 12:31, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
- That was originally removed on claims of being totally untrue, are we sure it was true? --alfakim 00:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Good edit: the info was irrelevant (I've inserted 'popular' to replace it) and factually incorrect: performances were still available last year, and at the time of writing, are still available this year for part 2 -- taliswolf 00:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with SGBailey totally, and the statement is correct, all 126 performances in that year sold out before the opening day,- that's definitely a point to mention since I know of no other plays for which this has happened- why does it matter that tickets are availible now, in 2005?
- Think of it this way, if you were doing research on this play for whatever project- isn't that the type of thing you'd want too know? And saying it was "highly popular" is less clear as it doesn't say what you're basing that on. - SiniStar 11:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I know without doubt that the statement that all tickets sold out before the opening day is untrue: I work at the National Theatre box office. Tickets were still freely available for quite a number of performances well after opening day. This is true for both the original (2003-4) and revival (2004-5) productions. -Urbane legend 15:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
82.37.217.24 added:
- Pullman himself describes the target range as being 'young adult', and many say that the books are too intellectual in content for most children.
Can anyone cite either of these claims? Particularly the first one. -- taliswolf 23:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Offtopic Conversation
Why no one talk about the idea of dark matter, and that freedom of thought scares the church and how it echoes what HAS happened. The idea of a soul being a part of nature, and that Even Angels don't know who created them, just that they were first. Also the conotations of the Subtle knife creating a creature which takes life (every action has an exact and opposite action) --Arlechinio 23:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Cool books huh? I was thinking that perhaps an 'interpretations' sections is required on these pages. ie: a Themes section. What the hell the trilogy means. (That'd probably be the most likely reason for someone to go to a Wikipedia entry on them anyway, right?)--alfakim 01:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Was I the only one who thought the Amber Spyglass was a major disapointment after the first two? The Fellowship of the Troll 03:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe. r3m0t 15:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- 'fraid so, as i found Amber Spyglass to be the most moving one of the three. I concider the first to as character and situation set ups that Spyglass could be written with out having to have to much explained in the begining.
- Yes. Well, being the absolute hardcore fan of the books that I am, I can't agree with you. (By the way, I hate the word 'fan', it makes me sound like I do nothing but smile... I think the books are astounding works of literature that have indeed affected me profoundly, so damn well done Pullman, and hence I'm interested in everything HDM). Anyway, I thought The Amber Spyglass was an excellent end, but that Northern Lights was perhaps the best read. Spyglass was however a much more interesting book, and much more ambitious and daring. Hmm, I think I'd better sign this... --alfakim 01:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
'Fantasy Fiction Author'
Mind if I change this? He's written much more than fantasy.
Go for it, but you'll have to change quite a few pages. Cittagazze and Spectres pages also list him as a fantasy fiction author. If you're prepared to change all the links, go forwards, but: what would you describe him as? --alfakim 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Just as an author, I don't want to limit him. --Mongreilf 14:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too vexed by this so if you want to go round changing them all to "author" I say it's a good move. From the ever HDM-loving Wikipedian: --alfakim 00:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
High Detail Synopsis
I think the long high detail summaries of the books detracts from the quality of this article. I believe these summaries should be removed, moved to the individual book pages, or severely reduced in size. Wikipedia:Article size recommends an upper limit of 20-30 K in length, on average, but this page is 80 K long. I know that I personally tired of reading the article and failed, initially, to notice the sections below these long summaries --Jacen137 18:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
You are totally right, but as the author of the whole lot of it I couldn't quite bear to have it all deleted. I've taken it upon myself to move the three synopses to the individual pages for the seperate books, and resorted-out the original HDM page. The high detail synopses are now in a much better place, and I recommend a better cleaning up/expansion of the individual book pages. --alfakim 00:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've also made sure that only the 'See also' and 'Other links' sections come after the high detail synopsis so that nothing is missed on the article because of it. For 'see also' sections, people automatically scroll right to the bottom, so this is, I think, perfectly okay. To reiterate what I've now stated above, I think work should be done to focus specific information on the individual book pages, and have more general HDM information on the main HDM page. --alfakim 00:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- I like the changes. I think they work to make the HDM page more readable and attractive. --Jacen137 05:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Added tiny bit about related books
I thought it might be nice to reference some of the other books that are often compared to HDM. However, I am not sure how much detail is good. I offer the following line as an alternate in case the text used is too detailed.
The trilogy is often been compared to other epic children's fantasy novels such as The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle, the Young Wizards series by Diane Duane, and the Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling. --Jacen137 05:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Pronunciations
- Is it possible to use genuine phonetic notation here?
- Some of the pronunciations are questionable - any way of checking them?
- In particular:
- Panserbjorne: isnt it 'pan-ser-buh-yorn'?
- Pantalaimon: pan-ta-LIE-mon (isn't it LAY-mon?)
- Æsahættr: AYS-hayt-er (AS-hat-er? ice-a-HITE-er? which one?)
These words were pronounced 'pan-ser-buh-yorn', 'pan-ta-LIE-mon', and 'eye-shatter' in the NT production. Pullman was consulted on many issues during rehearsal, I assume this was one of those issues - though of course I wasn't in the rehearsals themselves! --Urbane legend 18:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm unsure about Kirjava. Finnish stresses the first syllabe. -- Kizor 20:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to edit the article based on the above two points - they seem potent enough to merit a change until a greater certainty is found.--alfakim 16:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Religion: evolution??
"Many people would also disagree with his religion, which is evolution, because of the enourmous amount of evidence disproving it."
I just don't get this evolution thing. Is evolution a religion?? Shouldn't this be corrected?
Hmm. Aside from the syntax, I see two problems with that statement:
- Evolution is not a religion - it's a scientific theory with an enormous amount of evidence in support of it. It's not a proven theory, but that doesn't mean it's a religion!
- The author of the statement unreasonably assumes that the evidence against evolution automatically disproves it. --Urbane legend 18:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)