Talk:His Dark Materials

Editing the His Dark Materials Article

I have heavily edited the His Dark Materials article. A small part of the reason is that much of it was poorly written -- overly long sentences, weak syntax. However, my stylistic editing is limited to sections that I edited for a substantive reason.

The substantive reason is that the article, before my editing, was highly misleading. It missed the whole point of His Dark Materials. Like George Orwell's Animal Farm, His Dark Materials is an allegory. And it is more than that. It is an unprecedented (in literature but not in film) triple allegory -- three interwoven allegories. The allegories are the whole point of Pullman's trilogy. And they are where Pullman's basic points are raised.

Summarizing His Dark Materials without identifying and emphasizing the allegories is like doing the same with Animal Farm. Without thorough discussion of Animal Farm's symbolism, you would be left with a superficial summary of an animal story that had no meaning. Now that the HDM article has been edited, the edited parts of it finally tell the reader what is really going on.

Unfortunately, some other editor (apparently Haploidavey, who left a message, but possibly someone else) decided to delete the most fundamental information about His Dark Materials: the fact that HDM's most basic hidden story is about a war between knowledge, symbolized by dust, and religious superstition, symbolized by the specters. A closely related problem is that the same editor also deleted my simple explanation in the article's introduction that HDM is an allegory and that the allegories are A, B, and C. By restoring the original introduction, the deletor gave us an "introduction" that is not just superficial but also highly misleading. Atticusattor (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My argument's based on sources, not depth or superficiality. Your simple explanation was based on a single source (White Wheat), whose opinions and constructs were given undue weight and significance – or so I believe – in the introduction. Pullman describes his influences as Kleist, Blake and Milton; of course, an Amazon interview is hardly an exhaustive treatment of themes and sources but do any other sources agree with White Wheat that the novel is an allegory whose themes, framework and characters (or what have you) derive from A, B and C? If so, fair enough; but I would strongly dispute the detailed inclusion of the same in the introduction. Besides, an introduction should stand alone, sufficient unto itself, worth skimming through; readers should not have to refer to the main text for explanation of anything therein. Likewise, readers of the main text should not have to refer back to the introduction to grasp something dealt with under a later heading. That's just a matter of dutiful organisation.

I'm more concerned about the source itself. I'm not saying it ain't a notable scholarly source but it doesn't appear in google's scholar-search. Has it been peer-reviewed? If it's to be used in the main body of the article, I'd rather see it disentangled from the Character section; most readers will be after straight summaries of Pullman's text, and we should clearly distinguish this from any secondary source analysis/commentary. By the way, you're perfectly entitled to restore the material I deleted (here's the pre-deletion version), but I'd welcome discussion here on its use. And of course, I could be quite completely, utterly and embarrassingly mistaken, having strayed dangerously far from my usual cobwebbed corner. Best, Haploidavey (talk)

This editor made similar inappropriate edits to the Character section and plot summary in the article on The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe using the same material. All the stuff here on undue weight applies both here and there.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Speculation and theorising, throughout

Many authoritative commentators have written about the symbolism in Pullman's works, so there's no excuse for the quantity of unreferenced, original theorising that permeates this article. Over the next few weeks, as I find the time, I propose to go through, section by section, and try to find sources but, failing that, make deletions. WP policy here. Any suggestions as to the line to take, before I get going, welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has 78 footnotes and a bibliography that displays nine books. You call this "unreferenced"? Saints preserve us!Atticusattor (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As several editors have attempted to explain on your talk page, it's the theorising and conjecture that's unreferenced, not the article. Please read the post more carefully, and you will see that there's no need to inconvenience the saints with requests for assistance. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:WickerGuy has pre-empted a lot of this: grateful thanks! --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Atticusattor has been referencing the same problematic book by Leonard Wheat on the page about The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe (from C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles) where my deletion efforts prevailed earlier. Wheat's books makes very extravagant claims (to put it mildly). While much Christian symbolism is acknowledged in Lewis' Narnia books, his claim that the Professor from The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe represents God is problematic to say the least. Wheat has a book on 2001: A Space Odyssey that argues that the four orbiting satellites represent the four goddesses that started the Trojan War, and that TMA-1 (sic) is an anagram of "NO MEAT". This is WP:FRINGE stuff and at most should be mentioned briefly in conjunction with more mainstream scholarship. Atticusattor does not understand the policy of WP:UNDUE and has repeatedly claimed that Wheat's views are blindingly self-evident and appears to conclude they should therefore be treated as fact on Wikipedia. Atticusattor has also misrepresented his own edits which were deleted on the article on Slan. He wrote a section making Van Vogt's Slan an elaborate Christian allegory. He claims on his own Talk page that he cited a source, but he did not. It was entirely unreferenced!!--WickerGuy (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to point out that my own disagreement with Wheat is irrelevant policy-wise as to whether these edits belong in Wikipedia, but also arguing my own position at the same time (which may be unwise.) I am much less familiar with Pullman than C.S. Lewis. I have seen the 6-hour stage version of His Dark Materials, seen the film The Golden Compass, and read the entire study of Pullman by Donna Freitas and Jason King entitled Killing the Imposter God, but have not actually read the Pullman books, so I am not in a position re Pullman to argue too specifically against Wheat's opinions, but as I said in my edit-sum, a section on symbolism referencing only Wheat and NO use of work of others such as Lois Gresh, Kurt Bruner, Donna Freitas, George Beahm is a clear violation of WP policy!! Same goes for Atticusattor's edits explaining the allegory in the Narnia books on that page over there.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Steampunk" in infobox

This term has just been restored, pointing out that it's "well-sourced". I've no reason to doubt this, so could we have one or two please?--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but it appears on several lists of 10 best steampunk novels.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then, when you or someone else has time to provide those sources, then we can put it back. garik (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure which of these complies with WP guidelines for reliable source, but here goes

Ten SteamPunk Novels You Ought to Read http://www.sflare.com/archives/ten-steampunk-novels-you-ought-to-read/ "Not a traditional Steampunk since it is set initially in another world, but it uses many of the trappings. "

Published book on Steampunk Steampunk Novels, including: His Dark Materials, The Diamond Age, The Scar, Northern Lights (novel), The Anubis Gates, A Calculus Of Angels, The Age ... Street Station, Predator's Gold, Titus Alone [Paperback]

Required Steampunk Reading http://flavorwire.com/75135/required-reading-seminal-steampunk-for-genre-sensitive-snobs "the series borrows elements of steampunk for a grander scale of philosophical, theological, and literary entertainment."

http://www.fantasybookreview.co.uk/fantasy-sub-genres/steampunk.php The best Steampunk books (lists HDM)

Intro to Steampunk http://thebooksmugglers.com/2010/03/steampunk-week-an-introduction-and-primer.html We know, you are probably thinking – wait, The Golden Compass (actually, the entirety of Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series) is Steampunk? And, if you can put the movie out of your mind, you’ll realize, just as we did, that it is. Not only is this recognized as one of the best steampunk works out there (it’s on nearly every top 10 list)

There's more.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Parallels with real floods in C20 Britain

"Apparently a parallel to the North Sea flood of 1953" has been deleted as uncited, but restored again. It's the "apparently" that gives it away: WP:NOR without a source that draws the parallel. Tagged. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look for a source, and delete it if I can't find one. (I am not the original poster of this material). Your edit sum sounded like you needed a source that that floods happened. I wonder if there is a way to rephrase it to make it less NOR. Perhaps not.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That rephrase looks like a fix, until we find a RS making the connection. I'm looking for one, but not too hopefully. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the edit-sum, it's on a lot of fansites, but not really mentioned in anything that meets our standard for a reliable source, although it would be worth looking into the book in HDM by Donna Freitas.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP has made these into a table, which seems like a reasonable fix: we can see the connections for ourselves now. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)