Originally Posted by Telynn
According to the Snopes article Pullman himself said, in an interview "My books are about killing God." I think that is pretty clear.
Snopes is by far one of my favorite web sites. I have always trusted what they say. It's about the only web site that I trust that much. Everytime I get emails from certain people, I go to snopes to check it out and the get real story.
I do that too! And yes, he did say that - in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald in 2003. I have been unable to find a transcript of that interview anywhere, because despite him saying that, anyone who has read the books might find that confusing because the killing of God is such a minor and incidental part of the story that I really want to know what he said during that whole interview, and not just that one controversial sentence that has been isolated by the media and religious groups to give it more impact.
And Snopes also confirmed the truth of this statement: `the children kill God so they can do as they please'. This is about as untrue a statement as possible. Firstly, they don't kill him, and secondly, it's most certainly not so that they can do as they please. In fact, they have to do the exact opposite
of what they please for the rest of their entire lives.
Now, Pullman also said, when asked who he writes for (children or adults) `Myself. No-one else. If the story I write turns out to be the sort of thing that children enjoy reading, then well and good. But I don't write for children: I write books that children read. Some clever adults read them too.'
So I guess that answers THAT question.
He is also not an atheist, as many have claimed. He says `I don't know whether there's a God or not. Nobody does, no matter what they say. I think it's perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it, but I don't know everything, and there may well be a God somewhere, hiding away.
Actually, if he is keeping out of sight, it's because he's ashamed of his followers and all the cruelty and ignorance they're responsible for promoting in his name. If I were him, I'd want nothing to do with them.'
To me, this explains far better what these books are about, rather than a simple, out-of-context statement taken by a very conservative religious right-wing journalist who had an agenda and that was to have the books banned.