A fantastic Trilogy
I first was introduced to this trilogy by a friend that had the audiobooks. It was a fantastic story that kept me on the edge of my seat. The characters are full of life and the story is jam packed full of excitement. If you want a story that will take you to other worlds and draw you into them, check this one out!

An Amazing Accomplishment
I just finished this trilogy. Amazing accomplishment by Philip Pullman. To describe these as children's books does not to them justice, as they are written at a very sophisticated level. His prose is delectable, the story moves at a fast and never lagging pace. Yes there are children as protagonists, but I am an adult with no children and read these eagerly for myself alone. HIs scope is staggering and the overall story inventive and original. I've read the Harry Potter series and this trilogy is FAR SUPERIOR in my opinion, mainly because the writing is so much better and more complicated (though not to detract from JK Rowling). I really had no idea where the story would end so my attention was held to the last page. This series of books is really of the highest order of fiction and deserves a place among the great adventure fiction that has been written to date.

Promising start and interesting themes - awful ending and poor story telling
**Spoiler Alert: Do not read this review, if you haven't read the books yet and plan to do so.**

The trilogy starts promisingly, and I was quite happy with the first book. It reads like an allegory of our own world. I am an atheist/agnostic and have very little sympathy for the catholic church, so I found some of these themes quite appealing and interesting. But as the story progresses in the second book the characters start getting more shallow, and less interesting and the story starts getting illogical twists that just seem to make no sense in the context of the story line, the plot seems to follow the whims of the writer and not it's own inner logic that the first book promisingly build up. The third book continues this trend. Nothing makes sense anymore. And don't understand this wrongly. A fantasy story doesn't have to "make sense", but it has to follow it's own set of rules or the storyline is shattered. When the rules are broken the reader starts feeling he's being manipulated. While the world of the first book was full of life, promise, hope, wonder and achievement when the world was on the brink of a great war and children were being kidnapped, the ending of the third book is the emotional opposite - after the universe has been saved.
The way Pullman forces apart the two kids who saved the universe is more arbitrary and manipulative than the catholic church, makes less logical sense than Leviticus, and is cruel as the inquisition. The two kids have killed and have seen death, they have lost all their loved ones, they have lost their friends, they are alone in the world except for each other and they have just fallen in love to give them hope. And at just that moment Pullman pulls them apart for the arbitrary reason that a single specter (a bit annoying creature, but something the angels and ghosts and the knife can combat) could enter the world every ten years if a window between the worlds was kept open. Compared to the wonders, achievement and joy the inter-action and collaboration of the different worlds could achieve that is a very very small price. And not just these two kids but the larger context in which the good forces of different worlds could combine their powers. There is nothing free thought, no wonder, no compassion about the way Pullman concludes the trilogy. The values the ending reflects are the very same values, anti-imagination anti-freedom, Pullman set himself to challenge. The third book is just horrible. One of the worst endings I have ever read.

Not recommended reading for children. I don't mind the anti-catholicism angle, but the way the reader is manipulated and how imagination and wonder are cruelly restricted is not a message of freedom. Completely puzzled how the second and third book have generally got good reviews.

His Dark Materials Trilogy
I am agnostic and not a religious person. However, these three novels are anti-christian and anti-catholic in particular. They substitute another religion in place of Christianity. They deal with organized religion as an absolute evil.
The stories are not nearly as well written as the Harry Potter novels. The universes they portray are dark ones. The title of the trilogy: "His Dark Materials" is a fitting one.

OK plot, poorly written
First, I went into it with the understanding that it was an atheistic book. And maybe the metaphor he uses simply isn't (to me) accurate and he does mean the antagonists to represent organized religion, not God Himself, but to me, the metaphor seems almost pro-Satan. Again, it may be that I'm being a bit too technical when looking at the metaphor. But when you take character A and equate it to God, then character B does NOT, to me, represent atheism or free thinking, but Satan himself. Or maybe you're supposed to take it a step further, and believe Satan *is* Man and there are no forces of Good and Evil, but rather, Human and a tyrannical higher being. But I was surprised by how the tone of the book (seems to) denounce the actual Person of God, not organized religion. I also found the POV a bit one-sided. Apparently, if you are a God follower, you must be stupid or evil, end of story.

Second, I found his writing style so bad, I'm surprised it made it past the first editing, much less the final. He writes in the third person, but he jumps perspectives within the same page, sometimes within the same paragraph. You don't follow the characters' thoughts very well, because he's constantly jumping from one to another. Additionally, he tries the metaphor technique, but he obviously thinks his audience is too stupid, so he barrels through with an explanation. Seriously...if you're going to use a metaphor for a story, stick with it. Don't SUDDENLY explain EXACTLY in REAL LIFE what is happening because to do so, you must leave the story. In this way, he reminds me of Ayn Rand, who will spend 4 pages on a monologue about real ideas in an otherwise symbolic storyline, but at least her writing style was superb; his is not. Also, everyone -- from the main children character to people who seem to represent the Vatican -- speak in what I assume is supposed to be a low class English (except for the "Texan", whose verbage seems to be based on John Wayne movies). Another thing he does that annoys me is, he fills in parts of the plot by having the characters simply tell a story about how something happened,; the audience does not experience the events as part of the story, but is simply told via the character telling someone else. He also uses the word "desperately" a lot even when it really didn't make sense ("she was desperately hungry", "He seemed desperately naive", "Ann desperately wanted to just finish the series").

Third, some of the ideas are so complex, it's obviously geared towards adults or older audiences. But he tries (to me) to really emulate CS Lewis' simple style (I think he wrote the trilogy in response to the Narnian Chronicles), who writes the NC for children. It just doesn't work. It might have if he had stayed within the story but he REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to MAKE SURE you know what he's trying to say. He is not a subtle writer, in which case he shouldn't try to use a subtle technique.

Fourth, the entire series is plot-driven. I have always been of the thought that any good book/show/movie is character-driven, and you may disagree. But he makes his characters act how they need to act to move the plot along, even if you might think it's very out of character. I didn't feel any of the characters, not even the main characters, or the different worlds, had any depth. He tells you WHAT the characters think/do but not why.

Those are my gripes. Overall, if he had simply stuck with the story, then this would have been a very good children's series, written for juvenile audiences. But he wants to make sure you know he has higher ideas behind it. I think the Narnian Chronicles (and maybe the Lord of the Rings...there is some debate if Tolkien also meant his series to be religious) work because you are never 100% certain Lewis MEANT it to be religious. In fact, reading it as a kid, I didn't realize there was any Christian connotation. But Pullman pulls too many direct parallels to the Bible and the Catholic Church, he leaves no doubt where he is trying to head. One parallel at the end made me LOL; it was so absurd...just ONE MORE NAIL...DO YOU GET IT? SEE WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU? I HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS ONE TOO, JUST IN CASE THE MILLION OTHER UNSUBTLE HINTS I GAVE LEFT YOU ANY DOUBT. I tried to just read it as an enjoyable fiction but he keeps slamming you with these comparisons so it becomes a chore to read.

Oh one more gripe -- he obviously only has a problem with Western religion, not organized in general. Apparently the Taoists and Buddhists had it right, though.