The Word Cloud

• Sign Up Now!

52 Photos

64 Friends

521 Wall Posts

• 

  by Jill 13 days ago

  Evening, John - I'm sure the rose-tinted glasses added an extra glow! I think I, too, missed many of the 'references', but it is a film which is worth seeing again and those may become clear at that time.
  
  This afternoon I immersed myself in the wonder of 'pictures speaking louder than words' and I was engrossed in the body language - especially that of the dog!
  
  OK going OTT now, but I GLORIED in the peace of silent expression with its equally expressive musical background and actually was a little irritated when some members in the small art cinema audience laughed audibly. I know that it was essential to the storyline and cleverly executed, but I would have preferred the whole film to be a silent movie. The ending with the dancing and talking did make me smile, however!
  
  Going into the busy city has exhausted me and I am off to find silence within my dreams. :} Jx
• 

  by OnceUpon's Daughter 19 days ago

  Hello Daddy :)
• 

  by Steve 20 days ago

  John - what a fantastic breakthrough. All who know you and your writing well from here would not be surprised in the least at your success. Personally, I'm relieved that your talent has at last been recognised. Now my hope is that your persistance is rewarded as fully as it should be. Many congratulations and very good luck from here on in.
• 

  by Wrathnar the Unreasonable 2 months ago

  Thanks for joining my blog!
• 

  by Guero Davila 2 months ago

  Still in denial...
• 

  by Wrathnar the Unreasonable 2 months ago

  Fair enough, except for one thing - I object to being called 'evangelical', which implies that I seek to convert anyone to my point of view. I absolutely don't. I express my own beliefs and feelings, but I in no way try to force them onto anyone else. I'm perfectly happy for other people to believe in whatever they want to, including fundamentalist christianity, as long as they don't try to force it on other people, as in banning the teaching of science or trying to have books, films and music banned for religious reasons.
• 

  by MinxieAD 2 months ago

  I'm visiting my brother in St Austel some time soon and shall borrow the second and third books in Pullman's trilogy. It's not my kind of thing, but I'm now very intrigued to read them.
• 

  by Wrathnar the Unreasonable 2 months ago

  'Incorrectly' according to who? Pullman said in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald on 13/12/03 "My books are about killing God." I've never read any claim by Pullman that the Herald misquoted him.
  Also, Pullman was quoted in the Guardian on 12/8/02: "I am all for the death of God." That seems pretty unambiguous!
  
  Lucifer was the leader of the rebel angels, and is also referred to in the Bible as 'the Dragon', but as far as I know he is not explicitly identified with Satan - which is kinda weird, since 'Satan' is a title rather than a name, derived from the Aramaic word 'shaitan' meaning 'adversary', and Lucifer certainly was the adversary in the 'war in Heaven'.
• 

  by Wrathnar the Unreasonable 2 months ago

  Philip Pullman has been widely quoted as having said: "My books are about killing God." They are explicitly Luciferian, in that they portray God ('the Authority') as the enemy of Mankind, and also state that God is not the Creator, but merely the first angel, which is pretty much the basis of Luciferianism. In Pullman's books, Lucifer is represented by Azriel, and is the champion of Mankind - as in Luciferianism. The Magisterium obviously represents organised religion, in its attempts to destroy spiritual freedom - represented by the severing of the childrens' 'daemons' (their spirits).
  
  I base all that on a through researching of the subject, from the many interviews Pullman has given and also from his endorsement or otherwise of what others have written about his work.
• 

  by MinxieAD 2 months ago

  Thanks John. I knew it was something like that! I couldn't remember! The first one is a bit like Narnia.