I'm way too much of a completist to advise not finishing a trilogy. I think there are other people around who probably liked the series more, and might have stuff to say in its favor.

I agree with Dana. I still liked the second one, because it does more world-building and introduces some new characters, but the third one kind of lost me. At some point, I may reread it, but as I recall being utterly confused by the plot and exhausted by dodging Pullman's thematic anvils.

At some point, I may reread it, but as I recall being utterly confused by the plot and exhausted by dodging Pullman's thematic anvils.

I reread them all recently and, while I think I actually ended up liking the 2nd book better than the rest, the 3rd still left me disappointed for the reasons everyone has said.

Book 2 was great and book 3 was great up until the ending, which was disappointing. Still worth reading the whole thing, though.

Some of the character development in the second book drove me batty, so I haven't picked up the third one. I did love the first book.

Read the whole series. I kinda like the third book in a lot of ways, though I understand everybody's discussion. The second book, I loved.

I love all three books!

Kate's on crack.

No offense, but my opinion is the only right one.

Me, I disliked the third enough that it tarnished the second and almost the first. But before I read #3 I really liked the first two.

I love the third book. I probably wouldn't have read the first two if I hadn't read a review of the third, though; I was in it for the polemic.

The third's my favorite, but I also really love William Blake and as soon as I read the epigraph from "America" I was sort of into the whole wacky thing Pullman had going on (although it probably was too symbolic and anvil-ly). It was confusing in some parts, but I thought the last few chapters were simple and beautiful.