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.

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.

Consuela is me. I would definitely recommend reading them all, of course, for completism. And the third book does have an awesome plot for a favorite character of mine who's introduced in the second book.

I'll just say that it was disappointing because the first two books give you the impression Pullman had it All Planned Out, and the third book suggests otherwise.

The third's my favorite, but I also really love William Blake

The funniest thing for me is that my mother got the books for us for Christmas. She gave me, my SIL, and my brother one book each, and figured we could all read them and swap them around. Adding to the comedy: My mom & SIL are Catholic. I got through them first so I was sort of increasingly nervous about how they'd react.

But I think we all enjoyed them... in our own ways. Although after the last book my brother & I traded some emails privately about some of the events, because my mom & SIL seemed a little less enthused. (My mom got them because of the same review I read, so it's not like she had no idea where things were going, and all credit to her for feeling like, even if she disagreed with the point, the books sounded like good reads. Especially since she still gets huffy about Life of Brian.)

I liked the first book a lot, but hated the ending of the second. Never bothered to read the third.

DX's reaction is mine. I do think I'm going to give them another try, however.

Loved the first, only made it through part of the second, even though I gave it two tries.

Once I found out that Lord Azrael wasn't an angel even with that name, I was no longer interested. It's like, Pullman sacrificed characters and story on the alter of metaphor (or diatribe), and missed an obvious

Lord Azrael makes me think of the smurfs. Possibly I watched too much 1980s Saturday morning TV. (I haven't read the books, but they're on my 'one of these years' list.)

I'll just say that it was disappointing because the first two books give you the impression Pullman had it All Planned Out, and the third book suggests otherwise.

I re-read the trilogy in rapid succession a year ago, and it's relatively clear that, about halfway through the second book, Pullman is beginning to realize that the foreshadowing/hints/etc. he'd set up previously weren't going to work. So, yes: it's a series that changes shape (if not intent or direction) halfway through. For example, I'm pretty sure he didn't know that Dust was going to be a good thing, rather than a bad thing, till he started writing the second book; and every conversation between Asrael and Mrs. Coulter is a retcon of the previous one.