Brent

While it's a bit reductive, it's hard not to describe this book as “Harry Potter in the woods”. There are a lot of similarities, but only in plot/character archetypes. I think arguing about which is better does a disservice to both books, but the fact that an argument could be made at all says something about the quality of Arlo Finch's first adventure.

I wish Arlo's friends had been rounded out a little more, but Arlo and his family are very well-drawn and complex characters. The writing is really really good. Minor descriptions of things from Arlo just walking down the street are evocative and fun to read, and when the action scenes kick in, they are truly intense.

I'd easily recommend this to anyone, Harry Potter fan or not.

For the first half or so of the book, I was very into it. I like the world, I liked Lyra, but around the time she got to Svalbard, things started to go downhill. A plan that shouldn't have worked at all, worked perfectly, and the amount of things she was not asking the alethiometer, but should have been asking, started to skyrocket.

By all accounts, Lyra is an intelligent and inquisitive girl, so her not asking things like “What am I supposed to bring to Lord Asriel?” or “What is Lord Asriel planning?” etc. are weird. If she asked those questions, and then thought about how if Dust is moving the alethiometer, maybe it's not trustworthy, great, that provides genuine tension, but not asking at all is just dumb. I've always complained about the Harry Potter structure, where you don't really find out what was happening until the end when Dumbledore tells you. This does the same thing, except Lyra is willfully ignorant, whereas Harry is actively trying to figure things out and just doesn't know the full picture.

I did enjoy reading it, and it's well written, but the promise of seeing whatever the golden city is and finding out the true nature of Dust just isn't enough if this is how it goes from here on out. It is definitely a solid read, but it could've been great.

I'd never read this before, and was reading aloud to the kids, so the eccentricities of the language were particularly hard for me to get used to, but right around halfway, I was able to read it without stumbling over myself and thankfully stuff started happening.

Because of the dated language and my inexperience with other books of the sort, a lot of the things I love about reading just weren't here. I like little nuances in writing, but if I can barely follow what's happening at all, I'm not going to get it.

So three stars feels low for a classic, but it's a personal enjoyment rating, not an objective review. It's good, but just not my thing.