Talk:Philip Pullman

Spring Clean

I am going to do a bit of spring cleaning on this page. It has much good information but it is too crowded. I cannot read it easily and get the information. So I am going to make a new section for Awards and Honours and a new section for Life and also then Literary Career. Inshallah I can put information into the sections and get rid repeated information this way. I do not intend to get rid of important information so correct me if this happens. Also I will get rid of dead links and also too much information when there is already a wiki page. NoorStores (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Still at work on Awards and Honours. The Booker Prize nomination was missing, very surprising! I think it should be bullet points? NoorStores (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been told I have a conflict of interest and must not do any more edits on this page. The conflict of interest is that once I took a creative writing course with Kate Clanchy and I thought she was nice.

It is a pity that I cannot carry on. My intention was to put the Honours and Awards in two sections, Books and Life and in chronological order. Also, I thought the fact that His Dark Materials was shortlisted for the Booker and International Booker should be more prominent. But if I make these changes I will be stopped, so I will not try. If you are reading this and want to revert my changes because they are not finished, that is fine. Also, continuing them, that is fine with me. NoorStores (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

What has this COI case got to do with your editing Philip Pullman? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think because she is connected with the Society of Authors? It was because Joanne Harris said I was attacking her. So an editor said I shouldn't do any more on this page. I don't know if that is right but I am feeling worried about it. I am sorry. I think the page is clearer with a bit of editing too. NoorStores (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I should have looked more closely. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not true, or necessary, or kind. (you will understand this)

But I am tired of being called names. I am a sensitive person. NoorStores (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

NoorStores, I think the CoI accusation is because you said that you were once a student of Clanchy. IMO that's an absurd accusation unless actual behaviour demonstrates that you aren't able to be impartial about her or those in dispute with her. Though I perfectly understand that you may not want to go on with this area.

It might be a good idea to 'take a break' from related pages, both because the atmosphere may be too hot and because it will give you an opportunity to get experience on WP norms.

I'm afraid I reverted most of your recent edits here, mainly because I thought you were too brutal in removing detail. I will try to look at your edits one at a time if I can, to see which were productive. Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Pincrete. That's absolutely fine. I also thought my edits were too brutal! I was intending to put back detail in better places at exactly the time when I was banned. The article really is hard to get through, and too many repetitions. Please leave in the Booker nomination though, I can't believe I had to add that.

Thank you for your concern and advice. I've decided to give up Wikipedia. Belbury is relentless and all his accusations make me feel pushed to give up my full identity, or I can't demonstrate I am in good faith. But I don't feel comfortable doing that, for lots of reasons like job and family, so it's better to leave.

For this page, I had one good idea which is maybe a Public Posts and Patronages section? Pullman does lots of jobs, instead of just sounding off about stuff! So if there was a section like that eg the Blake patronage would show he did something, not just have an opinion.

All the best Pincrete, you are an inspirationally nice, kind, editor. Noor NoorStores (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

anti-kino folly?

So someone on Reddit said "anti-kino folly" in the context of movie reviews and how some movies are hyped and over-rated, and I had no idea what this term means, so pasted it into Google and the first hit at the top of Google's page is this Article. Search of the text of this term shows zero hits, meaning none of the words "anti-kino folly" are in the Article, and yet for some reason Google REALLY MEANS IT. Google isn't stupid. If Google says there is a connection between this term and this Article, then there is. But the Article doesn't say anything about it. Common denominator seems to be "movies", but that's all I got. What's the connection and should this Article mention it, since apparently someone on Reddit sees the connection even if neither the Article or myself do/does see it. What's it means, what's the connection and should it be included, "improve the Article", etc... ***edit oh and none of the other hits on Google search shows a connection either.2603:8082:DB40:2E:B44B:8A4:5356:747A (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Why not ask Google why they make such a connection? My own search engine (not Google) now makes such a connection to this page, but that is as a result of your use above!Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Should philips books really be seperated into "young adult fiction" and "childrens books"

given he is generally against such classifications for books. and thinks they should be read by everyone who wants regardless? ~2026-22537-42 (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The Anatomy of Influence

My copy of Pullman's Fairy Tales from the Brothers Grimm features a blurb from Harold Bloom: "All of his gifts, including his prose eloquence and his endless, high-Romantic imagination, are manifested in this marvelous retelling of Grimm. That's notable. How to cite it? Charlie Faust (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Normally the proper place would be on reviews of this book, but there isn't a page for it. Although it's slightly off-subject, I wouldn't object to a brief addition to the section on PP's attitude to fairy tales. Pincrete (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Bloom didn't approve of many contemporary authors (in the States, Roth, McCarthy, Pynchon and DeLillo; in the U. K., Banville, Byatt and some others.) It's notable that one of our preeminent critics would praise his "prose eloquence and endless, high-Romantic imagination", an assessment not only of that book but his oeuvre. Charlie Faust (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)