#same thing with pullman etc etc. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

glitchbirds · 4 months

Text

started watching the his dark materials tv adaptation earlier this week- something that i had meant to do back in 2019 when it began and never quite got around to. started s3 yesterday so i should get the remaining 7 episodes under my belt within the next few days genuinely it is fascinating to watch an adaptation of a series that i read only once, when i was ten years old, but which left such a profound impression on me that i have consistently cycled back to it for years and years (esp when its such a complex, sprawling fantasy world-or several worlds, really- that its adapting)

as ive mentioned Several times over the years- maybe not on this particular account though-, i was gifted an omnibus copy of all three books in one by my older brother, either for christmas or my birthday i cant remember, sometime before the 2007 movie came out (meaning i had to have been 10 at the absolute oldest when i started reading them, though maybe 11 by the time i finished?). i also very clearly remember The Controversy surrounding them among christians, mainly because of a few comments by classmates but more importantly because my (fourth grade, iirc?) teacher pulled me out of class one day to tell me the book i was reading was sinful and atheist and against god and etc (which made me cry very hard </3 even though she told me i could still read it. this was back when my dad still took me to (catholic) church on a semi-regular basis to appease my grandmother as well as sunday school (run by my older cousins) and at least a year or so before i started to develop a modicum of critical thought towards deep south church teachings. i was petrified of the idea of going to hell and scared to do anything whatsoever to jeopardize my chances) (this did not stop me from reading the book however, because i enjoyed it too much. but i also have a clear memory of reading the book every chance i got w/o paying much attention to what was happening around me and one day realizing that i was reading it while at church service and mentally freaking out that i was doing something sacrilegious and trying to force myself to stop reading. i think i spent about 10 minutes bored out of my mind before i, internally apologetic, went back to reading) luckily my parents seemed unaware or unphased by the fearmongering- i assume my mother never noticed, or this was before she started to become insane from fox news poisoning; my dad i think brought it up briefly because of a flyer he saw but wasnt overly worried about it- because i saw the movie in theaters (i liked it ok; have never seen it since, i want to now though) and also acquired the ds game (tbh i enjoyed it despite it being tie-in garbage and me being v bad at video games as a kid; i never managed to beat it though) and later the wii game (bad </3 never got far into it)

Anywayyyy. again i have never since reread any of the books or read any of the other novellas and the like philip pullman has written set in the same world, though im itching to do that now; and ofc while ive skimmed through wiki articles and the like to refresh my memory on things, my memory of most of the plot points in the books are heavily based on My Perspective As A Ten Year Old Child. i remember the first book the best, a decent amount of subtle knife, and can only recall a few specifics of amber spyglass, and its only now while revisiting the world by watching the tv show that im getting a proper, more well-rounded view of the symbolism and messaging and Authorial Intent(tm) behind the series, because of course a lot of this shit flew right over my stupid little child brain as a kid. once i got to the third book i started to understand, vaguely, why my teacher didnt want me reading this book and why there was a backlash against the movie, but a lot of things that are obvious to me now (and would have been obvious if i read the series just a few years later, really) just did not compute for a 10 y/o. which ofc does not mean that i think its a Bad thing i read them that young but all of ^ that turns watching this series into a mix of "oh i remember that" "oh i know whats coming up" "oh my god i forgot that this is from HDM, this has influenced so many creative projects over the years w/o me even realizing it" "oh they skipped over it but i know in the books there was a scene here that i loved and that has stuck with me forever" "i dont remember this from the books but it extrapolates perfectly from what i remember about these characters" "oh my god was the symbolism here really that obvious and i still didnt pick up on it" etc etc etc ANYWAYYYY. my actual review of the tv series so far: -season 1 in particular is sorely lacking in how it portrays daemons and it made me increasingly sad. daemons were without a doubt my favorite thing from these books and one of my favorite things in a work of fantasy Ever to the point where over the years i have Repeatedly decided to sit down and spend a ridiculous amount of time painstakingly plotting out what daemon i think (x) character from (x) piece of media i enjoy, would have. many of which are still committed to memory. i fucking love daemons as a concept and i wish this shit was public domain so any piece of fiction i write could utilize them forever. i get budget issues exist or w/e but whyyyy would you adapt a series where every character in a world would have a cgi animal with them at all times if you couldnt actually show those cgi animals in more than a handful of scenes per episode and only for (some) major characters and only if they had a speaking role in that scene and also occasionally just have them teleport instead of showing them walking from one room to the next and also crowd shots are fucking barren. its like watching a live action pkmn tv show where pokemon are onscreen for a combined 5-10 minutes out of 60 minute episodes. s2 is a bit better about it but it also spends significantly more time in other worlds where daemons arent visible so ig its easier to budget in more daemons in scenes that take place in lyras world. no idea about s3 yet though ofc the mulefa are coming so We'll See how they handle the cg there

-i do think the cg animal animation looks good though. like its not "i believe there is an actual snow leopard in the room" photorealism but not only is that something i do not particularly care about, i think daemons looking a little unreal is actually perfect. they are physical manifestation of human souls and are in-universe immediately distinguishable from identical animals of the same species... it works

-s2 in general is a significant improvement on s1 not just in the daemons but in the overall pacing and character exploration imo; which is surprising considering its the season cut short from covid lockdown; and also a bit sad since, again, most of what i remember is from the first book and thus many of my fondest memories of the books were things that were either skimmed over in the first season or cut out entirely </3 ALAS.

-iorek and iofurs fight didnt go as hard as it shouldve </3 they didnt even show iorek ripping iofur's jaw off... he was killed in the blurry bg behind lyra. how are you gonna let the 2007 pg-13 movie kick more ass at talking armored polar bears fighting to the death

-am i crazy or is the alethiometer just not used much in the tv series compared to the book... maybe the movie+games clouded my memory, or maybe its the fact that in the show there's rarely any elaboration as to what the symbols could mean or which symbols lyra is using for her questions/what she's interpreting. almost every scene of it being used blurs together and i wouldnt be shocked if some show-only fans think its a stupid plot device with no rhyme or reason behind the symbols, when imo i think you can at least roughly intuit many of the meanings, though obviously not to the extent that a reader could interpret full accurate sentences

-some really really strong casting for like 99% of the roles in this show, i love most of the changes theyve made from the books wrt to casting decisions, my only significant gripe is of course. why did you have to do lee scorseby like that. i loved lee a lot. i remembered him so fondly. why'd you have to give lin manuel miranda that one. just absolutely devastating to me personally (though the choice to have andrew scott as will's father was v funny to me because lin manuel miranda and moriarty from bbc sherlock hanging out together for a huge chunk of s2 has to have appealed massively to a very particular subset of tumblrina)

-again i read these books when i was 10 so the concept of "characters can be bad people but also really well written and enjoyable to spectate" hadnt really settled in my mind yet so i really have no idea if this fully applies to the book version of her but oh my godddd i love mrs coulter in this series. yes she kidnaps children and rips their souls apart from them yes she drugs her own daughter and holds her captive yes she murders people indiscriminately without remorse etc. and she rules <3

-similarly the changes theyve made to the golden monkey are Fascinating...

-i loved lyra and pan with my whole heart when i was her age and it is really :,) to now be fully an adult and see her again. waughh. i love how almost everyone she meets loves her too (i will not stand for ppl watering it down to found family fanfiction tropes. but She Is So Loved.)

-i think its cool that boreal went from being a fairly minor character in the books to one of the main antagonists for a hot minute. he was fun :)

-i dont remember having strong feelings about mary malone as a kid but i really like her here. i havent gotten to this point in the show yet but im aware they tweaked her backstory to make her a lesbian as well, which is just delightful to me

-will's relationship w/ his mother and particularly the way the book describes her mental illness from will's perspective was so, So important to me as a kid and the thing i remembered best from subtle knife, and i wish the show had dwelled on it a liiiittle more? in particular, the bit where will thinks about when he first realized something was up and his mother wasnt just playing a "game" with him and was actually terrified of a nonexistent threat, when he was seven and they were shopping for groceries, and how he realized then and there that he needed to take care of her and protect her- that stuck w/ me very strongly as a kid and i wish the show had found a way for will to talk about it with lyra, there were a couple points where i thought he was going to bring it up. maybe this season??

fun fact i started writing this post at like 10 last night. i gotta put a stop this rn

#very long and rambly post. apologies #txt

2 notes · View notes

measuringbliss · 2 years

Text

Reading through His Dark Materials (Book 2) 1/2 (Chapters 1 to 9)

Let's keep reading vol 2 of His Dark Materials (the books and saga have completely different names in France lmao)

I read the 1st book in a day, during my first year at university, during classes. It was, like, 3-4 years ago. I read a bit of the first chapter of Book 2 back in September but didn't continue. I'm doing this right now.

So Will meets "Lyra", whose Daemon is named "Pantalaimon"... like Book 1 Lyra. But she can't be Lyra, right? OG Lyra? I remember she followed her father back at the end of Book 1, but... Hmm... I didn't remember Lyra being so wild and like, not knowing how to cook. Huh. *grumbles* But she doesn't have the same surname...

...Is she Lyra's evil twin?

(don't answer questions by the way, it's mostly for myself)

...AND SHE HAS THE ALITHIOMETER.

And she thinks about Iorek (aka the cute big bear). I guess she's Lyra. Huh. Hmm.

(I have to say the town description made me think of Lurelin Village in BOTW, I had the music in my head reading those parts)

CH2

Serafina Pekkala is a lesbian. I feel like she is. She's part of the Lobby. *sees mention of big snuggly ferocious polar bears* god i need a bear... Fra Pavel was mentioned in the first book, right? I remember that name. Mrs Coulter says that Lyra was "conceived in sin and born in shame", what does that mean exactly...

Is the thing with the tree branch something that happened before? Doesn't ring a bell. Huh. (Edit: Yep. It's mentioned at the council later in the chapter. Nice.)

Anyway, Mrs Coulter obviously sucks but I always forget how cruel she is. It was a violent scene. Philip Pullman didn't seem to pull many punches, writing these books.

Lord Asriel's butler "knows him better than any woman ever could"... They fucked. Lord Asriel is an god-killing bicon. We stan! We stan so much! He's done nothing wrong ever.

(Serafina Pekkala is definitely not straight)

So Lord Asriel really fucks, huh? Mrs Coulter, Ruta Skadi, Thorold... Okay, so Lyra's other surname was given to her by Iorik. I guess I can definitely conclude both Lyras are the same characters. Yay!

Ruta mentions circumcision and wow, Pullman really has *beef* with some people... Love it for him.

CH3

It's actually fascinating seeing Will and Lyra interact. Of course she'd look at him weird for suggesting she'd wear jeans...

CH4 (this is the moment I switched from The Matrix score to The Fast and the Furious, it's just a fun tidbit, don't question it)

Quick question/theory: Is John Parry (Will's dad) Lord Asriel? Maybe he found a window to change world and couldn't get back, but that would have certainly motivated him to find a way back, and it would have inspired him to seek other words, and thus question the Church, etc. It would create an interesting parralel between Asriel and Will. I hope Lyra gets to see a picture of the dude and exclaim "Wait a minute...". WAIT, ACTUALLY, THAT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY PEOPLE WERE MEDDLING WITH WILL'S LIFE. Omg. I should reread the first chapter... *does exactly that* Hmm. Intriguing.

I wonder if those "ha those things are exactly the same in both worlds" (the initials engraved in the stones, what Lyra sees at the museum) are supposed to be hints, or just coincidences, as in, "some things find a way to happen regardless of obstacles" or if I'm supposed to imagine that both worlds resonate so much that they corrupt each other in some way.

(side note: the first F&F score is surprisingly good?)

I was hoping the old guy spying on Lyra would be an ally, but he's described as having penetrating eyes, a pointy tongue, and the word "rot/putrefaction" is mentioned. (I'm reading in French so when I cite the text, it might not be accurate, but if you've read the book you'll know what I mean.)

I'm starting to wonder what's the goal of the alithiometer. Obviously, it has some sort of conscience; is it truly trying to help Lyra? It seems, you know, magical. Godly. Are we going to meet its creator? I mean, if it's G-man, probably at some point, right? Anyway, Lyra, please read the old guy's card. I'm curious to know his name and stuff. Anyway, if the alitiomether is guiding Lyra to help her find John Parry, aka Will's dad, aka possibly Lord Asriel, does that mean the alithiometer is on his side? Well, maybe not. Huh.

I find it interesting that Lyra adopted the name given to her by Iorik. Anyway, Pullman throwing shade at the underfunding of researchers, we love to see it.

I wonder if the Dr. Malone will stay Lyra's ally for long, I got a bad feeling...

The archeologist is raising my "WILL'S DAD IS LORD ASRIEL" flag even higher. Or maybe "the physician". In both cases, I'm convinced John is linked to Lord Asriel. Okay, maybe this is more likely. I'll keep both theories. Was the reporter the old guy that Lyra met at the museum? ...Or one of Will's agressors. That works too.

At this point, I'm begging Will and Lyra to use the documents they have in their possession; Will his father's writing case, and Lyra the old man's card. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the attorney is about to die.

CH5 (we're now listening to Norn9's videogame score)

Lyra and Will's methods of being discreet both have merits.

(I'm annoyed that Norn9's main theme only appears on the main menu; it lasts almost 6 minutes, is pretty great, but you only hear 10 5 seconds of it if you play normally. But I much prefer the next track.)

The cat can't lick its own ear now, can it? ...Can it? Anyway, Will's finally reading the letters!!!!!

After reading them (and finishing the chapter)... Hmm. This man does not sound like Lord Asriel. Huh. I hope Will and John get to be reunited.

CH6

Oh. That's where I'm realizing I kind of don't care about Lee Scoresby but... sure.

A witch wanted to be the dude's wife? She must have been pretty horny.

I was pretty uninterested at first, but the Magisterium planting men in research stations? Now, that's juicy! AND HE ATTACKS LEE?! OH MY GOD OK.

Maybe Grummann's a zombie. I saw that word-drop earlier!! I noticed it!!!!!

Anyway. This infodump is so interesting. Side note: While in English, Book 2 is called The Subtle Knife, in French it's called La Tour des Anges--the tower of angels. So we got a namedrop. Huh. Maybe what the philosophers used to open worlds was said subtle knife?

So Lord Asriel creating a passage between worlds fucked over Citagazze and its world. Huh.

I feel like Ruta is gonna die. Please don't die, I like you.

CH7 (Now listening to La La Land Records's release of the Spider-Man 1 score)

Nooooo give me Ruta back, I need to see her encounter with Lord Asriel...!

Omg. Shifty people are investigating Lyra and Dr Malone? Oof. WHITE EYEBROWS? OMG. LYRA RUN. (This feels like a horror novel.) OH MY GOD THEY NAMEDROPPED WILL AAAAAAAAH LYRA GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE. AAAAAEFJZEDIOHJZEOEDPDZKOZEPDZEKOPZDEJZIZEOZEI

oH dear this is terriyfing OH GOD NO LYRA DON'T STEP INTO THE CAR NOOOOOOOO

OKAY THEORY TIME: THE OLD GUY IS GOD. IT'S FUCKING GOD PLAYING WITH LYRA. UGH.

OG MY GOD HE STOLE IT?! HE STOLE IT?! OH MY GOD. OH MY GOOOOOOD. OMG. OH. I CAN'T. I WASN'T READY FOR SUCH INTENSITY. WHAT THE FUCK.

Narratively speaking, removing the alitiomether from Lyra's hands is great because it was starting to become a bit of a cheat code (though I wasn't complaining about it).

Is the book going to end with Will finding his dad? Would be a nice parallel.

So the card... wasn't especially enlightening to me. Oh well. According to Google Reviews, Limefield House has very comfortable beds! Oh but wait, it's situated in Livingston. The one in Headington is strictly fictional. Google Maps does indicate roughly an hour to go from the center of Oxford to Headington so I guess Pullman knew the area pretty well.

GOD. I was planning to stop this reading session but this got so interesting.

CH8

You know what this reminds me of? Ulysse Moore. *nobody reacts because nobody has read those books* Well I have! The first 9 books, I believe. Began with volume 6, then read them all in order. It got really aimless with 7, if you ever decide to read them, stop after 6, it offers a nice conclusion. ANYWAY. DOORS TO OTHER WORLDS. KEYS. SECRETS. PEOPLE WITH FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE. SECRET CLUBS. I'm just now getting why I was thinking of this series this whole time.

Pantalaimon turns into a bear and I swoon <3 Bears <3 <3 <3

I didn't expect such violence, but I remember Iorik's fight in the first book being pretty harsh too. Anyway, Dancing with the Bears just turned into friggin' Saw.

This book is gonna end with Will creating a passage to the land of God or whatever with the knife after having found his father. I'm not sure yet on whether Will's dad will die or not.

Oh, Pullman is shipping Lyra and Will. Okay. Sure.

I feel like the Specters are an allegory for the climate change.

CH9, can't stop, won't stop

OMG MRS COULTER. OMG LORD BOREAL. OMG. CITAGAZZE WAS THE CROSSROADS?!

It's so funny seeing this asshole dump the whole plot to ~Marisa~. "Spectres? We don't have time for this. But I'm still gonna tell you!"

anyway I HATE THIS FUCKING MONKEY OH MY GOOOOOD and OMG IT'S THE CAT!!!! OH NO IT'S GONNA DIE ISN'T IT?! ;-;

Okay I've almost reached 2/3 of the book in one sitting, it's almost 2am, I should eat and sleep for a bit

I hope y'all enjoyed this ridiculous post

#his dark materials #the subtle knife #books #literature

10 notes · View notes

witchlingsandwyverns · 11 months

Note

Hellooo again from your secret Santa!

I have ideas coming together so I hope you don’t mind if I pop in for some more questions!

You’re a big reader - do you have any foundational fantasy books that hold a special place in your heart? Like Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Mists of Avalon, Wrinkle in Time? And if so, what do you love most about them?

You mentioned gardens - tell me your ideal fantasy garden to wander around. Is it messy and wild and covered in moss? Full of strange special plants from around the world with magical traits? Is it filled with hedges trimmed to look like dragons?

Finally, if you were Rhys and buying Feyre her first Solstice gifts, what would you get her?

HOOOO BOY YA ALREADY SPOILING ME I CAN TELL BY YOUR QUESTIONS WOW

Okay just wow where to begin

BOOKS

Foundational fantasy... hard to say since I'm only really now getting into High Fantasy/the foundational epics typical of the genre (I never read lotr till this year, but grew up with the movies - discovered Philip Pullman late, couldn't get into GoT, etc) but some long time favs inlcude:

- Tamora Pierce (lioness/wild magic): characters are fun, spunky, and challenged by circumstance to weigh what they value vs what must be done. The romance! The action!

- Howls Moving Castle: I loved how protagonists can be flawed and petty and stubborn but those things can also be strengths in the right light (I have the same feeling about the Mistborn cast) not to mention that underlying truth of sometimes you don't want to do a thing but you have to and you'll be better for just doing it idk I really hope this makes sense

- you mentioned Mists of Avalon! I took Arthurian Lit and loved it so anything that takes an old myth and spins it, I'm am here for

- (do you know how hard of a question this is for me?)

This is only what I could squeeze in frame. Books were one of the very few things i collect? Hoard? And have been hoarding since Ive had my own money. A lot of fantasy I think of as 'foundational' is whatever I could get my hands on and shaped how I read the genre. Cinda Willaims Chima. Patricia C Wrede. Bruce Colville. Niel Gaiman. Piers Anthony. Terry Pratchett. Could literally talk for hours. But I love characterization/character dynamics and tropes (whole tag: "takes a hit of the good shit tropes") omg this got so long I'm sorry I hope this is helpful I just really want to do your questions justice

GARDENS

(I'm sorry in advance I've worked at a plant nursery and as a florist assistant so bear with me!)

Dream garden: wild and colorful! Anything that attracts pollinators (half the fun is watching bees and butterflies and birds appreciate what's been grown) and smells nice! Jasmine lavender honeysuckle, I think gardens should still look like nature (wild, balanced between flowering and evergreen) but also a sensory experience. Moss!! For!!! Days!!! Old stone/brick work! Statuary! Swings to sit on in the morning sun with coffee or at night with the bats and fireflies! (I once got to walk in Central Park in the rain and stumbled across the Shakespeare garden and I straight up was in heaven. The sound of rain on leaves. The walking paths.)

BACK TO YOUR Q: Hedges are for kissing behind. Plants with healing properties are a magic of their own. Growing things ARE magic. But if that dragon statue was enchanted or the sculpted siren in the fountain sang when the sun hit the water just right? I WOULDNT BE SAD ABOUT IT. 🌻

FEYRE

For our our first solstice I would give her a space to paint or read in depending on her fancy. A space to be creative in with lots of light and windows. With warm drinks on tap for the late nights she wishes to stay up late chasing that creative buzz. Conveniently soundproofed for music to jam to while painting late at night... or maybe other late night activities with a certain high lord should he also need an escape or she needs a model (ahem 👀). Maybe it's near a garden or within walking distance of a view of natural elements to inspire her. Maybe its filled with plants and canvases and brick walls to hang other artists art on. I know Rhys has gifted her similar things in cannon but as a fellow creative, it's the dream.

EDIT: MAGIC CHAIR!!!! SHIFTS BETWEEN THE PERFECT READING CHAIR OR PAINTING STOOL! COMFY NO MATTER HOW YOU SIT IN IT

(Dear lord this got long, I hope it helps!!!)

#secret santa #my love you spoil me yet #even your questions are charming #heart eyes #i cannot wait #im kicking my feet and twirling my hair its fine #thank you so much this made my day

1 note · View note

comas-are-for-sleeping · 2 years

Note

OK BUT THE THING. THE ONE THING. i wasn't even mad at the show for this i was just pissed at like. the everything. bc a second thing before my brother (the understander of tv and film) pointed out the kids, perfection, etc thing, was that she said once these kids have their daemons taken away they will be freed of sin and have no regrets. babygirl i know sooo many people who've gotten baptized and come to God etc etc and still have regrets. like i know this is probably an issue with ms. coulter (whom holy shit terrifying but complex and interesting but also what the fuck) and her grief and regrets and being generally very fucked up but ALSO CONSIDER. i hate the idea that believing in something takes away everything. like there is so much peace that comes from spending time with God and talking to him and stuff but like it's not. easy? in fact it will probably be the hardest thing you will ever do? so many famous and well respected prophets doubted and hesitated and didn't want to carry out the things asked of them even tho they were disciples of the faith yk? i am SO apologies for dropping five million christianity things into your inbox lmao i just am like going to lay in bed tonight and stare at the ceiling like 🤨 bc nowhere in the Bible does anything say we will ever be free of feelings or regret or even sin on this earth. some of the people i know who are closest to God go through the most suffering because of their desire to know and follow and love God so it was just like. it made me laugh while also making me annoyed that people rlly think it will be easy like yes! real and true peace! cool and vibey and the reason i am who i am and i would be literally nothing without it! but we're still like. human. we still live here. it's just a weird thought i had and also maybe it doesn't relate to what philip pullman thinks at all but i just yeah. weird interesting thoughts

YOU ARE SO VALID FOR ALL OF THIS MY GUY.

and like. YEAH. i hate to be like. ooooh people are so desparaging of christianity but? i think athiests are just. they feel above religion somehow. as if athiesm isn’t just. different from organized religions. on the same plane just in. different areas. (as if i havent done this also rip me ig)

but anyway yeah. i think the whole. that whole getting rid of sin is without regret is possibly a very athiest take? like. i guess i cant really say for sure but. yeah religion is totally just like any other relationship. it takes work and effort and of course you will have regrets for some things i think that’s for? most big complicated experiences?

#anyway i feel like i Do Not have enough information to fully rant abt this but yeah #but ugh!!! if i could go back in time and reorient my experienced w religion from just a place of Only Worship It’s Only God and turn it to #lessons?? and ideas?? and community?? and an outlet for pain??#ask #soryasongsaa #pen and ink

3 notes · View notes

tinyelephentalchaos · 2 years

Text

I’ve been reading His Dark Materials, somewhat slowly, after having watched the show. I also saw the movie when it came out, what, 12 years ago, maybe?

Thinking about the guard and what their dæmons would be. Also what gender/sex: it would make sense, with most if not all of the guard being queer, and Andy… possibly being older than the concept of gender as we know it (are non-binary dæmons a thing? Also what do we know about neolithic conceptions of gender?) for them to have dæmons of the same gender… Though, would this go against the theme of them being the same as everyone else, since same-gender dæmons are rare...? Plus, the intersection between dæmons and sexuality is murky re: gender, given Pullman's answer to "could a character's dæmon being the same gender as them mean they're queer?" was "maybe", iirc.

Anyways, we know that they were born several centuries-to-millennia apart, so it wouldn't be that strange if they all happened to have same-gender dæmons, but it might make them stand out in public...

Anyways, here's a list of the guard and their dæmons, Lykon's is unnamed as of now because I have very little idea of where he could be from, or what language he would have spoken, aside from the Greek name he took.

Andy has a saker falcon, called Nyx (Νύξ "night"). That's not their first name, just as Andromache isn't Andy's: they remember the starting sound of each other's name throughout the millennia, bits and pieces of PIE which they speak amongst themselves and Quỳnh. Well, now, with her dæmon.

Quỳnh has a blue krait, named Tâm (from 心 "heart"*), who coiled herself around Andy's shoulders after Quỳnh was lost and never let go.

Nile had thought, at first, that Andy just.. had two dæmons. Why not? Here's this immortal warrior who claims that they lead an army of four people, has been a god, etc. They can have two dæmons, it's fine.

Nile's just... trying not to let her mind break, thank you very much. So, she's just accepting whatever at this point.

Lykon had a painted dog, who alongside him in, uh, whatever-post 331 BC/pre-1099 AD. (I'm begging, Greg/Victoria/Gina, give us a more concrete timeline.) When they disappeared, that's when Andy and Quỳnh knew he wasn't reviving.

Joe has a lion named Mahaad/Liyana (مَهّاد/لِيانَةٌ "comforter"/"tenderness"**) who preferred a rabbit form when he was a child.

Nicky has a wolf with a winter coat because fluffy wolves are adorable, named Concetto/Rossana ("Conception (of Jesus)"/"Dawn/Bright Star"***).

The two have long abandoned any sense of taboo around touching each other's dæmon: brushing past them on missions, cuddling with them during downtime: Mahaad/Liyana will often laze around in the kitchen while Nicky cooks, stretching their neck so Nicky can scratch their chin as he passes by their sunspot, and Concetto/Rossana'll rest in Joe's lap while he draws. As it was, it took Nile that entire first weekend to figure out who's dæmon was whose, not helped that they respond to each other's names. Nicky explained it like this when she asked: "Over the centuries, we've become intertwined, our souls bound together as one. Why shouldn't we call our dæmons by the same sounds, or touch them with our own hands?"

Booker has a polecat with white-ish markings on their face and body named Jules/Chloé (French form of Julian/French form of Chloe****).

Nile has a fox sparrow with russet feathers named Seth/Lucy (from Hebrew שת "Appointed"/Latin Lux "Light"*****). I feel like both are appropriate given Nile's probably Protestant background.

All of the immortals, minus Nile and excluding Quỳnh as an outlier since she's been separated from Tâm for centuries, can separate from their dæmon to some extent. Andy often asks Nyx to scout for the group, and while they tend to slow down for the duration of separation beyond ~ 20 meters, they no longer experience pulling (separation from one's dæmon) as everyone else. (But Tâm'll coil closer around Andy's shoulders, regardless, whispering soft nothings in whatever language she can think of.)

Joe and Nicky, meanwhile, if they can help it, will go with one another's dæmon if they need to separate. So that they can take comfort from the other shape of their soul, and know their first soul-form is protected above all else. When other circumstances arise and they're separated from both their dæmons, they look to each other for comfort through the pulling.

Booker ( like Ms. Coulter), can go the longest time apart from his dæmon without a shared goal or someone else to rely on. It's... not great, and he tries not to do so often simply because it's noticeable and he's trying to pretend, at least, that he's relatively happy, but it's a useful skill especially when there are tight spaces or small openings in a structure.

The first time this happened, actually, was while he was dying his first deaths. Jules/Chloé left to find some kind help, after the first few days. Ended up finding Andy, Joe & Nicky, and lead them all back to Booker. Of the others in the guard, Jules/Chloé is the closest to Andy and Nyx, simply because the pair were the first the dæmon had seen in weeks.

Lastly, as to Quỳnh, Tâm and separation: when Quỳnh was taken in the iron maiden, both Tâm and Nyx were held in another part of the dungeon, as the captors thought that would weaken their powers. So, she's been apart, not only from Andy, Joe and Nicky, for the past 400-500 years, but from her dæmon, too. The Pulling alone was excruciating, halfway down to the bottom of the ocean, she died from it alone. Yet, coupled with the drowning, the riviving, the snippets of dreams... when she finally escapes, Quỳnh's barely clinging to the last shreds of her sanity, and that's only because she knows Andy's been looking after Tâm-- their bond, though stretched to its last threads, still exists and she just knows Tâm's been safe 'til 1812, when she first glimpses her again. She goes peacefully to death that time. What should she care of her own suffering if her dæmon is truly safe? And then she revives, again and again, and she recalls her rage...

---

Sources on names that I'm pretty sure are accurate, but again, please correct me if they're not:

*https://www.behindthename.com/name/ta13m/submitted

**https://quranicnames.com/liyana/ and https://quranicnames.com/mahaad/

***https://www.behindthename.com/name/concetto (masculine form of Concetta, unrelated to the Italian word meaning concept or the English word meaning conceit. Spelled the same though, and is a cognate of Concepción) and https://www.behindthename.com/name/rossana and https://www.behindthename.com/name/roxana

**** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloe

***** Gen. 4:25, New Revised Standard Version and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius

61 notes · View notes

addoration · 2 years

Text

thoughts on will parry's predicament in tsk (and bleeding into tas, so beware spoilers)

(forgive me for inaccuracies in this meta, i dont have my copies of hdm with me so im going on memory alone!)

so will parry, maybe 13 years old, has murdered a man. manslaughter, really, and was it even really his fault? the man shouldn't have been there in the first place.

he runs and runs and runs in fear, all the way from - what was it, winchester? - to oxford. he's physically running away, and while he would like to mentally run away too, he can't. he's gripped with fear and guilt and despair, and the only good emotion he's probably feeling is gladness that he had managed to get his mum out of there before that night.

he's too young and doesnt understand enough to realise that the dead man would never have been found. pullman does such a good job of making us get inside will's mind, see things from his childish perspective - we know, distantly, that these men must have been hired by someone else who's up to no good to go and break in to his house etc, and thus we might deduce that there would be some sort of "clean up" where the death of the man doesn't see the light of day.

in the show, we're shown this explicitly. it's almost too obvious? we know suddenly that it's boreal behind the invasions n stalking.

in the book, however, we're left as shocked and reeling as will is. like i said, distantly we know all those facts - but pullman manages to write in such a way that we see things simply from will's perspective, and we forget all logic. we're all scared little boys running from a bad deed.

and he meets lyra, and amongst the things he's thinking is probably "she doesn't know what ive done. i can still be a good person to her."

except of course, lyra pries and consults the alethiometer and she finds out exactly what will is. a murderer.

and well, anyone who has heard me speak abt it before knows that that scene where she finds out he's a murderer and is just like "awesome, he can keep us safe then" is one of my favourites. i think they did it dirty in the show. BUT regardless, i believe that this is both anticlimatic and also a climax at the same time.

anticlimatic because she finds out will's a murderer and she's actually put at ease. climactic because of the exact same reasons: its a pivotal moment in their relationship, even as early on as it is.

(actually can i say that as much as i adore the scene, i find it a bit..... wrong? it always rubbed me the wrong way that the altheiometer, a truth telling device, called will a murderer. it shouldnt, because that is ultimately what he is!!! he killed someone, intentional or not. but.

but.

will parry unintentionally and quite by accident killed that man. the word murderer just never sat right with me, despite it being true. i dont know if im alone in this - does anyone else feel this way??

anyway, moving on. the fact is, he seems to quickly forget about it. he's still on the look out for coppers when they cross back into his world, so of course it's not out of his mind completely! he's paranoid but not so paranoid as to be irrational.

but he goes the rest of the books without really thinking about it much more. remember when he draws the knife and intends to stand up to - who was it, the metatron? he does so without a thought.

which is partly on par for his character: he's a protector, he's a survivor. but i also feel like pullman forgets to give him any of the trauma that should come with accidentally killing someone.

even though kids are more resilient. even though its very much likely that he's pushed that into the mists of his mind simply because he has more pressing matters to attend to (finding lyra).

actually it's just occured to me; he doesn't have time to really grieve his father, either.

but anyway, back to the topic.

when the knife shatters, he's thinking of his mother. when he cant make another cut, he's thinking of his mother.

it's interesting that pullman chose love to be the driving force behind everything that will parry does. i actually really appreciate and adore that. i don't belive its ever explicitly said? but he is the bravest character in the trilogy. lyra endures a lot and is brave too, don't get me wrong, but there's something about will, seen consciously putting love first time and time again, that makes you remember that he, unlike lyra, did not choose this adventure, and so him standing in the face of it all and choosing to love anyway is a sign of his bravery.

i mean, thats not to mention the time he stands in front of iorek and says "fight me".

it's interesting to me. he is by far the kindest character in the series. even lyra, though never meaning ill, has her moments of small cruelty, though they taper out towards the end of the triology as she grows up and is also influenced by will.

i started this trying to gather a few thoughts on will being a murderer, and ive ended up concluding that will is the bravest and kindest character. do you think balthamos would have done what he did, sacrificing his life, if he had never been influenced by will?

and let me touch on one thing i said in passing: will did not choose this journey. men started stalking his mother and him, forcing him into the actions at the start of tsk; lyra, on the other hand, fought tooth and nail to go north and save roger, and then continued to chose to walk over the bridge between worlds that asriel created. you can say that it was fate and she was destined to do so, so she didn't have a choice either.... but its not true. she had a choice the same way eve had a choice.

well! ive said a lot and resolved none of the floating thoughts in my head. feel free to comment or add your thoughts to this, or come talk to me in the hdm server (msg me if you would like a link) about what ive said!! i just love will parry a lot.

#his dark materials #hdm #hdm tv #dove talks #long post #sorry mutuals who have no idea what im on about!!

34 notes · View notes

robbyrobinson · 2 years

Text

Thoughts On Gaiman's Problem of Susan

In the Last Battle, Peter; Edmund; and Lucy Pevensie are taken into Narnia when they alongside their parents and Diggory, etc. are all killed in a horrific train wreck that, for all intents and purposes, is blown off as no big deal. More alarming, Susan is the only one left alive on Earth because she "no longer was a friend of Narnia." That is the most we get from the siblings about what became of their sister which amounts to speaking trash about her without her being able to defend herself.

Naturally, many people had things to say for C.S. Lewis for this development. Some, like JK Rowling, Philip Pullman, and Neil Gaiman have blasted Lewis for the apparent misogyny thrown Susan's way what with her being more interested in lipstick, nylons, and invitations. But I had always defended Lewis by saying that it was a different time and if you really buy into him being a sexist, then what about the scenes where Susan and Lucy take part in the battles for Narnia? Or the White Witch is also pretty badass (albeit, Lewis does kind of have her and the Lady of the Green Kirtle as beautiful/seductive = evil) with her magic and fighting skills.

But what I think Lewis was truly saying wasn't so much that those things were bad, but it was that Susan was too invested in trying to be an adult, or what she saw as being mature, when she was really being immature and wasting her time obsessing over things which blinded her to the truth of Narnia. And she naturally didn't go to Aslan's Country because she was still alive (though Reepicheep technically did go there without dying but I digress). Lewis had gone on record saying that he envisioned having to make a mature novel in order to wrap up Susan's arc which I could understand...even though most of the characters died in a train wreck and the apocalypse is wrought on Narnia with thousands dying and being sold into slavery followed by them summoning the satanic monster Tash into Narnia. Sadly, he died before that could come to fruition.

However, I just can't help but think had Lewis explained his vision more there wouldn't have been much backlash in regards to Susan's fate. Because how he displayed it in the novel still makes me feel uncomfortable even when I give him the benefit of a doubt. Did Lewis have problematic views? Yes, obviously those opinions would not translate over to the more progressive views of today. But I do not advocate bashing Lewis for them. For instance, Gaiman had written an official fanfiction for the Narnia series appropriately called The Problem of Susan. In it, a young journalist interviews a professor of children's literature Professor Hastings. Hastings is more or less Susan Pevensie somehow talking about the events of the Last Battle which is meta because she is describing her life. Does that then mean that, in this universe, C.S. Lewis was told the story of Narnia by Susan and wrote the books as loosely based on true stories?

Regardless, the story forces the reader to be in Susan's shoes: she lost her entire family in a horrific accident; she is alone and financially unstable; she would have had to identify the corpses of her family. The Last Battle willfully paints the tragedy as "not bad" because it's okay they all go to Narnia in the end. It even gives off the impression that Susan was being punished for something as trivial as being interested in feminine stuff.

But where the story goes wrong is the nightmare sequence where Aslan betrays the Pevensies by joining forces with the White Witch and...devouring Susan leaving only her head and eating Lucy...and the White Witch transforms Edmund and Peter into hideous nightmare abominations. And then...uh...Aslan eats the Witch but not in the same way that he ate the two girls. Eh...it's very difficult to talk about. Where I am getting at is that Gaiman seemed to be personally attacking Lewis by demonizing Aslan to attack his faith. Again, did Lewis have problematic beliefs or views? Sure, but that does not make it okay to then use him as a punching back for self-proclaimed SJWs. Not to mention that it adds NOTHING to the short story and amounts to "Susan probably was an action survivor because she managed to escape from an evil god."

Overall, it is an interesting topic to discuss whether or not there was a "problem" regarding Susan's fate. Do you think it is unfair of her to be left behind on Earth with the knowledge that everyone she loved was dead, or do you think people blow the issue out of proportion? After all, Aslan said "Once a king and queen of Narnia, always a king and queen of Narnia."

#narnia #neil gaiman #the problem of susan #the chronicles of narnia #the last battle #problem of susan #susan pevensie

28 notes · View notes

that-one-blind-writer · 3 years

Note

thoughts on the HDM adaption, especially the story/narrative changes they made?

I figured it might be easiest to split this one into sections because I have a lot of thoughts. Warning for a long rambling post ahead, as well as spoilers from all the books😂

Casting

Honestly I just wanna say that I think Ruth Wilson was the perfect choice for Marisa. She’s such a talented actress, and clearly put a lot of thought into the character (especially how having a monkey dæmon would influence her body language). She also does an amazing job at making you feel sorry for Marisa, while simultaneously being terrified of her (most notably being the whole meeting with Lee). I like the casting overall, but Ruth Wilson as Marisa Coulter is definitely my favorite.

Overall Plot

I like it! I think they’re doing a very good job at sticking to the original plot of the books, and even adding a lot from the second trilogy (The very start of the show being the end of La Belle Sauvage, Mary following the rose petals which references The Secret Commonwealth, etc). In case you haven’t caught on, I’m a sucker for Marisa and Asriel, so I’m happy we’re getting to see more of their stories/their points of view. In the original trilogy, everything was mostly from Lyra’s point of view until The Amber Spyglass, so I’m loving the added perspectives from other characters in general.

Dæmons

When it comes to dæmons, I’m a bit skeptical about the adaptation. We aren’t really seeing as much of the symbolism of dæmons as we do in the books. Or maybe I’m just salty that we never got to see Pan’s leopard form, which is my favorite. Either way, I’m worried that the huge scene with Lyra and Pan in The Amber Spyglass won’t carry as much weight in the show as it does in the books. I’m also honestly interested to see if the monkey will talk in season 3. Because he actually does have a line in The Amber Spyglass, where he remarks “why is he showing this to us?” to Marisa in reference to the Intention Craft. He can actually speak if he wants to, and if he does speak, I hope they let Brian voice him.

Characterization

I’m definitely interested in the changes to the main characters, especially when it comes to personality. Let’s get into what I enjoyed first. I like this new vulnerable side of Asriel that we didn’t really get to see in the books (though I worry a nicer Asriel could mess up some of The Amber Spyglass’s most iconic Masriel scenes). I also really love this whole new depth to Marisa’s character that the show uncovers. That being said, I’m not a fan of how they “softened” Lyra’s character (is that the word I’m going for I guess?). In the books, she was a lot more like Asriel. That same arrogant boldness, extrovertedness, and fiery temper. We don’t see as much of that in the show. We also don’t see as much of the significance of lying. Lyra was a compulsive liar, just like her mother. It’s a huge part of some important scenes (such as the line, “Lyra had lied to Iofur Raknison with her words; her mother was lying with her whole life”). In fact, it actually looks like they’re covering up Marisa’s talent for lying with her ability to switch her emotions off. In the book, Marisa had controlled the Specters by lying to them. In the show, she controls them by switching her emotions off. In The Amber Spyglass, Marisa hides her love for Lyra from Metatron by lying. I have a feeling that the show will take that scene and put more emphasis on her suppressing her emotions than lying.

Masriel

Of course I had to give them their own section, I love them. I’m really happy that we’re seeing more of their story in the show. In the books, we don’t really get that much interaction (aside from the iconic mountain scene) until the third book. Which makes their ending a bit rushed. By slowing down and adding more through the seasons, we can really see how much they mean to each other, and I have a feeling I’ll cry harder watching the abyss scene than I did reading it. With the softening of their characters/relationship, I am a bit worried they’ll change too much of their scenes from The Amber Spyglass (I’m shocked Pullman got away with the gag scene in the book, I’m unfortunately not hopeful that it’ll make its way into the show)

TL;DR: I have a few things that irk me, but overall I’m really loving the adaptation. The Amber Spyglass (*cough* Masriel *cough*) is my favorite, and I’m really excited to see it on screen.

#I’m so sorry if the formatting is messed up #I’m on mobile lmao #amanda speaks #his dark materials #hdm #hdm meta #marisa coulter #lyra belacqua #lyra silvertongue #mrs coulter #asriel belacqua #lord asriel #masriel #chaos family

36 notes · View notes

whumpster-fire · 3 years

Text

Extremely Hot His Dark Materials Take:

The conventional wisdom that daemons’ settled forms represent who you truly are as a person and are a unique, symbolic representation of it is what’s said in-universe but it isn’t true, or at the very least isn’t the whole truth. IDC what Philip Pullman’s said is actually canon, stuff like “Servants usually have dog demons because they have a submissive/servile nature” is really not plausible fite me.

Animal symbolism is a social construct and is not universal among cultures, and just like the alethiometer symbols, an animal species can have many meanings. As a result, for any one person there are usually many species which are a “valid” representation of their soul, and which one their daemon actually settles as is not set in stone from birth. Daemons don’t consciously choose their settled form - and humans certainly don’t - but it reflects a variety of influences, including symbolic “nature” but also cultural influences, social pressures, what animals the daemon actually knows about, the nature of the relationship between the human and daemon, and what forms are physically comfortable or practical. But the common uniting factor in all of those is that a daemon’s form reflects what you want and need as much as what you are. Not superficial wants, but deep deep psychological needs and what’s important to you. And sometimes fears as well.

Factor #1: Societal Bias

Strong cultural predispositions toward settled form, combined with form stereotyping. I think it was said in the books that “most servants had dog daemons because deep down they wanted to be told what to do.” Think about this: is this likely to be true? Given that people generally wind up in jobs by luck of the draw and by what’s available, and most people even in the most socially mobile modern societies usually don’t end up in their “true calling,” and in Lyra’s world your occupation seems to very often be determined by your birth. Do you really think all the kids like Roger Parslow, who’s working as a kitchen boy because his aunt who was a servant at Jordan College raised him, are naturally subservient? Well, is everyone who works in a service industry job IRL naturally subservient? Hell no! However, this is a very, very convenient lie for a classist society that teaches people that they were born into a “station” in society to tell. If your daemon settles as a dog, obviously you were meant to be a servant all along, and you and your daemon spending your entire childhood being told that because this is the station you’re being born and raised into your daemon should be a dog or some other “appropriate” form and couldn’t possibly cause them to be biased towards canine forms by this.

But if a daemon takes a form that’s obviously unfit for their station, clearly your true calling is elsewhere and it was never truly meant to be. It’s hard to falsify as long as most daemons are settling in “expected” forms. And most do, at least to an extent. A daemon’s form is influenced by drives and desires, and while most people don’t necessarily want to be bossed around and told what to do, most people do want to fit in.

And having fairly broad categories of “expected” can help that, because that gives room for daemons to find a form within that category that genuinely fits their nature. Someone extremely independent and strong-willed but growing up always expected to be a servant might end up with a husky daemon. Someone with a leading (or even controlling) personality might have a herding breed. The same goes for Gyptians and Witches being expected to usually have bird daemons.

On the other hand people with certain daemon forms might also be actively recruited for certain jobs, based on both symbolism and the physical abilities of that form - e.g. the Tartar mercenaries and other soldiers seem to almost all have wolf daemons. These may be very common in their culture to begin with, and then there’s further selection based on the symbolism of “You’re a wolf, you’re powerful, noble, and a natural killer but you’re a loyal pack animal, you’d make a great soldier.” But then in addition to that, because of the no touching rules, people in jobs where they fight other people are at an advantage if their daemon can fight other daemons.

Factor #2: Age

Settling age is... around early-to-mid puberty it seems like. I’ve seen speculation that it would be later in more modern societies as the age of maturity drifts over, but it seems like 12-14 is fairly common. But brain development continues until around 25. Like... seriously. Daemons are settling when their humans would be middle-schoolers in our world. People mature and change a huge amount in that decade of “settled but not fully mature.” Unless daemons can presciently predict how they’ll change over time - or if the soul’s nature is fixed and people tend to change in away that approaches that over time - your daemon’s form may be based on what you were like at settling age.

Factor #3: Knowledge and Familiarity

His Dark Materials is mostly based in Europe / Northern Eurasia, and the vast, vast majority of the settled daemon forms in the novels are native to that region. Off the top of my head the exceptions are Stelmaria (a snow leopard, native to the Himalayas but that’s still an animal she and Lord Asriel could have encountered / read about as a child), Mrs. Coulter’s daemon (a monkey, I don’t think we’re ever told what species. Not native to Europe but again Marisa had the resources to travel, read about exotic species, visit zoos, etc and everything about them is weird, IIRC the African soldiers in Amber Spyglass had various african daemon forms (so, where they’re actually from), and Hester. Hester’s the most important because while she took the form of an arctic hare, which is native to North America where Lee’s from, her form is native to a completely different part of North America, that she and Lee probably wouldn’t have been familiar with, and it took years for anyone including her to even notice.

This suggests daemons may be able to take forms that are unknown to them, but we never see a raccoon or an oppossum or a bobcat or some australian animal as a daemon as far as I know, so my best guess is that they had some secondhand knowledge of the arctic and had at least seen what an Arctic Hare looked like but forgot how to tell one apart from a jackrabbit, Hester had an unconscious longing for the North that neither of them were aware of, and she had a strong and possibly less-unconscious desire to get the hell out of Texas at sometime around settling age. And they assumed she was a jackrabbit because daemons usually don’t take forms they’re not familiar with.

Factor #4: Physical Preference

A daemon is not a shadow or a heraldic crest - they’re not just an insubstantial symbolic reflection. A daemon is an integral part of a person’s being, and they are one, but at the same time the daemon are a living, breathing creature even if their physical body is unstable. One soul, two bodies, two minds, two personalities. Their form subjects them to some - although not all - of the physical abilities and limitations that animal would have, and the same sensations.

Again, a daemon’s form is often influenced by what’s important to them, and to the pair. Most daemons take on a huge number of forms throughout childhood, and there are some things about those forms that are important to them. For some daemons the freedom of movement of flight is a fun, childish thing to play around with, and perhaps tactically useful, but it isn’t torture to give it up. For others, flight and the freedom it represents are their very heart and to be bound to a grounded form forever would be unbearable. Some can’t give up the ability to take small forms that can hide and go unnoticed, but some hate the vulnerability and helplessness of small size and could never be happy in a form that can’t walk alongside their human without fear of being kicked or stepped on. Some can’t give up the joy of swimming, or climbing, and for some their humans can’t. The daemon of someone who is a mountaineer and climber in their soul won’t be a snapping turtle. And... this is complicated, because part of it’s the human’s nature, but part of it is tied up in experiences which the human can feel too, and that are important to them, but they don’t experience in quite the same way.

Sometimes it’s just too convenient. Witches’ daemons are nearly always birds because witches spend much of their time in the air and can separate from their daemons, and only with flight of their own can a daemon take advantage of this power; in a flightless form they would take far longer to travel any distance, and their witches would have to land every time they separated or reunited. Another animal, like a fox or a mink or a rabbit, might fit with a witch’s nature too, but a witch’s daemon will become a hawk or a heron or a dove instead.

And sometimes a certain from is just comfortable and it just feels right even though the symbolism might not fit the stereotypes.

Factor #5: Human-Daemon Relationships

This is something I talked about a bit in my post about autism and daemons: the form a daemon settles as is often affected by the nature of their relationship with their human.

First of all: barring severe internal conflict or mental illness, while a daemon’s settled form is not chosen by the human and does not follow their whims, they don’t take a form that makes their shared life inconvenient and miserable. Out of how many sailors, John Faa and Farder Corram knew what, one guy with a dolphin daemon? Usually sailors’ daemons would be seabirds or otters, or animals like cats and rats that aren’t technically aquatic but are well-adapted to living on a boat. Does this mean that the sea isn’t their true love? No: it means no matter how much you love the sea being trapped on a ship for their entire life (and not even the entire ship: how high in the rigging can you climb without going too far from your daemon who can’t leave the water?) sucks and is actively dangerous. Imagine your ship is wrecked and your daemon carries you to shore through the storm (because humans die of hypothermia if left in the water too long in many parts of the oceans)... except you’re literally unable to get out of reach of the crashing waves that will drown you, sweep you away, or batter you to death, without dragging your daemon up the beach and then they’re stranding and dying, and you can’t go get fresh water which your body needs because your soul is an anchor binding you to the water. How many things that are a sailor’s job are you unable to do because you can’t go more than like ten yards from water deep enough to swim in?

Daemons do not consciously choose their forms, but their subconscious is not stupid. Taking a form like a dolphin doesn’t mean the daemon is symbolically expressing their nature, it means the human is denying it to the point where their own daemon is afraid of being torn away from it and cannot trust their human. But again, this event is happening at middle-school age, so what’s likely happening is something like a 14-year-old cabin boy falling in love with a girl in town and wanting to marry her and move inland and abandon the sea forever, and his daemon being horrified by the idea and wanting to make sure it can. not. happen. ever. And then both of their lives are ruined. Meanwhile the other cabin boy on the boat had a non-dysfunctional relationship with his daemon, who settled as a seagull and trusts that when he goes to visit family a little ways inland for a couple days it won’t be permanent.

Anyway: disregarding dysfunctional people like Mrs. Coulter, some humans and daemons are more physically affectionate with their counterparts than others, and in different ways.

Some pairs are happy spending most of their time at the edge of their not-painful range. Some pairs are perfectly comfortable with the daemon taking a tiny form and hiding in their human’s coat pocket most of the time and sneaking around the rest, and with the daemon hardly ever speaking to other humans, and that closeness and the moments of being held in the palm of their human’s hand and being stroked gently with one or two fingers is perfect for them. Some pairs are content with the distance a form like a bird of prey imposes, where the daemon must perch near their human because their claws would injure them if they landed on their shoulder or arm without protective clothing.

But many people and daemons are more “touchy” with each other, for whom the physical nature of the bond between human and daemon cannot possibly be given up. Some daemons settle in the forms they took to fly, or to hide, or spy, or fight, but many settle in the forms they took to rest, to soothe and comfort, to lick wounds and let their fur or feathers be stroked, to share body heat, and sometimes to help hold their humans upright or drag them to safety. Some pairs are content with the daemon sleeping on windowsills or perched on bedposts or on nightstands, or under beds or at the feet of them, but some curl up under the covers together whenever they can.

In less poetic terms, daemons settling in fluffy, huggable forms because they and their humans have a deep-seated need to cuddle with each other is just as valid as daemons settling as birds because they need the freedom of flight.

This is often the case for children whose need for touch is not met properly by others, or those for whom it is too much, or it cannot be trusted. Parents, friends, and lovers aren’t always there, but they are always there for each other. But there’s not always trauma or neglect involved, and it’s not always people who have few or no close and intimate bounds outside themselves. Plenty of content, well-adjusted people still have relationships like this with their daemons because we’re human beings and touch is important to us, and it doesn’t really matter if you share a soul.

#His Dark Materials fandom #daemon #silly headcanons

25 notes · View notes

armageddon-generation · 4 years

Text

Articulating Why His Dark Materials is Badly Written

A long essay-thing with lots of specific examples and explanations of why I feel this way. Hopefully I’ve kept fanboy bitching to a minimum.

This isn’t an attack on fans of the show, nor a personal attack on Jack Thorne. I’m not looking to ruin anyone’s enjoyment of the show, I just needed to properly articulate, with examples, why I struggle with it. I read and love the books and that colours my view, but I believe that HDM isn’t just a clumsy, at-best-functional, sometimes incompetent adaptation, it’s a bad TV show separate from its source material. The show is the blandest, least interesting and least engaging version of itself it could be.

His Dark Materials has gorgeous production design and phenomenal visual effects. It's well-acted. The score is great. But my god is it badly written. Jack Thorne writing the entire first season damned the show. There was no-one to balance out his flaws and biases. Thorne is checking off a list of plot-points, so concerned with manoeuvring the audience through the story he forgets to invest us in it. The scripts are mechanical, empty, flat.

Watching HDM feels like an impassioned fan earnestly lecturing you on why the books are so good- (Look! It's got other worlds and religious allegory and this character Lyra is really, really important I swear. Isn't Mrs Coulter crazy? The Gyptians are my favourites.) rather than someone telling the story naturally.

My problems fall into 5 main categories:

Exposition- An unwillingness to meaningfully expand the source material for a visual medium means Thorne tells and doesn't show crucial plot-points. He then repeats the same thing multiple times because he doesn't trust his audience

Pacing- By stretching out the books and not trusting his audience Thorne dedicates entire scenes to one piece of information and repeats himself constantly (see: the Witches' repetition of the prophecy in S2).

Narrative priorities- Thorne prioritises human drama over fantasy. This makes sense budgetarily, but leads to barely-present Daemons, the Gyptians taking up too much screentime, rushed/badly written Witches (superpowers, exposition) and Bears (armourless bear fight), and a Lyra more focused on familial angst than the joy of discovery

Tension and Mystery- because HDM is in such a hurry to set up its endgame it gives you the answers to S1's biggest mysteries immediately- other worlds, Lyra's parents, what happens to the kids etc. This makes the show less engaging and feel like it's playing catch-up to the audience, not the other way around.

Tonal Inconsistency- HDM tries to be a slow-paced, grounded, adult drama, but its blunt, simplistic dialogue and storytelling methods treat the audience like children that need to be lectured.

MYSTERY, SUSPENSE AND INTRIGUE

The show undercuts all the books’ biggest mysteries. Mrs Coulter is set up as a villain before we meet her, other worlds are revealed in 1x2, Lyra's parents by 1x3, what the Magesterium do to kids is spelled out long before Lyra finds Billy (1x2). I understand not wanting to lose new viewers, but neutering every mystery kills momentum and makes the show much less engaging.

This extends to worldbuilding. The text before 1x1 explains both Daemons and Lyra's destiny before we meet her. Instead of encouraging us to engage with the world and ask questions, we're given all the answers up front and told to sit back and let ourselves be spoon-fed. The viewer is never an active participant, never encouraged to theorise or wonder

Intrigue motivated you to engage with Pullman's philosophical themes and concepts. Without it, HDM feels like a lecture, a theme park ride and not a journey.

The only one of S1's mysteries left undiminished is 'what is Dust?', which won't be properly answered until S3, and that answer is super conceptual and therefore hard to make dramatically satisfying

TONAL INCONSISTENCY

HDM billed itself as a HBO-level drama, and was advertised as a GoT inheritor. It takes itself very seriously- the few attempts at humour are stilted and out of place

The production design is deliberately subdued, most notably choosing a mid-twentieth century aesthetic for Lyra’s world over the late-Victorian of the books or steampunk of the movie. The colour grading would be appropriate for a serious adult drama.

Reviewers have said this stops the show feeling as fantastical as it should. It also makes Lyra’s world less distinct from our own.

Most importantly, minimising the wondrous fantasy of S1 neuters its contrast with the escalating thematic darkness of the finale (from 1x5 onwards), and the impact of Roger’s death. Pullman's books are an adult story told through the eyes of a child. Lyra’s innocence and naivety in the first book is the most important journey of the trilogy. Instead, the show starts serious and thematically heavy (we’re told Lyra has world-saving importance before we even meet her) and stays that way.

Contrasting the serious tone, grounded design and poe-faced characters, the dialogue is written to cater to children. It’s horrendously blunt and pulls you out of scenes. Subtext is obliterated at every opportunity. Even in the most recent episode, 2x7, Pan asks Lyra ‘do you think you’re changing because of Will?’

I cannot understate how on the nose this line is, and how much it undercuts the themes of the final book. Instead of even a meaningful shot of Lyra looking at Will, the show treats the audience like complete idiots.

So, HDM looks and advertises itself like an adult drama and is desperate to be taken seriously by wearing its big themes on its sleeve from the start instead of letting them evolve naturally out of subtext like the books, and dedicating lots of scenes to Mrs Coulter's self-abuse

At the same time its dialogue and character writing is comparable to the Star Wars prequels, more childish than media aimed at a similar audience - Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Avatar the Last Airbender etc

DAEMONS

The show gives itself a safety net by explaining Daemons in an opening text-crawl, and so spends less time showing the mechanics of the Daemon-human bond. On the HDM subreddit, I’ve seen multiple people get to 1x5 or 6, and then come to reddit asking basic questions like ‘why do only some people have Daemons?’ or ‘Why are Daemons so important?’.

It’s not that the show didn’t answer these questions; it was in the opening text-crawl. It’s just the show thinks telling you is enough and never shows evidence to back that up. Watching a TV show you remember what you’re shown much easier than what you’re told

The emotional core of Northern Lights is the relationship between Lyra and Pan. The emotional core of HDM S1 is the relationship between Lyra and Mrs Coulter. This wouldn't be bad- it's a fascinating dynamic Ruth plays wonderfully- if it didn't override the Daemons

Daemons are only onscreen when they serve a narrative purpose. Thorne justifies this because the books only describe Daemons when they tell us about their human. On the page your brain fills the Daemons in. This doesn't work on-screen; you cannot suspend your disbelief when their absence is staring you in the face

Thorne clarified the number of Daemons as not just budgetary, but a conscious creative choice to avoid onscreen clutter. This improved in S2 after vocal criticism.

Mrs Coulter/the Golden Monkey and Lee/Hester have well-drawn relationships in S1, but Pan and Lyra hug more in the 2-hour Golden Compass movie than they do in the 8-hour S1 of HDM. There's barely any physical contact with Daemons at all.

They even cut Pan and Lyra's hug after escaping the Cut in Bolvangar. In the book they can't let go of each other. The show skips it completely because Thorne wants to focus on Mrs Coulter and Lyra.

They cut Pan and Lyra testing how far apart they can be. They cut Lyra freeing the Cut Daemons in Bolvangar with the help of Kaisa. We spent extra time with both Roger and Billy Costa, but didn't develop their bonds with their Daemons- the perfect way to make the Cut more impactful

I don't need every single book scene in the show, but notice that all these cut scenes reinforced how important Daemons are. For how plodding the show is. you'd think they could spare time for these moments instead of inventing new conversations that tell us the information they show

Daemons are treated as separate beings and thus come across more like talking pets than part of a character

The show sets the rules of Daemons up poorly. In 1x2, Lyra is terrified by the Monkey being so far from Coulter, but the viewer has nothing to compare it to. We’re retroactively told in that this is unnatural when the show has yet to establish what ‘natural’ is.

The guillotine blueprint in 1x2 (‘Is that a human and his Daemon, Pan? It looks like it.’ / ‘A blade. To cut what?’) is idiotic. It deflates S1’s main mystery and makes the characters look stupid for not figuring out what they aren’t allowed to until they did in the source material, it also interferes with how the audience sees Daemons. In the book, Cutting isn’t revealed until two-thirds of the way in (1x5). By then we’ve spent a lot of time with Daemons, they’ve become a background part of the world, their ‘rules’ have been established, and we’re endeared to them.

By showing the Guillotine and putting Daemons under threat in the second episode, the show never lets us grow attached. This, combined with their selective presence in scenes, draws attention to Daemons as a plot gimmick and not a natural extension of characters. Like Lyra, the show tells us why Daemons are important before we understand them.

Billy Costa's fate falls flat. It's missing the dried fish/ fake Daemon Tony Markos clings to in the book. Thorne said this 'didn't work' on the day, but it worked in the film. Everyone yelling about Billy not having a Daemon is laughable when most of the background extras in the same scene don't have Daemons themselves

WITCHES

The Witches are the most common complaint about the show. Thorne changed Serafina Pekkala in clever, logical ways (her short hair, wrist-knives and cloud pine in the skin)

The problem is how Serafina is written. The Witches are purely exposition machines. We get no impression of their culture, their deep connection to nature, their understanding of the world. We are told it. It is never shown, never incorporated into the dramatic action of the show.

Thorne emphasises Serafina's warrior side, most obviously changing Kaisa from a goose into a gyrfalcon (apparently a goose didn't work on-screen)

Serafina single-handedly slaughtering the Tartars is bad in a few ways. It paints her as bloodthirsty and ruthless. Overpowering the Witches weakens the logic of the world (If they can do that, why do they let the Magesterium bomb them unchallenged in 2x2?). It strips the Witches of their subtlety and ambiguity for the sake of cinematic action.

A side-effect of Serafina not being with her clan at Bolvangar is limiting our exposure to the Witches. Serafina is the only one invested in the main plot, we only hear about them from what she tells us. This poor set-up weakens the Witch subplot in S2

Lyra doesn’t speak to Serafina until 2x6. She laid eyes on her once in S1.

The dialogue in the S2’s Witch subplot is comparable to the Courasant section of The Phantom Menace.

Two named characters, neither with any depth (Serafina and Coram's dead son developed him far more than her). The costumes look ostentatious and hokey- the opposite of what the Witches should be. They do nothing but repeat the same exposition at each other, even in 2x7.

We feel nothing when the Witches are bombed because the show never invests us in what is being destroyed- with the amount of time wasted on long establishing shots, there’s not one when Lee Scoresby is talking to the Council.

BEARS

Like the Witches; Thorne misunderstands and rushes the fantasy elements of the story. The 2007 movie executed both Iofur's character and the Bear Fight much better than the show- bloodless jaw-swipe and all

Iofur's court was not the parody of human court in the books. He didn't have his fake-Daemon (hi, Billy)

An armourless bear fight is like not including Pan in the cutting scene. After equating Iorek's armour to a Daemon (Lee does this- we don’t even learn how important it is from Iorek himself, and the comparison meant less because of how badly the show set up Daemons) the show then cuts the plotpoint that makes the armour plot-relevant. This diminishes all of Bear society. Like Daemons, we're told Iorek's armour is important but it's never shown to be more than a cool accessory

GYPTIANS

Gyptians suffer from Hermoine syndrome. Harry Potter screenwriter Steve Kloves' favourite character was Hermione, and so Film!Hermoine lost most of Book!Hermoine's flaws and gained several of Book!Ron's best moments. The Gyptians are Jack Thorne's favourite group in HDM and so they got the extra screentime and development that the more complicated groups/concepts like Witches, Bears, and Daemons (which, unlike the Gyptians, carry over to other seasons amd are more important to the overall story) needed

At the same time, he changes them from a private people into an Isle of Misfit Toys. TV!Ma Costa promises they'll ‘make a Gyptian woman out of Lyra yet’, but in the book Ma specifically calls Lyra out for pretending to be Gyptian, and reminds her she never can be.

This small moment indicates how, while trying to make the show more grounded and 'adult', Thorne simultaneously made it more saccharine and sentimental. He neuters the tragedy of the Cut kids when Ma Costa says they’ll become Gyptians. Pullman's books feel like an adult story told through the eyes of a child. The TV show feels like a child's story masquerading as a serious drama.

LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA

Let me preface this by saying I genuinely really enjoy the performances in the show. It was shot in the foot by The Golden Compass' perfect casting.

The most contentious/'miscast' actor among readers is LMM. Thorne ditched the books' wise Texan for a budget Han Solo. LMM isn't a great dramatic actor (even in Hamilton he was the weak link performance-wise) but he makes up for it in marketability- lots of people tried the show because of him

Readers dislike that LMM's Lee is a thief and a scoundrel, when book-Lee is so moral he and Hester argue about stealing. Personally, I like the change in concept. Book!Lee's parental love for Lyra just appears. It's sweet, but not tied to a character arc. Done right, Lyra out-hustling Lee at his own game and giving him a noble cause to fight for (thus inspiring the moral compass of the books) is a more compelling arc.

DAFNE KEENE AND LYRA

I thought Dafne would be perfect casting. Her feral energy in Logan seemed a match made in heaven. Then Jack Thorne gave her little to do with it.

Compare how The Golden Compass introduced Lyra, playing Kids and Gobblers with a group of Gyptian kids, including Billy Costa. Lyra and Roger are chased to Jordan by the Gyptians and she makes up a lie about a curse to scare the Gyptians away.

In one scene the movie set up: 1) the Gobblers (the first we hear of them in the show is in retrospect, Roger worrying AFTER Billy is taken) 2) Lyra’s pre-existing relationship with the Gyptians (not in the show), 3) Friendship with Billy Costa (not in the book or show) 4) Lyra’s ability to befriend and lead groups of people, especially kids, and 5) Lyra’s ability to lie impressively

By comparison, it takes until midway through 1x2 for TV!Lyra to tell her first lie, and even then it’s a paper-thin attempt.

The show made Roger Lyra’s only friend. This artificially heightens the impact of Roger's death, but strips Lyra of her leadership qualities and ability to befriend anyone.

Harry Potter fans talk about how Book!Harry is funnier and smarter than Film!Harry. They cut his best lines ('There's no need to call me sir, Professor') and made him blander and more passive. The same happened to Lyra.

Most importantly, Lyra is not allowed to lie for fun. She can't do anything 'naughty' without being scolded. This colours the few times Lyra does lie (e.g. to Mrs Coulter in 1x2) negatively and thus makes Lyra out to be more of a brat than a hero.

This is a problem with telling Northern Lights from an outside, 'adult' perspective- to most adults Lyra is a brat. Because we’re introduced to her from inside her head, we think she's great. It's only when we meet her through Will's eyes in The Subtle Knife and she's filthy, rude and half-starved that we realise Lyra bluffs her way through life and is actually pretty non-functional

Thorne prioritises grounded human drama over fantasy, and so his Lyra has her love of bears and witches swapped for familial angst. (and, in S2. angst over Roger). By exposing Mrs Coulter as her mother early, Thorne distracts TV!Lyra from Book!Lyra’s love of the North. The contrast between wonder and reality made NL's ending a definitive threshold between innocence and knowledge. Thorne showed his hand too early.

Similarly, TV!Lyra doesn’t have anywhere near as strong an admiration for Lord Asriel. She calls him out in 1x8 (‘call yourself a Father’), which Book!Lyra never would because she’s proud to be his child. From her perspective, at this point Asriel is the good parent.

TV!Lyra’s critique of Asriel feels like Thorne using her as a mouthpiece to voice his own, adult perspective on the situation. Because Lyra is already disappointed in Asriel, his betrayal in the finale isn’t as effective. Pullman saves the ‘you’re a terrible Father’ call-out for the 3rd book for a reason; Lyra’s naive hero-worship of Asriel in Northern Lights makes the fall from Innocence into Knowledge that Roger’s death represents more effective.

So, on TV Lyra is tamer, angstier, more introverted, less intelligent, less fun and more serious. We're just constantly told she's important, even before we meet her.

MRS COULTER (AND LORD ASRIEL)

Mrs Coulter is the main character of the show. Not Lyra. Mrs Coulter was cast first, and Lyra was cast based on a chemistry test with Ruth Wilson. Coulter’s character is given lots of extra development, where the show actively strips Lyra of her layers.

To be clear, I have no problem with developing Mrs Coulter. She is a great character Ruth Wilson plays phenomenally. I do have a problem with the show fixating on her at the expense of other characters.

Lyra's feral-ness is given to her parents. Wilson and McAvoy are more passionate than in the books. This is fun to watch, but strips them of subtlety- you never get Book!Coulter's hypnotic allure from Wilson, she's openly nasty, even to random strangers (in 2x3 her dismissal of the woman at the hotel desk felt like a Disney villain).

Compare how The Golden Compass (2007) introduced Mrs Coulter through Lyra’s eyes, with light, twinkling music and a sparkling dress. By contrast, before the show introduces Coulter it tells us she’s associated with the evil Magisterium plotting Asriel’s death- “Not a word to any of our mutual friends. Including her.” Then she’s introduced striding down a corridor to imposing ‘Bad Guy’ strings.

Making Mrs Coulter’s villainy so obvious so early makes Lyra look dumber for falling for it. It also wastes an interesting phase of her character arc. Coulter is rushed into being a ’conflicted evil mother’ in 2 episodes, and stays in that phase for the rest of the show so far. Character progression is minimised because she circles the same place.

It makes her one-note. It's a good note (so much of the positive online chatter is saphiccs worshiping Ruth Wilson) but the show also worships her to the point of hindrance- e.g. take a shot every time Coulter walks slow-motion down a corridor in 2x2

The problem isn’t the performances, but how prematurely they give the game away. Just like the mysteries around Bolvangar and Lyra’s parentage. Neither Coulter or Asriel have much chance to use their 'public' faces.

This is part of a bigger pacing problem- instead of rolling plot points out gradually, Thorne will stick the solution in front of you early and then stall for time until it becomes relevant. Instead of building tension this builds frustration and makes the show feel like it's catching up to the audience. This also makes the characters less engaging. You've already shown Mrs Coulter is evil/Boreal is in our world/Asriel wants Roger. Why are you taking so long getting to the point?

PACING AND EDITING

This show takes forever to make its point badly.

Scenes in HDM tend to operate on one level- either 'Character Building,' 'Exposition,' or 'Plot Progression'.

E.g. Mary's introduction in 2x2. Book!Mary only listens to Lyra because she’s sleep and caffeine-deprived and desperate because her funding is being cut. But the show stripped that subtext out and created an extra scene of a colleague talking to Mary about funding. They removed emotional subtext to focus on exposition, and so the scene felt empty and flat.

In later episodes characters Mary’s sister and colleagues do treat her like a sleep-deprived wreck. But, just like Lyra’s lying, the show doesn’t establish these characteristics in her debut episode. It waits until later to retroactively tell us they were there. Mary’s colleague saying ‘What we’re dealing with here is the fact that you haven’t slept in weeks’ is as flimsy as Pan joking not lying to Mary will be hard for Lyra.

Rarely does a scene work on multiple levels, and if it does it's clunky- see the exposition dump about Daemon Separation in the middle of 2x2's Witch Trial.

He also splits plot progression into tiny doses, which destroys pacing. It's more satisfying to focus on one subplot advancing multiple stages than all of them shuffling forward half a step each episode.

Subplots would be more effective if all the scenes played in sequence. As it is, plotlines can’t build momentum and literal minutes are wasted using the same establishing shots every time we switch location.

The best-structured episodes of S1 are 1x4, 1x6, and 1x8. This is because they have the fewest subplots (incidentally these episodes have least Boreal in them) and so the main plot isn’t diluted by constantly cutting away to Mrs Coulter sniffing Lyra’s coat or Will watching a man in a car through his window, before cutting back again.

The best-written episode so far is 2x5. The Scholar. Tellingly, it’s the only episode Thorne doesn’t have even a co-writing credit on. 2x5 is well-paced, its dialogue is more naturalistic, it’s more focused, it even has time for moments of whimsy (Monkey with a seatbelt, Mrs Coulter with jeans, Lyra and Will whispering) that don’t detract from the story.

Structurally, 2x5 works because A) it benches Lee’s plotline. B) The Witches and Magisterium are relegated to a scene each. And C) the Coulter/Boreal and Lyra/Will subplots move towards the same goal. Not only that, but when we check in on Mary’s subplot it’s through Mrs Coulter’s eyes and directly dovetails into the main action of the episode.

2x5 has a lovely sense of narrative cohesion because it has the confidence to sit with one set of characters for longer than two scenes at a time.

HDM also does this thing where it will have a scene with plot A where characters do or talk about something, cut away to plot B for a scene, then cut back to plot A where the characters talk about what happened in their last scene and painstakingly explain how they feel about it and why

Example: Pan talking to Will in 2x7 while Lyra pretends to be asleep. This scene is from the 3rd book, and is left to breathe for many chapters before Lyra brings it up. In the show after the Will/Pan scene they cut away to another scene, then cut back and Lyra instantly talks about it.

There’s the same problem in 2x5: After escaping Mrs Coulter, Lyra spells out how she feels about acting like her

The show never leaves room for implication, never lets us draw our own conclusions before explaining what it meant and how the characters feel about it immediately afterwards. The audience are made passive in their engagement with the characters as well as the world

LORD BOREAL, JOHN PARRY AND DIMINISHING RETURNS

At first, Boreal’s subplot in S1 felt bold and inspired. The twist of his identity in The Subtle Knife would've been hard to pull off onscreen anyway. As a kid I struggled to get past Will's opening chapter of TSK and I have friends who were the same. Introducing Will in S1 and developing him alongside Lyra was a great idea.

I loved developing Elaine Parry and Boreal into present, active characters. But the subplot was introduced too early and moved too slowly, bogging down the season.

In 1x2 Boreal crosses. In 1x3 we learn who he's looking for. In 1x5 we meet Will. In 1x7 the burglary. 1 episode worth of plot is chopped up and fed to us piecemeal across many. Boreal literally stalls for two episodes before the burglary- there are random 30 second shots of him sitting in a car watching John Parry on YouTube (videos we’d already seen) completely isolated from any other scenes in the episode

By the time we get to S2 we've had 2 seasons of extended material building up Boreal, so when he just dies like in the books it's anticlimactic. The show frontloads his subplot with meaning without expanding on its payoff, so the whole thing fizzles out.

Giving Boreal, the secondary villain in literally every episode, the same death as a background character in about 5 scenes in the novels feels cheap. It doesn’t help that, after 2x5 built the tension between Coulter and Boreal so well, as soon as Thorne is passed the baton in 2x6 he does little to maintain that momentum. Again, because the subplot is crosscut with everything else the characters hang in limbo until Coulter decides to kill him.

I’ve been watching non-book readers react to the show, and several were underwhelmed by Boreal’s quick, unceremonious end.

Similarly, the show builds up John Parry from 1x3 instead of just the second book. Book!John’s death is an anticlimax but feels narratively justified. In the show, we’ve spent so much extra time talking about him and then being with him (without developing his character beyond what’s in the novels- Pullman even outlined John’s backstory in The Subtle Knife’s appendix. How hard would it be to add a flashback or two?) that when John does nothing in the show and then dies (he doesn’t even heal Will’s fingers like in the book- only tell him to find Asriel, which the angels Baruch and Balthamos do anyway) it doesn’t feel like a clever, tragic subversion of our expectations, it feels like a waste that actively cheapens the audience’s investment.

TL;DR giving supporting characters way more screentime than they need only, to give their deaths the same weight the books did after far less build up makes huge chunks of the show feel less important than they were presented to be.

FRUSTRATINGLY LIMITED EXPANSION AND NOVELLISTIC STORYTELLING

Thorne is unwilling to meaningfully develop or expand characters and subplots to fit a visual medium. He introduces a plot-point, invents unnecessary padding around it, circles it for an hour, then moves on.

Pullman’s books are driven by internal monologue and big, complex theological concepts like Daemons and Dust. Instead of finding engaging, dynamic ways to dramatise these concepts through the actions of characters or additions to the plot, Thorne turns Pullman’s internal monologue into dialogue and has the characters explain them to the audience

The novels’ perspective on its characters is narrow, first because Northern Lights is told only from Lyra’s POV, and second because Pullman’s writing is plot-driven, not character-driven. Characters are vessels for the plot and themes he wants to explore.

This is a fine way of writing novels. When adapting the books into a longform drama, Thorne decentralised Lyra’s perspective from the start, and HDM S1 uses the same multi-perspective structure that The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass do, following not only Lyra but the Gyptians, Mrs Coulter, Boreal, Will and Elaine etc

However, these other perspectives are limited. We never get any impression of backstory or motivation beyond the present moment. Many times I’ve seen non-book readers confused or frustrated by vague or non-existent character motivations.

For example, S1 spends a lot of time focused on Ma Costa’s grief over Billy’s disappearance, but we never see why she’s sad, because we never saw her interact with Billy.

Compare this to another show about a frantic mother and older brother looking for a missing boy. Stranger Things uses only two flashbacks to show us Will Byers’ relationships with his family: 1) When Joyce Byers looks in his Fort she remembers visiting Will there. 2) The Clash playing on the radio reminds Jonathan Byers of introducing Will to the song.

In His Dark Materials we never see the Costas as a happy family- 1x1’s Gyptian ceremony focuses on Tony and Daemon-exposition. Billy never speaks to his mum or brother in the show

Instead we have Ma Costa’s empty grief. The audience has to do the work (the bad kind) imagining what she’s lost. Instead of seeing Billy, it’s just repeated again and again that they will get the children back.

If we’re being derivative, HDM had the chance to segway into a Billy flashback when John Faa brings one of his belongings back from a Gobbler safehouse in 1x2. This is a perfect The Clash/Fort Byers-type trigger. It doesn’t have to be long- the Clash flashback lasted 1:27, the Fort Byers one 55 seconds. Just do something.

1x3 beats into us that Mrs Coulter is nuts without explaining why. Lots of build-up for a single plot-point. Then we're told Mrs Coulter's origin, not shown. This is a TV show. Swap Boreal's scenes for flashbacks of Coulter and Asriel's affair. Then, when Ma Costa tells Lyra the truth, show the fight between Edward Coulter and Asriel.

To be clear, Thorne's additions aren’t fundamentally bad. For example, Will boxing sets up his struggle with violence. But it's wasted. The burglary/murder in 1x7 fell flat because of bad editing, but the show never uses its visual medium to show Will's 'violent side'- no change in camera angle, focus, or sound design, nothing. It’s just a thing that’s there, unsupported by the visual language of the show

The Magisterium scenes in 2x2 were interesting. We just didn't need 5 of them; their point could be made far more succinctly.

In 2x6 there is a minute-long scene of Mary reading the I Ching. Later, there is another scene of Angelica watching Mary sitting somewhere different, doing the SAME THING, and she sees an Angel. Why split these up? It’s not like either the I Ching or the Angels are being introduced here. Give the scene multiple layers.

Thorne either takes good character moments from the books (Lyra/Will in 2x1) or uses heavy-handed exposition that reiterates the same point multiple times. This hobbles the Witches (their dialogue in 2x1, 2 and 3 literally rephrases the same sentiment about protecting Lyra without doing anything). Even character development- see Lee monologuing his and Mrs Coulter's childhood trauma in specific detail in 2x3

This is another example of Thorne adding something, but instead of integrating it into the dramatic action and showing us, it’s just talked about. What’s the point of adding big plot points if you don’t dramatise them in your dramatic, visual medium? In 2x8, Lee offhandedly mentions playing Alamo Gulch as a kid.

I’m literally screaming, Jack, why the flying fuck wasn’t there a flashback of young Lee and Hester playing Alamo Gulch and being stopped by his abusive dad? It’s not like you care about pacing with the amount of dead air in these episodes, even when S2’s run 10 minutes shorter than S1’s. Lee was even asleep at the beginning of 2x3, Jack! He could’ve woken from a nightmare about his childhood! It’s a little lazy, but better than nothing.

There’s a similar missed opportunity making Dr Lanselius a Witchling. If this idea had been introduced with the character in 1x4, it would’ve opened up so many storytelling possibilities. Linking to Fader Coram’s own dead witchling son. It could’ve given us that much-needed perspective on Witch culture. Imagine Lanselius’ bittersweet meeting with his ageless mother, who gave him up when he reached manhood. Then, when the Magisterium bombs the Witches in 2x2, Lanselius’ mother dies so it means something.

Instead it’s only used to facilitate an awkward exposition dump in the middle of a trial.

The point of this fanfic-y ramble is to illustrate my frustration with the additions; If Thorne had committed and meaningfully expanded and interwoven them with the source material, they could’ve strengthened its weakest aspect (the characters). But instead he stays committed to novelistic storytelling techniques of monologue and two people standing in a room talking at each other

(Seriously, count the number of scenes that are just two people standing in a room or corridor talking to each other. No interesting staging, the characters aren’t doing anything else while talking. They. Just. Stand.)

SEASON 2 IMPROVEMENTS

S2 improved some things- Lyra's characterisation was more book-accurate, her dynamic with Will was wonderful. Citigazze looked incredible. LMM won lots of book fans over as Lee. Mary was brilliantly cast. Now there are less Daemons, they're better characterised- Pan gets way more to do now and Hester had some lovely moments.

I genuinely believe 2x1, 2x3, 2x4 and 2x5 are the best HDM has been.

But new problems arose. The Subtle Knife lost the central, easy to understand drive of Northern Lights (finding the missing kids) for lots of smaller quests. As a result, everyone spends the first two episodes of S2 waiting for the plot to arrive. The big inciting incident of Lyra’s plotline is the theft of the alethiometer, which doesn’t happen until 2x3. Similarly, Lee doesn’t search for John until 2x3. Mrs Coulter doesn’t go looking for Lyra until 2x3.

On top of missing a unifying dramatic drive, the characters now being split across 3 worlds, instead of the 1+a bit of ours in S1, means the pacing/crosscutting problems (long establishing shots, repetition of information, undercutting momentum) are even worse. The narrative feels scattered and incohesive.

These flaws are inherent to the source material and are not the show’s fault, but neither does it do much to counterbalance or address them, and the flaws of the show combine with the difficulties of TSK as source material and make each other worse.

A lot of this has been entitled fanboy bitching, but you can't deny the show is in a bad place ratings-wise. It’s gone from the most watched new British show in 5 years to the S2 premiere having a smaller audience than the lowest-rated episode of Doctor Who Series 12. For comparison, DW's current cast and showrunner are the most unpopular since the 80s, some are actively boycotting it, it took a year-long break between series 11 and 12, had its second-worst average ratings since 2005, and costs a fifth of what HDM does to make. And it's still being watched by more people.

Critical consensus fluctuates wildly. Most laymen call the show slow and boring. The show is simultaneously too niche and self-absorbed to attract a wide audience and gets just enough wrong to aggravate lots of fans.

I’m honestly unsure if S3 will get the same budget. I want it to, if only because of my investment in the books. Considering S2 started filming immediately after S1 aired, I think they've had a lot more time to process and apply critique for S3. On the plus side, there's so much plot in The Amber Spyglass it would be hard to have the same pacing problems. But also so many new concepts that I dread the exposition dumps.

86 notes · View notes