'Spun Candy' anyone?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lush

Yeah, I give up.

Pity, dear, as I always enjoy your posts, even if I disagree with them.

I, too, am disappointed by the implications of Susan's depiction. There's a very strong, horrible tradition in western culture denigrating any form of female sexuality and it's a shame that Lewis, with his love for Joy Davidman and his great learning from her, went this ambiguous route that is so open to such an interpretation. But we are all allowed our interpretations.

Originally Posted by davem

Is again my interpretation of the work. My feeling is that Pullman believes that there is a core of good in each being which must be 'awakened', whereas in my reading of the work they are morally neutral - which is one reason why I am not convinced by his conclusion. I see nothing in the story to make be believe that any of the characters have the capacity to create a perfect world. Pullman clearly does.

I must begin by saying that I have read HDM only once and not given it the depth of consideration which you have, so my thoughts are clearly less measured. That said, I'm not sure about this core of good which must be 'awakened'.

True that if we take Pullman at his word that every person must, in himself and herself, experience a "fall" from innocence, then it follows that this initial stage, if it is in keeping with the religious traditions of fall which Pullman and Milton worked in, must be some form of guileless, candid, uncorrupted state unaware of the knowledge of good and evil. (Wait, it's been so long since I read Milton that I'm not sure this applies. I mainly remember that he thought Eve was a great cook and he really loved epic similes.) Pullman would then reject the concept of original sin and believe that good can be drawn out of people.

However, if Pullman as an agnostic or possible atheist believes in evolution, then the question is, I think more murky. This particularly relates to the idea that humans have daemons, animal forms of alternate identities. If people have evolved, where or when does the ethical question of good and evil come into existence? Is it there in bacteria? Or does it evolve as cell division becomes more complex and sophisticated? Is the ethical form of human existence only something that is learned? Must human beings learn not to harm others in the pursuit of their own desires, for instance? This seems to me to be one way to interprete Lyra and the trilogy's conclusion and it is an evolutionary rather than an absolute question.

The daemons are, I think, central to understanding Pullman's conception of human identity. I relate this back to Lyra's behaviour as a child. Even if we grant, as davem does, that such behaviour is morally neutral, I think that, in giving Lyra a name which highlights her guile and her lack of candor and straightforwardness, Pullman may in fact be suggesting that human nature is not essentially good, but that goodness must be earned at a cost.

In short, I'm not convinced that this "republic of heaven" necessarily implies a perfect world here on whichever planet of whichever dimension we exist in, but rather the world which grants to humans the greatest possibility of ethical behaviour.

Again, I think back to Tolkien. He worked within a concept of a fallen world, of human beings who always and inevitably fail. And he eventually decided not to write about the fourth age, or a fifth age, or a sixth age, or a seventh.

What does someone whose imagination is given over to these later ages do? Is there no hope?

[Lush]

Now, first of all, to say that the Church doesn't listen to Jesus is idiotic as well as untrue.

Actually, I completely agree with Pullman on this one. Although perhaps you've (and or Tolkien ) had better experiences in that department.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Regarding the depiction of Susan in the Narnia tales....

These stories were written before Lewis became involved with Joy. Even as a young girl reading the stories, I had trouble with his portrayal of the maturing Susan. Till We Have Faces , which was written after his marriage, reveals that Lewis had learned a great deal about women. His portrayal of the two sisters is, in my opinion, his very best handling of female characters.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

However, if Pullman as an agnostic or possible atheist believes in evolution, then the question is, I think more murky. This particularly relates to the idea that humans have daemons, animal forms of alternate identities. If people have evolved, where or when does the ethical question of good and evil come into existence? Is it there in bacteria? Or does it evolve as cell division becomes more complex and sophisticated? Is the ethical form of human existence only something that is learned? Must human beings learn not to harm others in the pursuit of their own desires, for instance? This seems to me to be one way to interprete Lyra and the trilogy's conclusion and it is an evolutionary rather than an absolute question.

The daemons are, I think, central to understanding Pullman's conception of human identity. I relate this back to Lyra's behaviour as a child. Even if we grant, as davem does, that such behaviour is morally neutral, I think that, in giving Lyra a name which highlights her guile and her lack of candor and straightforwardness, Pullman may in fact be suggesting that human nature is not essentially good, but that goodness must be earned at a cost.

I thought that the daemons were meant to represent the anima/animus. Female characters have male daemons, males have females. Also daemons are not fixed until characters approach emotional maturity - Lyra's daemon becomes fixed when she is in love with Will. Possibly Pullman means this has something to do with first love fixing 'ideals' in the mind or that only when the Daemon is fixed we can begin to look 'outside' ourselves and to other people.

I'm not sure if the actual creatures that Daemons become are significant in this respect - Lord Asriel has his snow leopard, which sounds fitting, but how do the little obedient terrier daemons belonging to the staff at the research centre fit with this idea? What does that say about what has happened to these adults? And what does it say about the poor children who are severed from their daemons?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I thought that the daemons were meant to represent the anima/animus. Female characters have male daemons, males have females. Also daemons are not fixed until characters approach emotional maturity - Lyra's daemon becomes fixed when she is in love with Will. Possibly Pullman means this has something to do with first love fixing 'ideals' in the mind or that only when the Daemon is fixed we can begin to look 'outside' ourselves and to other people.

I'm not sure if the actual creatures that Daemons become are significant in this respect - Lord Asriel has his snow leopard, which sounds fitting, but how do the little obedient terrier daemons belonging to the staff at the research centre fit with this idea? What does that say about what has happened to these adults? And what does it say about the poor children who are severed from their daemons?

Anima is a likely explanation, but as I said in a post above, I've read HDM only once and haven't deeply pondered all its implications. I suppose one would have to know Jung very well to be able to say--or accept Pullman's word for it. I can't help but think of Tolkien's comment that one of the consolations of fantasy (or profound desires which fantasy can satisfy ) is to communicate with animals. It is fascinating to me that Pullman creates these alternate selves or identities that are animals. What is it like to live with another self that is, quite literally, a beast? The narrator does, after all, describe Lyra in childhood as a "half-wild cat."

There is that statement that all servants have dæmons who are dogs, so from that I assume there is some kind of relationship between adult form and the human's personality. Does this relate to the researcher's terriers?

While we see strongly the relationship between humans and their dæmons, I don't think we often are privilege to the dæmons' own thoughts--I could be wrong about this, but one incident stands out to me. When the gyptians kill the men who had caught Lyra, Pan squirms around with great curiosity to see what happens to their dæmons. That I found really poignant. Imagine your fate tied to the life span of another creature.

[davem]

I'm not sure how far the Daemons=the Anima/Animus idea can be pushed. In Jungian theory the Anima/Animus is described as being (in appearance) the 'contra-sexual image'. In other words, for a man it will take the form of a woman & for a woman the form of a man. It may appear in some circumstances as an animal or an object (ie, a cat or the Moon/the Sea for the Anima) but this would be quite a rare occurence.

Pullman's daemons seem rather to reflect an aspect of the individual's personality, or even to symbolise the person's character/essential nature. Yet they are more than that, as they seem as well to have a separate personality/intelligence of their own. Either their true nature is very complex, the characters are seriously schizoid, or Pullman hasn't thought the idea through. Taking these options one at a time, we'd have to say, a) If the Daemons are merely 'symbols' they shouldn't have a separate consciousness, or feel emotions the individual does not feel, & certainly shouldn't know anything the individual doesn't; b) If they do have a separate consciousness this implies a 'split personality' & further implies that the individuals in Lyra's world are all psychotic; & c) if Pullman hasn't thought the idea through it wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

a) If the Daemons are merely 'symbols' they shouldn't have a separate consciousness, or feel emotions the individual does not feel, & certainly shouldn't know anything the individual doesn't; b) If they do have a separate consciousness this implies a 'split personality' & further implies that the individuals in Lyra's world are all psychotic; & c) if Pullman hasn't thought the idea through it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Oh dear. Aren't they supposed to be souls? Embodied souls? I'm sure there's a section where this is stated clearly. Just after Lyra and Iorek find the severed child Tony?