So, anyone thinking of going to see the film? 

I've started rereading it again (hence being up at this time of night
on a schoolnight), mostly because one of my friends was lamenting the
fact that, apparently, the witches in the film are clothed (they are
in the book, by the way, sort of). Think I spotted a mistake, too. 

Ma Costa is first mentioned as having a hawk daemon, then a few
chapters later it's a wolf. Either I've got that wrong, it's a mistake
in the book, or Ma Costa is a rare creature indeed, because her daemon
can still change (a bit). Plus the whole 'daemon of the same sex'
thing, while inventive and accepting, is somewhat limiting. Thoughts
on daemons, folks?


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

In urp, Halla  wrote:
> So, anyone thinking of going to see the film?

<fx Sticks had in air>

> I've started rereading it again (hence being up at this time
> of night on a schoolnight), mostly because one of my friends
> was lamenting the fact that, apparently, the witches in the
> film are clothed (they are in the book, by the way, sort of).

And even if they weren't, they would be for the film - or there goes the 
supposed target audience

> Think I spotted a mistake, too.
>
> Ma Costa is first mentioned as having a hawk daemon, then a
> few chapters later it's a wolf. Either I've got that wrong,
> it's a mistake in the book, or Ma Costa is a rare creature
> indeed, because her daemon can still change (a bit).

Will have to re-read, can't remember.
Which means getting the book back, as I would normally reread before seeing 
the film.

Something I didn't do with The Dark is Rising, possiby just as well - I 
enjoyed the film but have heard a lot of people panning it.

> Plus the
> whole 'daemon of the same sex' thing, while inventive and
> accepting, is somewhat limiting. Thoughts on daemons, folks?

I like the idea, but agree its a bit limiting. Though tbf the limits work in 
terms of the plot.
Looking back over my adult life, my personality has changed substantially - 
a daemon fixed in form post puberty would no longer be a reflection of my 
personality. Or would the fixed form have prevented latter changes?
Either way, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable being pigeon-holed so easily.

Jymn

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:08:46 -0000, "Jymn" 
blethered:

>In urp, Halla  wrote:
>> So, anyone thinking of going to see the film?
>
><fx Sticks had in air>
>
>> I've started rereading it again (hence being up at this time
>> of night on a schoolnight), mostly because one of my friends
>> was lamenting the fact that, apparently, the witches in the
>> film are clothed (they are in the book, by the way, sort of).
>
>And even if they weren't, they would be for the film - or there goes the 
>supposed target audience
>

It's going to be interesting, given the major theme of the trilogy,
really. How are they going to deal with it all?

>> Think I spotted a mistake, too.
>>
>> Ma Costa is first mentioned as having a hawk daemon, then a
>> few chapters later it's a wolf. Either I've got that wrong,
>> it's a mistake in the book, or Ma Costa is a rare creature
>> indeed, because her daemon can still change (a bit).
>
>Will have to re-read, can't remember.

This is the third (I think) time I've read it, and I only just
noticed, mostly because I was thinking about the whole idea of daemons
anyway.

>Which means getting the book back, as I would normally reread before seeing 
>the film.
>
>Something I didn't do with The Dark is Rising, possiby just as well - I 
>enjoyed the film but have heard a lot of people panning it.

Haven't seen it, but that's not unusual. Haven't seen a lot of films!

>
>> Plus the
>> whole 'daemon of the same sex' thing, while inventive and
>> accepting, is somewhat limiting. Thoughts on daemons, folks?
>
>I like the idea, but agree its a bit limiting. Though tbf the limits work in 
>terms of the plot.

Oh yeah. 

>Looking back over my adult life, my personality has changed substantially - 
>a daemon fixed in form post puberty would no longer be a reflection of my 
>personality. Or would the fixed form have prevented latter changes?
>Either way, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable being pigeon-holed so easily.

It's presented as a settling into rather than as continued change,
isn't it? But then, I can see how a fixed daemon form would still
allow for changes in character. Or perhaps we'd all have symbolic
sorts of daemons, like chameleons or something. One of the
daemon-coins had a picture of a young woman on it, so some can be in
human-form it seems, I wonder if they could take the form of fantastic
beasts too? 


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

On 2007-11-27, Halla  wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:08:46 -0000, "Jymn" 
> blethered:
>
>>In urp, Halla  wrote:
>>> So, anyone thinking of going to see the film?

Thinking, yes.  I'm sure Nicole Kidman will be excellent.  Not sure if
she'll be excellent enough to avoid disappointment - I thought
"Northern Lights" was awesome (it's a shame the plot collapsed by the
end of the trilogy).

>>> [...] the witches in the film are clothed (they are in the book,
>>> by the way, sort of).
>>
>>And even if they weren't, they would be for the film - or there goes
>>the supposed target audience

Heh, one review of Beowulf complained about an Austin-Powers-ish scene
where he fights naked but there's always some bit of scenery
accidentally-on-purpose hiding his tackle.  Maybe The Golden Compass's
witches will be chaperoned by bits of computer-animated gauze to
maintain their decency.  ;-)

>>Looking back over my adult life, my personality has changed
>>substantially - a daemon fixed in form post puberty would no longer
>>be a reflection of my personality.

I never really saw what the relationship between the human and daemon
was supposed to mean.  They were obviously more than a "guaranteed
best friend forever", but I couldn't see what the deeper link between
the two was.  I felt that Pullman was attacking the idea that
childhood is the best time ever and adulthood is a loss, and the
settling of the daemon was meant to say something about that, but I
couldn't figure out how.

Despite my confusion about the significance of daemons, the reveal of
the Severed Child is one of the most shocking and chilling scenes I've
ever read.

Hmm, now I'm getting the urge to reread the book (most unusual for
me).  Unfortunately I'm stuck in the middle of a Kingley Amis right
now.

Jeremy Henty 
--
Science fiction is the Cinderella of the literary family: well-brought
up people don't acknowledge its existence but it is often the only
member of the family that gets any work done and when dressed up can
be one of the most beautiful, too.
 -- Andrew Brown

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:43:55 -0600, Jeremy Henty
 blethered:

>On 2007-11-27, Halla  wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:08:46 -0000, "Jymn" 
>> blethered:
>>
>>>In urp, Halla  wrote:
>>>> So, anyone thinking of going to see the film?
>
>Thinking, yes.  I'm sure Nicole Kidman will be excellent.  Not sure if
>she'll be excellent enough to avoid disappointment - I thought
>"Northern Lights" was awesome (it's a shame the plot collapsed by the
>end of the trilogy).

It did? How so? (er, that's quite combatively phrased - I'm
interested, not bristling. ;-)

>
>>>> [...] the witches in the film are clothed (they are in the book,
>>>> by the way, sort of).
>>>
>>>And even if they weren't, they would be for the film - or there goes
>>>the supposed target audience
>
>Heh, one review of Beowulf complained about an Austin-Powers-ish scene
>where he fights naked but there's always some bit of scenery
>accidentally-on-purpose hiding his tackle.  Maybe The Golden Compass's
>witches will be chaperoned by bits of computer-animated gauze to
>maintain their decency.  ;-)

Heh. That thought crossed my mind too, but the book says they are
clothed in strips of black silk, so Hollywood has enough, er, material
to work with there to assure that only the easily offended take
offence.

>
>>>Looking back over my adult life, my personality has changed
>>>substantially - a daemon fixed in form post puberty would no longer
>>>be a reflection of my personality.
>
>I never really saw what the relationship between the human and daemon
>was supposed to mean.  

I'm not sure it's supposed to mean much. It's interesting in itself -
the relationship is tested in childhood, daemons fight with each other
at that time, that sort of thing. It's like there's a bit of a person
that isn't entirely under their control, and that they don't know
completely - well, they do and they don't. It interests me, as an
idea. :-)

>They were obviously more than a "guaranteed
>best friend forever", but I couldn't see what the deeper link between
>the two was.  I felt that Pullman was attacking the idea that
>childhood is the best time ever and adulthood is a loss, and the
>settling of the daemon was meant to say something about that, but I
>couldn't figure out how.

So maybe he wasn't. ;-)

I don't know... is he saying something about potential and innocence
and the webs adults weave to entrap themselves? After all, Lyra is
presented in the first book as brave and bold and resourceful, whereas
she clearly shares characteristics with both of her parents. They are
shown as deceitful, angry, violent, manipulative, dangerous - did
Pullman give privilege to Lyra's position as a pre-adolescent or was
he making a comment about something else? 

>
>Despite my confusion about the significance of daemons, the reveal of
>the Severed Child is one of the most shocking and chilling scenes I've
>ever read.

I've read that twice in the past two days (was looking for the
description of the witches apparel), and it still makes me well up.
Gotta admit, that Pullman fella is skilled at his craft. I've already
warned the husband that if they manage that scene properly in the film
I'll probably blub like a girl. <g>

>
>Hmm, now I'm getting the urge to reread the book (most unusual for
>me).  Unfortunately I'm stuck in the middle of a Kingley Amis right
>now.

<raises one eyebrow> Commiserations?

;-)


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

On 2007-11-27, Halla  wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:43:55 -0600, Jeremy Henty
> blethered:
>
>>I thought "Northern Lights" was awesome (it's a shame the plot
>>collapsed by the end of the trilogy).
>
> It did? How so? (er, that's quite combatively phrased - I'm
> interested, not bristling. ;-)

Actually, the most combative parts of your posts are the "so-and-so
blethered" headers.  I mean, me?  Blether???  How dare you!!!  ;-) ;-)
But anyway...

ObDisclaimer: I'm reporting my memories of reading the books a couple
of years back.  I'd have to reread them before I could defend any of
this (and rereading them might change my mind).

Summary: _Northern Lights_ was brilliantly plotted, everything fitted
into the arc of Lyra's adventure and her quest to rescue Roger.  The
plot of the _The Amber Spyglass_ is a mess, it's completely unclear
how the bits fit together and who's responsible for what.

My complaint is that after finishing _The Amber Spyglass_ I couldn't
figure out what had happened.  Was the explosion that caused the great
void the reason for the massive srif drift?  If so, how was the void
sealed?  What was accomplished by the creation of the amber spyglass?
I don't recall it actually doing anything useful.  Does Lyra's trip
through the land of the dead affect any of the other plot threads?
Just what did Lyra do that saved us all, and what did it save us from?
The great doom that threatened us all is the loss of Mind when the
srif disappears, but unless I missed something Lyra does nothing to
stop it.  Does Will and Lyra falling in love affect anything else or
not?  Basically, WTF???

I think the problem Pullman had with the second and third books is
that Will becomes the most important character when he inherits the
Subtle Knife and by the third book Lyra is basically irrelevant: all
the really vital plot elements (eg. the defeat of Metatron) are driven
by others.  So Pullman fudges things; he renders Will semi-conscious
for half a book to stop him stealing Lyra's limelight, then despatches
Lyra on a completely separate subplot so he has an excuse to keep
writing about her.  He's desperate to tell us _The Adventures of Lyra_
and _The Downfall of the Magisterium_ *and* deliver Lots of Important
Statements about Life, Death and Sex.  It would have been awesome if
he'd pulled it off, but he loses the plot and has to just shovel it
all in, so that _The Amber Spyglass_ reads less like a story than a
mish-mash of half-baked sermons.  Which, basically, it is.

>>I felt that Pullman was attacking the idea that childhood is the
>>best time ever and adulthood is a loss, and the settling of the
>>daemon was meant to say something about that, but I couldn't figure
>>out how.
>
> So maybe he wasn't. ;-)

Maybe, indeed.  I'll have to reread the books and see if Pullman
really was garbling things or if I just wasn't paying enough
attention.

> ... did Pullman give privilege to Lyra's position as a
> pre-adolescent or was he making a comment about something else?

I thought he wanted to de-privilege childhood and say that growing up
does have its joys; it's not just all about losing your innocence.
Which is the point of the Will/Lyra love story.

>>... the reveal of the Severed Child is one of the most shocking and
>>chilling scenes I've ever read.
>
> ... that Pullman fella is skilled at his craft.

True, but I still feel he lost it by the end of the trilogy.  And I'm
in good company; China Mie'ville feels the same way.  Not that that
proves I'm right, but it reassures me that my position isn't
completely foolish.  _The Amber Spyglass_ isn't an awful book but
there's a lot wrong with it and as the conclusion of a story that
started with _Northern Lights_ it's a great disappointment.

>>Unfortunately I'm stuck in the middle of a Kingley Amis right now.
>
><raises one eyebrow> Commiserations?

Thanks!  I gave up on Amis a while back because it was painful to see
such a fine writer say nothing but "People are Shits and Everything
Sucks and I'm Miserable and It's All Someone Else's Fault (Probably a
Woman)".  For some reason I decided to give him another chance but I'm
having second thoughts, particularly as this thread is reminding me
how much I'd prefer to be reading _Northern Lights_.

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:09:13 -0600, Jeremy Henty
 havered:

>On 2007-11-27, Halla  wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:43:55 -0600, Jeremy Henty
>> blethered:
>>
>>>I thought "Northern Lights" was awesome (it's a shame the plot
>>>collapsed by the end of the trilogy).
>>
>> It did? How so? (er, that's quite combatively phrased - I'm
>> interested, not bristling. ;-)
>
>Actually, the most combative parts of your posts are the "so-and-so
>blethered" headers.  I mean, me?  Blether???  How dare you!!!  ;-) ;-)

My apologies. ;->

>But anyway...
>
>ObDisclaimer: I'm reporting my memories of reading the books a couple
>of years back.  I'd have to reread them before I could defend any of
>this (and rereading them might change my mind).

That's a chance you may have to take. <g>

>
>Summary: _Northern Lights_ was brilliantly plotted, everything fitted
>into the arc of Lyra's adventure and her quest to rescue Roger.  The
>plot of the _The Amber Spyglass_ is a mess, it's completely unclear
>how the bits fit together and who's responsible for what.

OK. That's not my memory of it. I'll be able to back tha tup a bit
more after the weekend though, when I think I'll have reread it. <:-)

>
>My complaint is that after finishing _The Amber Spyglass_ I couldn't
>figure out what had happened.  Was the explosion that caused the great
>void the reason for the massive srif drift?  

Which explosion? The one aimed at Lyra in that book? Or the original
one in Northern Lights?

>If so, how was the void
>sealed?  What was accomplished by the creation of the amber spyglass?
>I don't recall it actually doing anything useful.  

Dr. Thingy saw Dust through it. She saw the currents of Dust leaving
the world through the rift, if I remember rightly. But yeah, mostly
she hung around with the elephant things and was philisophical.

>Does Lyra's trip
>through the land of the dead affect any of the other plot threads?
>Just what did Lyra do that saved us all, and what did it save us from?

When they shut the windows between the world they left the one from
the land of the dead open, so the dead could leave. They could have
chosen to leave the one between Will's Oxford and Lyra's Oxford open,
so they could have been together. It seemed to me the dead didn't get
to move on, as it were, but were held in some horrible place. Being
allowed to see the sun one last time seemed to bring an end to
despair.

>The great doom that threatened us all is the loss of Mind when the
>srif disappears, but unless I missed something Lyra does nothing to
>stop it.  Does Will and Lyra falling in love affect anything else or
>not?  Basically, WTF???

<g> 

I got the impression they generated a *lot* of Dust between them. ;-)
They were a powerful pair of magnets.

>
>I think the problem Pullman had with the second and third books is
>that Will becomes the most important character when he inherits the
>Subtle Knife and by the third book Lyra is basically irrelevant: 

She does lose her voice a little as she stops using the alethiometer
as much, and as she loses the skill to do so. I don't think this was
accidental though; it was said in the first book that she must be
unaware of what she's doing, she get swept along just because she
keeps going, and yes she ends up as a pawn in some other peoples'
plans.

>all
>the really vital plot elements (eg. the defeat of Metatron) are driven
>by others.  So Pullman fudges things; he renders Will semi-conscious
>for half a book to stop him stealing Lyra's limelight, 

He does?

>then despatches
>Lyra on a completely separate subplot so he has an excuse to keep
>writing about her.  

Hmm. Why pick on Lyra subplots, instead of say Lee Scoresby subplots
or Iorek subplots? I think there may have been a problem in having so
many powerful characters running about, they can be hard to keep track
of.

>He's desperate to tell us _The Adventures of Lyra_
>and _The Downfall of the Magisterium_ *and* deliver Lots of Important
>Statements about Life, Death and Sex.  

<g>

>It would have been awesome if
>he'd pulled it off, but he loses the plot and has to just shovel it
>all in, so that _The Amber Spyglass_ reads less like a story than a
>mish-mash of half-baked sermons.  Which, basically, it is.

In parts, yes. I never got the impression that it was shovelled in,
mind you. 

>
>>>I felt that Pullman was attacking the idea that childhood is the
>>>best time ever and adulthood is a loss, and the settling of the
>>>daemon was meant to say something about that, but I couldn't figure
>>>out how.
>>
>> So maybe he wasn't. ;-)
>
>Maybe, indeed.  I'll have to reread the books and see if Pullman
>really was garbling things or if I just wasn't paying enough
>attention.

I've just gone past part of the Subtle Knife where Lyra says to Pan
that when she changes he'll stop changing. Not quite figured out yet
what that says about anything. 

>
>> ... did Pullman give privilege to Lyra's position as a
>> pre-adolescent or was he making a comment about something else?
>
>I thought he wanted to de-privilege childhood and say that growing up
>does have its joys; it's not just all about losing your innocence.
>Which is the point of the Will/Lyra love story.

Yersh... I need to think about that one some more. 

>
>>>... the reveal of the Severed Child is one of the most shocking and
>>>chilling scenes I've ever read.
>>
>> ... that Pullman fella is skilled at his craft.
>
>True, but I still feel he lost it by the end of the trilogy.  And I'm
>in good company; China Mie'ville feels the same way.  

Oh well there we go then. <g>

>Not that that
>proves I'm right, but it reassures me that my position isn't
>completely foolish. 

I think you could be reassured of that without the backup.

> _The Amber Spyglass_ isn't an awful book but
>there's a lot wrong with it and as the conclusion of a story that
>started with _Northern Lights_ it's a great disappointment.

I remember being disappointed that it was the end of the trilogy. The
writing was strong right up until the end, but I shall consider the
plot thing as I reread, and no doubt get back to you on that.

Got tickets booked for the film, too. <gleeful bounce>

>
>>>Unfortunately I'm stuck in the middle of a Kingley Amis right now.
>>
>><raises one eyebrow> Commiserations?
>
>Thanks!  I gave up on Amis a while back because it was painful to see
>such a fine writer say nothing but "People are Shits and Everything
>Sucks and I'm Miserable and It's All Someone Else's Fault (Probably a
>Woman)".  For some reason I decided to give him another chance but I'm
>having second thoughts, particularly as this thread is reminding me
>how much I'd prefer to be reading _Northern Lights_.

Heh. :-)


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

In urp, Halla  wrote in response to Jymn's reply to her earlier post:
<snip>
>>> I've started rereading it again (hence being up at this time
>>> of night on a schoolnight), mostly because one of my friends
>>> was lamenting the fact that, apparently, the witches in the
>>> film are clothed (they are in the book, by the way, sort
>>> of).

>> And even if they weren't, they would be for the film - or
>> there goes the supposed target audience

> It's going to be interesting, given the major theme of the
> trilogy, really. How are they going to deal with it all?

Caught part of an interview with Daniel Craig t'other day.
Aparently British critics are complaining its very watered down while 
American critics are complaining they've gone to far.
Meanwhile some American Church is apparently calling for a boycott because 
its anti-God (they obviously weren't aware of the books, since the call is 
new)

<snip>
>> Will have to re-read, can't remember.
>
> This is the third (I think) time I've read it, and I only just
> noticed, mostly because I was thinking about the whole idea
> of daemons anyway.

Well spotted though
A quick google, given how errors in books and films seem everywhere on the 
net, wasn't helpful, but the first link returned was to your post :~)

<snip>
>> Something I didn't do with The Dark is Rising, possiby just
>> as well - I enjoyed the film but have heard a lot of people
>> panning it.
>
> Haven't seen it, but that's not unusual. Haven't seen a lot
> of films!

I miss a lot more than I see.
I was looking out for that one, and almost missed it, the local multiplex 
was doing one showing per day around noon and only weekdays. Never saw any 
promotion for it. Guess it isn't likely to get a sequel.

<snip>
>> Looking back over my adult life, my personality has changed
>> substantially - a daemon fixed in form post puberty would no
>> longer be a reflection of my personality. Or would the fixed
>> form have prevented latter changes?
>> Either way, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable being
>> pigeon-holed so easily.
>
> It's presented as a settling into rather than as continued
> change, isn't it? But then, I can see how a fixed daemon form
> would still allow for changes in character. Or perhaps we'd
> all have symbolic sorts of daemons, like chameleons or
> something.

Possibly, and its possible I'm conceited in how much I think my character 
has changed.

> One of the daemon-coins had a picture of a young
> woman on it, so some can be in human-form it seems, I wonder
> if they could take the form of fantastic beasts too?

Would they be fantastic if they regularly appeared as daemons? It amuses me 
that the domestic hen and the pheasent are regarded as common place, but 
South Asian Jungle Fowl are exotics.

Jymn

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:27:14 -0000, "Jymn" 
blethered:

>In urp, Halla  wrote in response to Jymn's reply to her earlier post:
><snip>
>>>> I've started rereading it again (hence being up at this time
>>>> of night on a schoolnight), mostly because one of my friends
>>>> was lamenting the fact that, apparently, the witches in the
>>>> film are clothed (they are in the book, by the way, sort
>>>> of).
>
>>> And even if they weren't, they would be for the film - or
>>> there goes the supposed target audience
>
>> It's going to be interesting, given the major theme of the
>> trilogy, really. How are they going to deal with it all?
>
>Caught part of an interview with Daniel Craig t'other day.

I am agog to see how he plays Lord Asriel.

>Aparently British critics are complaining its very watered down while 
>American critics are complaining they've gone to far.

*snort*

>Meanwhile some American Church is apparently calling for a boycott because 
>its anti-God 

I caught an interview with Nicole Kidman this morning, apart from
mentioning letters from Mr. Pullman a couple of times (yeah so I was
jealous. <g>) it was mentioned that a boycott had been called because
of the unflattering portrayal of the Catholic Church. I think I don't
know that church well enough, I thought the books were pretty anti all
sorts of churches really.

>(they obviously weren't aware of the books, since the call is 
>new)
>

Ohbut it's more serious/real/whatever if it's on the big screen. :-|

><snip>
>>> Will have to re-read, can't remember.
>>
>> This is the third (I think) time I've read it, and I only just
>> noticed, mostly because I was thinking about the whole idea
>> of daemons anyway.
>
>Well spotted though
>A quick google, given how errors in books and films seem everywhere on the 
>net, wasn't helpful, but the first link returned was to your post :~)

Heh. <g> 

There's a typo in the third one (not got that far through it to spot
anymore) and the same Milton quoate[1] is used at the start of two
chapters. In the edition I've got, at any rate. Whether the quote is
deliberate or not I don't know.

>
><snip>
>>> Something I didn't do with The Dark is Rising, possiby just
>>> as well - I enjoyed the film but have heard a lot of people
>>> panning it.
>>
>> Haven't seen it, but that's not unusual. Haven't seen a lot
>> of films!
>
>I miss a lot more than I see.
>I was looking out for that one, and almost missed it, the local multiplex 
>was doing one showing per day around noon and only weekdays. Never saw any 
>promotion for it. Guess it isn't likely to get a sequel.

<:-/

>
><snip>
>>> Looking back over my adult life, my personality has changed
>>> substantially - a daemon fixed in form post puberty would no
>>> longer be a reflection of my personality. Or would the fixed
>>> form have prevented latter changes?
>>> Either way, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable being
>>> pigeon-holed so easily.
>>
>> It's presented as a settling into rather than as continued
>> change, isn't it? But then, I can see how a fixed daemon form
>> would still allow for changes in character. Or perhaps we'd
>> all have symbolic sorts of daemons, like chameleons or
>> something.
>
>Possibly, and its possible I'm conceited in how much I think my character 
>has changed.

I don't know if any adult changes so much that their daemon would
change from, say, a lizard to a leopard. :-) 

>
>> One of the daemon-coins had a picture of a young
>> woman on it, so some can be in human-form it seems, I wonder
>> if they could take the form of fantastic beasts too?
>
>Would they be fantastic if they regularly appeared as daemons? 

Witches daemons seem to be unusual birds. There doesn't seem to be a
regular appearance of any particular sort of daemon, to be fair, apart
from servants and their dog daemons, but even then there are different
breeds. I think a dragon might be remarked upon, for example. <g>

>It amuses me 
>that the domestic hen and the pheasent are regarded as common place, but 
>South Asian Jungle Fowl are exotics.

It's a question of what's been here for how long, isn't it? <g>

>
[1] Obligatory spelling-flame typo. ;-)


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

Jymn  wrote:

> Which means getting the book back, as I would normally reread before seeing
> the film.
> 
> Something I didn't do with The Dark is Rising, possiby just as well - I
> enjoyed the film but have heard a lot of people panning it.

A film I really enjoyed (and was lucky enough to win preview tickets) is
"Stardust". Great fun, very different from the book (Robert de Niro's
part comes from one paragraph of the book) but apart from the fight
scenes towards the end it is very true to the spirit of the book.
-- 
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

"Jymn"  wrote in message 
news:474f58ea$0$2907$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> In urp, Halla  wrote in response to Jymn's reply to her earlier post:
> <snip>
>>>> I've started rereading it again (hence being up at this time
>>>> of night on a schoolnight), mostly because one of my friends
>>>> was lamenting the fact that, apparently, the witches in the
>>>> film are clothed (they are in the book, by the way, sort
>>>> of).
>
>>> And even if they weren't, they would be for the film - or
>>> there goes the supposed target audience
>
>> It's going to be interesting, given the major theme of the
>> trilogy, really. How are they going to deal with it all?

Snip
Read all three and did think the plot unravelled towards the end of the last 
book, leaving me thinking, erm.... what... why .. an things of like ilk.
It started very well ( for me up to the middle of the second book ) then I 
read to the end of the last book, wondering, why bother?
I don't think I will see the film until it turns up at our local library as 
a "DVD lend". I might go to our local "Filum show" if bribed, but the sound 
is so loud it hurts my ears. I nearly walked out, because of the pain, but 
only stayed, cause I was with friends who had paid.
< ahem >
( Back to the book ) First book great, should have incorporated the first 
half of book two and wound it up neatly to make a great story.
Now it's gone all "< Harry Potter's Sequel "Stretch until dead" and wring 
all the money out of it as a movie >  kind of thing.
Computer graphics are great, but............................
YMMV.

Dicon

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:12:14 +0000, danspam@f2s.com (Daniel Cohen)
blethered:

>Jymn  wrote:
>
>> Which means getting the book back, as I would normally reread before seeing
>> the film.
>> 
>> Something I didn't do with The Dark is Rising, possiby just as well - I
>> enjoyed the film but have heard a lot of people panning it.
>
>A film I really enjoyed (and was lucky enough to win preview tickets) is
>"Stardust". Great fun, very different from the book (Robert de Niro's
>part comes from one paragraph of the book) but apart from the fight
>scenes towards the end it is very true to the spirit of the book.

Glad to hear it is good, I believe it was here I voiced some
misgivings about it. 


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:11:15 GMT, "Dicon" 
blethered:

>
>"Jymn"  wrote in message 
>news:474f58ea$0$2907$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> In urp, Halla  wrote in response to Jymn's reply to her earlier post:
>> <snip>
>>>>> I've started rereading it again (hence being up at this time
>>>>> of night on a schoolnight), mostly because one of my friends
>>>>> was lamenting the fact that, apparently, the witches in the
>>>>> film are clothed (they are in the book, by the way, sort
>>>>> of).
>>
>>>> And even if they weren't, they would be for the film - or
>>>> there goes the supposed target audience
>>
>>> It's going to be interesting, given the major theme of the
>>> trilogy, really. How are they going to deal with it all?
>
>Snip
>Read all three and did think the plot unravelled towards the end of the last 
>book, leaving me thinking, erm.... what... why .. an things of like ilk.
>It started very well ( for me up to the middle of the second book ) then I 
>read to the end of the last book, wondering, why bother?

I'm maybe two thirds of the way through the third at the moment. I'd
forgotten how much action there is in it - I retained an impression of
Mary Malone sitting in a tree as being most of it, but that's not the
case really. <g> There are one or two plot things that grate slightly
- why exactly was the pre-absolved assassin immune to the Spectres,
apart from the fact that it was convenient for him to be so? There's
at least one other thing that made me think 'huh?' but I can't recall
what it was now. :-)

>I don't think I will see the film until it turns up at our local library as 
>a "DVD lend". I might go to our local "Filum show" if bribed, but the sound 
>is so loud it hurts my ears. I nearly walked out, because of the pain, but 
>only stayed, cause I was with friends who had paid.

That's no good, is it? :-/ Big screens are so big now mostly to dazzle
and bludgeon the senses, I think. 

>< ahem >
>( Back to the book ) First book great, should have incorporated the first 
>half of book two and wound it up neatly to make a great story.

See, I like the third one - they brought an end to death! For whatever
reason, the Authority had been lying for centuries, the dead were
stuck. The children freed them. Plus it's interesting to see the
seperation between child and daemon, and to see what difference it
makes to them. 

>Now it's gone all "< Harry Potter's Sequel "Stretch until dead" and wring 
>all the money out of it as a movie >  kind of thing.
>Computer graphics are great, but............................
>YMMV.

I think it does. :-)


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

"Halla"  wrote in message
news:7vsmk3hs9f84cvfuf28j7vc25i25kf7kv8@4ax.com...
> So, anyone thinking of going to see the film?
>
> I've started rereading it again (hence being up at this time of night
> on a schoolnight), mostly because one of my friends was lamenting the
> fact that, apparently, the witches in the film are clothed (they are
> in the book, by the way, sort of). Think I spotted a mistake, too.
>
> Ma Costa is first mentioned as having a hawk daemon, then a few
> chapters later it's a wolf. Either I've got that wrong, it's a mistake
> in the book, or Ma Costa is a rare creature indeed, because her daemon
> can still change (a bit). Plus the whole 'daemon of the same sex'
> thing, while inventive and accepting, is somewhat limiting. Thoughts
> on daemons, folks?

Not had chance to read the books yet although I managed to find a charity
shop copy of the third one the other week. I remember talking to people who
had read them and who thought it very shamanic oriented. They considered the
daemon concept to be very close to the idea of Power Animal helpers and of
course any discussion of Land of the Dead is a bit of a giveaway too. In my
experience Power Animals and some other spirits can change their appearance
so it wouldn't be unusual from a spirit point of view - from a literary
point of view I think it could confuse the reader. The gender thing I'm not
aware of.

I must say I'm looking forward to the film, especially as I haven't had
chance to read the books. From what I've heard Philip Pullman has a fairly
overt Pagan slant and I also understand he can write well which is a huge
improvement on J.K. Rowling (lets not have a row, it is simply my opinion
that her work sucks donkeys). Dad bought me a copy of "Shadowmancer" by G.P.
Taylor a couple of xmases ago and when I eventually got round to reading it
I was left feeling cross and disappointed - maybe I'm biased but I found the
message to be a bit too Bible bashing for my tastes.

I'm rambling now so I'll shush and get another cuppa

Jo

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:10:35 GMT, "Jo B"
 blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message
>news:7vsmk3hs9f84cvfuf28j7vc25i25kf7kv8@4ax.com...
>> So, anyone thinking of going to see the film?
>>
>> I've started rereading it again (hence being up at this time of night
>> on a schoolnight), mostly because one of my friends was lamenting the
>> fact that, apparently, the witches in the film are clothed (they are
>> in the book, by the way, sort of). Think I spotted a mistake, too.
>>
>> Ma Costa is first mentioned as having a hawk daemon, then a few
>> chapters later it's a wolf. Either I've got that wrong, it's a mistake
>> in the book, or Ma Costa is a rare creature indeed, because her daemon
>> can still change (a bit). Plus the whole 'daemon of the same sex'
>> thing, while inventive and accepting, is somewhat limiting. Thoughts
>> on daemons, folks?
>
>Not had chance to read the books yet although I managed to find a charity
>shop copy of the third one the other week. 

Ooh, well done. :-) I think I saw one or two of them up here. My
copies are rather badly put together, the first lot have tended to
start shedding pages, even though they have been gently treated. I do
have two sets, but one appears to be away on loan. Or at least, I
can't see it from here. 

>I remember talking to people who
>had read them and who thought it very shamanic oriented. 

Kinda. 

>They considered the
>daemon concept to be very close to the idea of Power Animal helpers and of
>course any discussion of Land of the Dead is a bit of a giveaway too. 

I'd be interested to hear a shaman's perspective on the description
given in the book then. It didn't immediately make me think
'shamanic', but then I don't have personal experience to draw from. 

>In my
>experience Power Animals and some other spirits can change their appearance
>so it wouldn't be unusual from a spirit point of view - from a literary
>point of view I think it could confuse the reader. 

It could, but I don't know if it did. 

>The gender thing I'm not
>aware of.

In general, daemons of woman are male and vice versa. 

>
>I must say I'm looking forward to the film, especially as I haven't had
>chance to read the books. From what I've heard Philip Pullman has a fairly
>overt Pagan slant 

Um... <g> 

>and I also understand he can write well which is a huge
>improvement on J.K. Rowling (lets not have a row, it is simply my opinion
>that her work sucks donkeys). 

:-)

Hey, I'm quite willing to study at her feet if I could make a tenth of
the money. Mercenary, yes, but I've got things to pay. <g>

>Dad bought me a copy of "Shadowmancer" by G.P.
>Taylor a couple of xmases ago and when I eventually got round to reading it
>I was left feeling cross and disappointed - maybe I'm biased but I found the
>message to be a bit too Bible bashing for my tastes.

Shadowmancer... rings a bell, but I don't think I've read it. I'm
reading Coastliners at the moment, I always find Joanne Harris quite
relaxing and friendly-like. :-)

>
>I'm rambling now so I'll shush and get another cuppa

Sounds like an idea. However my head is mince so I think I might
obliterate some braincells with some sort of alcoholic beverage. 


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

In urp, Halla  wrote in response to Jymn's reply to her earlier post:
<snip>
>>> It's going to be interesting, given the major theme of the
>>> trilogy, really. How are they going to deal with it all?
>>
>> Caught part of an interview with Daniel Craig t'other day.
>
> I am agog to see how he plays Lord Asriel.

Don't think I've seen him in anything major other than Tomb Raider, but 
going off a couple of interviews and some clips I might even be tempted to 
watch him as Bond.

<snip>
>> Meanwhile some American Church is apparently calling for a
>> boycott because its anti-God
>
> I caught an interview with Nicole Kidman this morning, apart
> from mentioning letters from Mr. Pullman a couple of times
> (yeah so I was jealous. <g>) it was mentioned that a boycott
> had been called because of the unflattering portrayal of the
> Catholic Church. I think I don't know that church well
> enough, I thought the books were pretty anti all sorts of
> churches really.


The Magisterium appears to be a projection of how the Church of Rome would 
have been if not for Luther.

>> (they obviously weren't aware of the books, since the call is
>> new)

> Ohbut it's more serious/real/whatever if it's on the big
> screen. :-|

The number of comments I've seen that suggest the film might tempt parents 
into buying the books for children and that being the big threat.
Children reading and asking questions could be pretty threatening, just 
imagine, they might even think for themselves as well.

 <snip>
>>> It's presented as a settling into rather than as continued
>>> change, isn't it? But then, I can see how a fixed daemon
>>> form would still allow for changes in character. Or perhaps
>>> we'd all have symbolic sorts of daemons, like chameleons or
>>> something.
>>
>> Possibly, and its possible I'm conceited in how much I think
>> my character has changed.
>
> I don't know if any adult changes so much that their daemon
> would change from, say, a lizard to a leopard. :-)

Perhaps I was either late growing up, or early finding my second childhood.


>>> One of the daemon-coins had a picture of a young
>>> woman on it, so some can be in human-form it seems, I wonder
>>> if they could take the form of fantastic beasts too?
>>
>> Would they be fantastic if they regularly appeared as
>> daemons?
>
> Witches daemons seem to be unusual birds. There doesn't seem
> to be a regular appearance of any particular sort of daemon,
> to be fair, apart from servants and their dog daemons, but
> even then there are different breeds. I think a dragon might
> be remarked upon, for example. <g>

<G>
Sorry, I meant that there are fantastic animals all around us, just they've 
become commonplace and therefore not seen as special anymore. If dragons 
were more common then they'd cease to be seen as fantastic, but just another 
bloody meanace.

>> It amuses me
>> that the domestic hen and the pheasent are regarded as
>> common place, but South Asian Jungle Fowl are exotics.
>
> It's a question of what's been here for how long, isn't it?
> <g>

Or just how often the're seen, peacocks still have some of that exotica 
mystery around them, whereas the reality is the're too bloody noisy to be 
put up with if you've got neighbours, so they never made it to allotments 
and smallholdings.

> [1] Obligatory spelling-flame typo. ;-) what in urp?;~)

Jymn

In urp, Daniel Cohen  wrote in response to Jymn:

>> Something I didn't do with The Dark is Rising, possiby just
>> as well - I enjoyed the film but have heard a lot of people
>> panning it.
>
> A film I really enjoyed (and was lucky enough to win preview
> tickets) is "Stardust". Great fun, very different from the
> book (Robert de Niro's part comes from one paragraph of the
> book) but apart from the fight scenes towards the end it is
> very true to the spirit of the book.

Thoroughly enjoyed that one.
de Niro was excellent, (and whoever added the material was inspired).
And agree, the spirit of the book survives the Hollywood treatment.

Wonder if the same team will do Neverwhere?

Jymn

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:05:41 -0000, "Jymn" 
blethered:

>In urp, Halla  wrote in response to Jymn's reply to her earlier post:
><snip>
>>>> It's going to be interesting, given the major theme of the
>>>> trilogy, really. How are they going to deal with it all?
>>>
>>> Caught part of an interview with Daniel Craig t'other day.
>>
>> I am agog to see how he plays Lord Asriel.
>
>Don't think I've seen him in anything major other than Tomb Raider, but 
>going off a couple of interviews and some clips I might even be tempted to 
>watch him as Bond.
>

I say this as a friend - watch him as Bond. 8-) General consensus from
those polled so far is 'phwoar' (or 'wow' if the viewer concerned
happens to be immune to his charms). He is quite a good Bond, although
I was stomping about whinging about their choice of actor for months
before the film came out. 

><snip>
>>> Meanwhile some American Church is apparently calling for a
>>> boycott because its anti-God
>>
>> I caught an interview with Nicole Kidman this morning, apart
>> from mentioning letters from Mr. Pullman a couple of times
>> (yeah so I was jealous. <g>) it was mentioned that a boycott
>> had been called because of the unflattering portrayal of the
>> Catholic Church. I think I don't know that church well
>> enough, I thought the books were pretty anti all sorts of
>> churches really.
>
>
>The Magisterium appears to be a projection of how the Church of Rome would 
>have been if not for Luther.

I think a few of the boycotters have forgotten that the book is set in
an alternative universe. An institution can be painted in a horrible
light if an author is - gasp! - making it all up. <g>

>
>>> (they obviously weren't aware of the books, since the call is
>>> new)
>
>> Ohbut it's more serious/real/whatever if it's on the big
>> screen. :-|
>
>The number of comments I've seen that suggest the film might tempt parents 
>into buying the books for children and that being the big threat.

Yep. Astonishing, isn't it? Makes me wonder how people view books
these days. 

>Children reading and asking questions could be pretty threatening, just 
>imagine, they might even think for themselves as well.

I know. How awful. Eek. etc.

>
> <snip>
>>>> It's presented as a settling into rather than as continued
>>>> change, isn't it? But then, I can see how a fixed daemon
>>>> form would still allow for changes in character. Or perhaps
>>>> we'd all have symbolic sorts of daemons, like chameleons or
>>>> something.
>>>
>>> Possibly, and its possible I'm conceited in how much I think
>>> my character has changed.
>>
>> I don't know if any adult changes so much that their daemon
>> would change from, say, a lizard to a leopard. :-)
>
>Perhaps I was either late growing up, or early finding my second childhood.

Perhaps. <:-) Nowhere does it say *when* your daemon has to stop
changing, mind, it's just sort of 'around puberty, ish'.

<snip>
>
><G>
>Sorry, I meant that there are fantastic animals all around us, just they've 
>become commonplace and therefore not seen as special anymore. If dragons 
>were more common then they'd cease to be seen as fantastic, but just another 
>bloody meanace.

Quite. <g> 

>
>>> It amuses me
>>> that the domestic hen and the pheasent are regarded as
>>> common place, but South Asian Jungle Fowl are exotics.
>>
>> It's a question of what's been here for how long, isn't it?
>> <g>
>
>Or just how often the're seen, peacocks still have some of that exotica 
>mystery around them, whereas the reality is the're too bloody noisy to be 
>put up with if you've got neighbours, so they never made it to allotments 
>and smallholdings.

Heh. Yeah well. Pretty feathers etc. I don't fancy plucking a peacock
for the table, although I suppose once the tail is out of the way the
rest would be the same as a hen?

>
>> [1] Obligatory spelling-flame typo. ;-) what in urp?;~)

Thought I'd buck a trend for once. <g>


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

On 2007-11-29, Halla  wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:09:13 -0600, Jeremy Henty
> havered:
>
>>On 2007-11-27, Halla  wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:43:55 -0600, Jeremy Henty
>>> blethered:
>>>
>>Actually, the most combative parts of your posts are the "so-and-so
>>blethered" headers.  I mean, me?  Blether???  How dare you!!!  ;-) ;-)
>
> My apologies. ;->

No problem!  ;-)

>>I'd have to reread them before I could defend any of this (and
>>rereading them might change my mind).
>
> That's a chance you may have to take. <g>

Yes, intellectual honesty is *such* a cross to bear.  *sigh*  ;-)

>>Was the explosion that caused the great void the reason for the
>>massive srif drift?
>
> Which explosion? The one aimed at Lyra in that book? Or the original
> one in Northern Lights?

The former.  IIRC the latter didn't have such dire cosmic effects
(apart from the environmental ones due a permanent summer above the
North Pole).

>>What was accomplished by the creation of the amber spyglass?  I
>>don't recall it actually doing anything useful.
>
> Dr. Thingy saw Dust through it. She saw the currents of Dust leaving
> the world through the rift, if I remember rightly. But yeah, mostly
> she hung around with the elephant things and was philisophical.

Yes, she was parked out of the way for the large part of two books and
popped up again towards the end to no obvious effect.  It struck me as
clumsy plotting; Pullman didn't want to us forget about her but he
couldn't think of anything useful for her to do all that time.

> When they shut the windows between the world they left the one from
> the land of the dead open, so the dead could leave. They could have
> chosen to leave the one between Will's Oxford and Lyra's Oxford
> open, so they could have been together. 

That struck me as a fudge due more clumsy plotting.  "Can't we leave a
window open for us to meet?"  "No, we *must* close them all."  "What,
even the one we just opened for the dead."  "OK, maybe not *that*
one."  "Tiggers like everything *except* honey."  Pullman knows how he
wants things to end, but he can't quite set things up so that
everything *would* end that way so he has to wave his hands.  Maybe
I'm nitpicking.

>>Does Will and Lyra falling in love affect anything else or not?
>>Basically, WTF???
>
><g> 

Oh, er, right, pun not intended.

> I got the impression they generated a *lot* of Dust between
> them. ;-) They were a powerful pair of magnets.

Oh, was *that* it?  Maybe I really wasn't paying attention.  What was
so special about them that they had that affect?

>>... Pullman fudges things; he renders Will semi-conscious for half a
>>book to stop him stealing Lyra's limelight,
>
> He does?

IIRC Will becomes delirious from the wounds he receives when he fights
for the Subtle Knife, and doesn't recover until he's healed with
Bloodmoss at the end of the book.  I couldn't see the point of that,
other than to stall the action while the others caught up.  The
breaking and reforging of the Subtle Knife was similar, it looked like
a cheap delaying tactic to keep things in sync.

>>then despatches Lyra on a completely separate subplot so he has an
>>excuse to keep writing about her.
>
> Hmm. Why pick on Lyra subplots, instead of say Lee Scoresby subplots
> or Iorek subplots? 

Because (again assuming I don't change my mind after a reread) the
other subplots seemed relevant to What Was Going On (The War against
Heaven etc.) whereas the Lyra subplot seemed irrelevant and tacked on.
I'm not in principle against Scooby and the gang running off in
different directions, but I think Pullman does it very clumsily.
Tolkien did a much better job of splitting the Fellowship, despite
being a far less thrilling writer.

>>Maybe, indeed.  I'll have to reread the books and see if Pullman
>>really was garbling things or if I just wasn't paying enough
>>attention.
>
> I've just gone past part of the Subtle Knife where Lyra says to Pan
> that when she changes he'll stop changing. Not quite figured out yet
> what that says about anything. 

OK, that's something else I missed.  Still pretty unconvincing though,
it's not as though children don't change *before* puberty, or young
adults don't change afterwards.

> Got tickets booked for the film, too. <gleeful bounce>

And Pullman says he likes it, which is a good omen.

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty

"Jymn"  wrote in message 
news:0154d270$0$1248$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> In urp, Daniel Cohen  wrote in response to Jymn:
>
 Snip
> Thoroughly enjoyed that one.
> de Niro was excellent, (and whoever added the material was inspired).
> And agree, the spirit of the book survives the Hollywood treatment.
>
> Wonder if the same team will do Neverwhere?
>
It will probably moved to New York.
< sigh >
It was a good scary story and kept me hooked until the end.

Jackdaw

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:06:34 -0600, Jeremy Henty
 blethered:

>On 2007-11-29, Halla  wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:09:13 -0600, Jeremy Henty
>> havered:
>>
>>>On 2007-11-27, Halla  wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:43:55 -0600, Jeremy Henty
>>>> blethered:
>>>>
>>>Actually, the most combative parts of your posts are the "so-and-so
>>>blethered" headers.  I mean, me?  Blether???  How dare you!!!  ;-) ;-)
>>
>> My apologies. ;->
>
>No problem!  ;-)
>
>>>I'd have to reread them before I could defend any of this (and
>>>rereading them might change my mind).
>>
>> That's a chance you may have to take. <g>
>
>Yes, intellectual honesty is *such* a cross to bear.  *sigh*  ;-)
>

Poor you. <g>

>>>Was the explosion that caused the great void the reason for the
>>>massive srif drift?
>>
>> Which explosion? The one aimed at Lyra in that book? Or the original
>> one in Northern Lights?
>
>The former.  IIRC the latter didn't have such dire cosmic effects
>(apart from the environmental ones due a permanent summer above the
>North Pole).

I think it caused a bit of a problem but no, nowhere near as much as
the abyss - it wasn't clearly explained but the rift Asriel opened
didn't appear to share all the properties of the windows the knife
could cut. For one thing, it appeared to open gaps into many worlds,
judging by the fact that Lyra ended up in Cittigazze and Asriel
didn't.

>
>>>What was accomplished by the creation of the amber spyglass?  I
>>>don't recall it actually doing anything useful.
>>
>> Dr. Thingy saw Dust through it. She saw the currents of Dust leaving
>> the world through the rift, if I remember rightly. But yeah, mostly
>> she hung around with the elephant things and was philisophical.
>
>Yes, she was parked out of the way for the large part of two books and
>popped up again towards the end to no obvious effect.  

She was playing the serpent. :-) Apart from that she was used to
convey information about the Dust, and allow the author to indulge his
imagination a bit. <g>

>It struck me as
>clumsy plotting; Pullman didn't want to us forget about her but he
>couldn't think of anything useful for her to do all that time.

She has the last of the Dark Materials, as I see it - she made the
amber spyglass. She was there to fit some pieces together, mostly for
the children. Plus she's handy in future as she's a sort-of honourary
Pevensie, (to steal an idea from another series for a moment) she and
Will are the only ones in 'our' world who can discuss what has
happened.

>
>> When they shut the windows between the world they left the one from
>> the land of the dead open, so the dead could leave. They could have
>> chosen to leave the one between Will's Oxford and Lyra's Oxford
>> open, so they could have been together. 
>
>That struck me as a fudge due more clumsy plotting.  "Can't we leave a
>window open for us to meet?"  "No, we *must* close them all."  "What,
>even the one we just opened for the dead."  "OK, maybe not *that*
>one."  "Tiggers like everything *except* honey."  Pullman knows how he
>wants things to end, but he can't quite set things up so that
>everything *would* end that way so he has to wave his hands.  Maybe
>I'm nitpicking.

I'm not sure I agree - after rereading I'd say this was a fairly major
plot point, not a fudge. Lyra and Will could have (selfishly) chosen
to leave a window open between their worlds, and could have spent
their lives together. Instead they kept their promise and left the
window open from the world of the dead, which meant that instead of
people ending up in the dark with the harpies forever they could pay
their toll of true stories and journey through the dark into the world
again. Effectively an end to death - they wouldn't stay dead and
ghostly forever anymore. That and the (almost incidental) freeing of
the Authority were two big bits for me. 

>
>>>Does Will and Lyra falling in love affect anything else or not?
>>>Basically, WTF???
>>
>><g> 
>
>Oh, er, right, pun not intended.

Heh. That whole scene has a sort of 'let's pan away to the cosy open
fire' effect, perhaps because he's dealing with two young adolescent
characters. They definitely discovered love though, one way or
another. ;-)

>
>> I got the impression they generated a *lot* of Dust between
>> them. ;-) They were a powerful pair of magnets.
>
>Oh, was *that* it?  Maybe I really wasn't paying attention.  What was
>so special about them that they had that affect?

Dust is attracted to conscious beings; their experiences had made them
unusually conscious, and then they tipped over into that phase of
young adulthood which allowed the Dust to stick?

>
>>>... Pullman fudges things; he renders Will semi-conscious for half a
>>>book to stop him stealing Lyra's limelight,
>>
>> He does?
>
>IIRC Will becomes delirious from the wounds he receives when he fights
>for the Subtle Knife, and doesn't recover until he's healed with
>Bloodmoss at the end of the book.  I couldn't see the point of that,
>other than to stall the action while the others caught up.  

It didn't really stall the action though, he kept going with the
wound. It was referred to from time to time, but my problem with it
was more that the boy must have had twenty pints of blood in his body
to begin with, seeing as he was losing blood all the time.

>The
>breaking and reforging of the Subtle Knife was similar, it looked like
>a cheap delaying tactic to keep things in sync.

Hmm, I saw that as a mettyfor. <g> His concentration broke, his heart
could have broken too, but since he was focussed in the knife... 

>
>>>then despatches Lyra on a completely separate subplot so he has an
>>>excuse to keep writing about her.
>>
>> Hmm. Why pick on Lyra subplots, instead of say Lee Scoresby subplots
>> or Iorek subplots? 
>
>Because (again assuming I don't change my mind after a reread) the
>other subplots seemed relevant to What Was Going On (The War against
>Heaven etc.) whereas the Lyra subplot seemed irrelevant and tacked on.

I've forgotten which subplot we mean now. Mrs. Coulter finding her?
That one irked me a bit for some reason. Perhaps it was there to
provide a cliffhanger. It was even pointed out that it was stupid of
Mrs. Coulter to think no one would find her and Lyra. <shrugs> 

>I'm not in principle against Scooby and the gang running off in
>different directions, but I think Pullman does it very clumsily.

At times, I'd agree. When I first read it though that didn't jump out
at me, so I'd stick by my assessment that he's very good at his craft.
Plus we do have to remember sometimes what sort of audience the books
were aimed at to begin with. <:-)

>Tolkien did a much better job of splitting the Fellowship, despite
>being a far less thrilling writer.

Yeah well, 'succinct' wasn't in *his* vocabulary. :-)

>
>>>Maybe, indeed.  I'll have to reread the books and see if Pullman
>>>really was garbling things or if I just wasn't paying enough
>>>attention.
>>
>> I've just gone past part of the Subtle Knife where Lyra says to Pan
>> that when she changes he'll stop changing. Not quite figured out yet
>> what that says about anything. 
>
>OK, that's something else I missed.  Still pretty unconvincing though,
>it's not as though children don't change *before* puberty, or young
>adults don't change afterwards.

No, of course not. In Lyra's world it seems to be one of those rites
of passage - 'now you are a man, my son, for your daemon has stuck'
and all that. Plus of course the fact that the daemons change so much
before puberty is a bit of a signal that the children change a lot
too. :-)

>
>> Got tickets booked for the film, too. <gleeful bounce>
>
>And Pullman says he likes it, which is a good omen.

I've suddenly lost all trust in his sense of judgement then. <g>


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

Halla  wrote:

> Instead they kept their promise and left the
> window open from the world of the dead, which meant that instead of
> people ending up in the dark with the harpies forever they could pay
> their toll of true stories and journey through the dark into the world
> again. Effectively an end to death - they wouldn't stay dead and
> ghostly forever anymore.

It's a very pantheist approach to ending death. I wonder how many people
would prefer the personal immortality of even an unpleasant "life after
death" (Hell, even) to the merging into the All that the window
provides.

It would be interesting to compare this with Ursula le Guin's "The Other
Wind", where the wall around the land of the dead gets dismantled.
-- 
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:09:37 +0000, danspam@f2s.com (Daniel Cohen)
blethered:

>Halla  wrote:
>
>> Instead they kept their promise and left the
>> window open from the world of the dead, which meant that instead of
>> people ending up in the dark with the harpies forever they could pay
>> their toll of true stories and journey through the dark into the world
>> again. Effectively an end to death - they wouldn't stay dead and
>> ghostly forever anymore.
>
>It's a very pantheist approach to ending death. I wonder how many people
>would prefer the personal immortality of even an unpleasant "life after
>death" (Hell, even) to the merging into the All that the window
>provides.
>

Some of the ghosts were adamant that they were in Heaven already and
that they were going to stay there - I suppose some of them could stay
in the land of the dead if they wished. Plus those who had no stories
to tell. That part seemed quite threatening to me. <g> 

Also, the refusal of some of the dead to see what all the others could
reminded me of the dwarves in the Last Battle who wouldn't accept that
they weren't in a dark shed.

>It would be interesting to compare this with Ursula le Guin's "The Other
>Wind", where the wall around the land of the dead gets dismantled.

That's something I must read. 


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

In urp, Halla  wrote in response to Jymn:
<snip>
>> Don't think I've seen him in anything major other than Tomb
>> Raider, but going off a couple of interviews and some clips
>> I might even be tempted to watch him as Bond.
>>
>
> I say this as a friend - watch him as Bond. 8-) General
> consensus from those polled so far is 'phwoar' (or 'wow' if
> the viewer concerned happens to be immune to his charms).

I'm following your advice, Casino Royale obtained and will be watched later 
or tomorrow.

> He
> is quite a good Bond, although I was stomping about whinging
> about their choice of actor for months before the film came
> out.

I watched one of the Brosnan's and enjoyed it, (Bond tends not to be high on 
my priorities) and was surprised when they changed actors so soon.

<snip>
>> The Magisterium appears to be a projection of how the Church
>> of Rome would have been if not for Luther.

> I think a few of the boycotters have forgotten that the book
> is set in an alternative universe. An institution can be
> painted in a horrible light if an author is - gasp! - making
> it all up. <g>

<G> Or even if they aren't, but one ofthe key points of HDM is parallel 
worlds, though that might mean I'm expecting them to read the books before 
complaining.
I really should learn to lower my expectations.

<snip>
>> The number of comments I've seen that suggest the film might
>> tempt parents into buying the books for children and that
>> being the big threat.
>
> Yep. Astonishing, isn't it? Makes me wonder how people view
> books these days.

They obviously are regarded as being able to make people think and have the 
ability to sew seeds of doubt/inspiration etc.
Powerful things - non ofwhich I'd disagree with, but I see it as something 
to celebrate.

>> Children reading and asking questions could be pretty
>> threatening, just imagine, they might even think for
>> themselves as well.
>
> I know. How awful. Eek. etc.

:~)
<snip<
>> Or just how often the're seen, peacocks still have some of
>> that exotica mystery around them, whereas the reality is
>> the're too bloody noisy to be put up with if you've got
>> neighbours, so they never made it to allotments and
>> smallholdings.
>
> Heh. Yeah well. Pretty feathers etc. I don't fancy plucking a
> peacock for the table, although I suppose once the tail is
> out of the way the rest would be the same as a hen?

At least the tail feathers are easy to get a hold of and pull. Though I 
suspect they'd lose their charm as decorative items if you've plucked a few.
Peahens are easier though ;~)

Jymn

In urp, Dicon  wrote in response to Jymn:
<snip>
>> Wonder if the same team will do Neverwhere?
>>
> It will probably moved to New York.

Arrrrggghhh
You've managed to completely put me off the idea.

> < sigh >
> It was a good scary story and kept me hooked until the end.

I enjoyed both the book and the BBC TV adaption.

Jymn

Jymn  wrote:

> I enjoyed both the book and the BBC TV adaption.

It was that way round, was it?

Having seen the TV first, I had assumed the novel came after. I somehow
felt it was very largely visual, and one of the few cases where the book
was inferior tothe TV (or movie, for other items).
-- 
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

On 2007-12-10, Daniel Cohen  wrote:

> Having seen the TV first, I had assumed [Neverwhere] the novel came
> after.

It did.  Neil Gaiman has an amusing story about the filming.  He
reconciled himself to being told scenes were being cut by saying "It's
OK.  I'll put it back in the book.".  Then one day he was told "We're
cutting this scene, and if you say 'I'll put it back in the book.'
I'll kill you.".  After that he only thought it.

Gaiman was not very happy with the TV version; he felt that the BBC
treated it as another Dr Who.

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty 
--
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned
my contempt.  He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for
him the spinal cord would suffice.
 -- Albert Einstein

[snip]
> <snip<
> >> Or just how often the're seen, peacocks still have some of
> >> that exotica mystery around them, whereas the reality is
> >> the're too bloody noisy to be put up with if you've got
> >> neighbours, so they never made it to allotments and
> >> smallholdings.
> >
> > Heh. Yeah well. Pretty feathers etc. I don't fancy plucking a
> > peacock for the table, although I suppose once the tail is
> > out of the way the rest would be the same as a hen?
>
> At least the tail feathers are easy to get a hold of and pull. Though I
> suspect they'd lose their charm as decorative items if you've plucked a
few.
> Peahens are easier though ;~)

The farm just up from my dad has (or had, been a while since I was up there)
peacocks. The neighbours complained not so much about noise as the sheer
quantity of peacock poo all over their lawns. Peacocks apparently poo rather
a lot. Well they are big birds I s'pose.

Jo

>
> Jymn
>
>

In urp, Daniel Cohen  wrote in response to Jymn:

>> I enjoyed both the book and the BBC TV adaption.
>
> It was that way round, was it?

I can't remember, I missed the original screening, though heard mention of 
it, I suspect I'd seen it on video before I read the book (which was the 
adaption)

> Having seen the TV first, I had assumed the novel came after.
> I somehow felt it was very largely visual, and one of the few
> cases where the book was inferior tothe TV (or movie, for
> other items).

Recently reread the book, and still enjoyed it, but haven't seen the series 
in a while.

Jymn

In urp, Jo B  wrote in response to Jymn:
<snip<
>>>> Or just how often the're seen, peacocks still have some of
>>>> that exotica mystery around them, whereas the reality is
>>>> the're too bloody noisy to be put up with if you've got
>>>> neighbours, so they never made it to allotments and
>>>> smallholdings.
<snip>
> The farm just up from my dad has (or had, been a while since
> I was up there) peacocks. The neighbours complained not so
> much about noise as the sheer quantity of peacock poo all
> over their lawns. Peacocks apparently poo rather a lot. Well
> they are big birds I s'pose.

Stayed at a couple of places that had large flocks of the dratted things. 
Isupose you could get used to the noise eventually, the poo is fairly 
prestigous, but I didn't have to put up with that in any close manner, 
whereas the noise woke me at first light and kept going till after dark.

Jymn

On 2007-12-06, Halla  wrote:

>  - it  wasn't clearly  explained but the  rift Asriel  opened didn't
> appear to  share all the properties  of the windows  the knife could
> cut.  For one  thing, it  appeared to  open gaps  into  many worlds,
> judging  by the fact  that Lyra  ended up  in Cittigazze  and Asriel
> didn't.

I've completely forgotten what happened to Asriel between disappearing
into  the Northern  Lights and  reappearing  to take  on Metatron.   I
really must reread.

>>That struck me as a fudge due more clumsy plotting.  "Can't we leave
>>a window  open for  us to  meet?"  "No, we  *must* close  them all."
>>"What, even  the one we just  opened for the dead."   "OK, maybe not
>>*that* one."  "Tiggers like everything *except* honey."
>
> I'm not  sure I agree  - after rereading  I'd say this was  a fairly
> major plot point, not a  fudge. Lyra and Will could have (selfishly)
> chosen to leave  a window open between their  worlds, and could have
> spent their lives together. Instead they kept their promise and left
> the window open from the world of the dead, 

Sure, but  my beef  is that in  order for  these major plot  points to
happen Pullman  has to arbitrarily declare  that one window  is OK but
the rest are  not.  He's pulling rabbits out of  hats (or Spectres out
of windows?)  to  manhandle the plot where he wants  it to go.  That's
clumsy,  particularly  compared  to  how  smoothly  plotted  _Northern
Lights_ was.

> Heh. That whole scene has a sort of 'let's pan away to the cosy open
> fire' effect, 

Indeed!  I couldn't tell if they actually lost their virginity or not,
and I was  never sure whether Pullman had  deliberately left it unsaid
or if he had said it so coyly that I missed it.

> Dust is  attracted to conscious  beings; their experiences  had made
> them unusually conscious, and then  they tipped over into that phase
> of young adulthood which allowed the Dust to stick?

Maybe, though  I'm still having  a hard time  with the idea  that they
were  able  to heal  the  multiverse  with  nothing more  than  raised
consciousness.  I was *expecting* to  be told that they became special
because they  had travelled through  the place of  the Dead, but  if I
was, I didn't notice.

>>IIRC  Will becomes  delirious from  the wounds  he receives  when he
>>fights for the  Subtle Knife, and doesn't recover  until he's healed
>>with Bloodmoss at the end of  the book.  I couldn't see the point of
>>that, other than to stall the action while the others caught up.
>
> It didn't  really stall  the action though,  he kept going  with the
> wound.

IIRC he kept going but he  was too delirious to do anything proactive.
It prevented *him* from taking action.

> ... my  problem with it was more  that the boy must  have had twenty
> pints of  blood in his body to  begin with, seeing as  he was losing
> blood all the time.

I read it that he was  delirious from fever and the bloodmoss restored
him by  healing the  infection.  I agree  it's unlikely he  could have
survived serious blood loss for that long.

>>The  breaking and  reforging of  the  Subtle Knife  was similar,  it
>>looked like a cheap delaying tactic to keep things in sync.
>
> Hmm,  I saw that  as a  mettyfor. <g>  His concentration  broke, his
> heart  could have  broken  too, but  since  he was  focussed in  the
> knife...

OK, I'll keep that in mind when I reread.

> I've forgotten which subplot we  mean now. Mrs. Coulter finding her?

Hmm, the more we discuss this  the more I realise I've forgotten great
chunks of the second and third books, but the first remains very clear
in my  mind.  I feel  that I was  devouring every detail  of _Northern
Lights_, but later  on my mind was starting to wander  and I was often
twiddling my thumbs and thinking "why is this happening?", "why are we
getting a lesson  in alien biology when there's a  war on?"  etc.  And
then I'd wonder whether I'd missed something important.

> In Lyra's world it seems to be  one of those rites of passage - 'now
> you are a man, my son, for your daemon has stuck' and all that. Plus
> of course the fact that the daemons change so much before puberty is
> a bit of a signal that the children change a lot too. :-)

Maybe  it's  a metaphor  for  having  to  make choices;  children  are
mercurial but adults have to be stable, which means committing to some
options and abandoning others.

>>> Got tickets booked for the film, too. <gleeful bounce>
>>
>>And Pullman says he likes it, which is a good omen.
>
> I've suddenly lost all trust in his sense of judgement then. <g>

Well, I've since  seen it and enjoyed it, so I  guess you'd better not
trust my judgement either.  :-)

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty 
--
Music stands at  the door and knocks. One day we  hear it faintly, but
by the time we  get through all the junk on our  floor, it is gone. So
we clean up the  mess. Next time, we answer the door  and meet it, but
the house  has such  a stench that  it goes  away. Finally we  set our
house in  order, because we just couldn't  bear for it to  go away and
not return. 
 -- Robert Fripp

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:57:13 -0600, Jeremy Henty
 blethered:

>On 2007-12-06, Halla  wrote:
>
>>  - it  wasn't clearly  explained but the  rift Asriel  opened didn't
>> appear to  share all the properties  of the windows  the knife could
>> cut.  For one  thing, it  appeared to  open gaps  into  many worlds,
>> judging  by the fact  that Lyra  ended up  in Cittigazze  and Asriel
>> didn't.
>
>I've completely forgotten what happened to Asriel between disappearing
>into  the Northern  Lights and  reappearing  to take  on Metatron.   I
>really must reread.
>

Um... he built an army. <:-/ He was sort of filed until needed again,
I believe. His last scene is still quite powerful to me, but I never
quite believed Mrs. Coulter's motivation. Perhaps her lying, scheming
self was too well characterised in the first book.  

>>>That struck me as a fudge due more clumsy plotting.  "Can't we leave
>>>a window  open for  us to  meet?"  "No, we  *must* close  them all."
>>>"What, even  the one we just  opened for the dead."   "OK, maybe not
>>>*that* one."  "Tiggers like everything *except* honey."
>>
>> I'm not  sure I agree  - after rereading  I'd say this was  a fairly
>> major plot point, not a  fudge. Lyra and Will could have (selfishly)
>> chosen to leave  a window open between their  worlds, and could have
>> spent their lives together. Instead they kept their promise and left
>> the window open from the world of the dead, 
>
>Sure, but  my beef  is that in  order for  these major plot  points to
>happen Pullman  has to arbitrarily declare  that one window  is OK but
>the rest are  not.  

Hmm, he did back it up with some reasoning, in that it was a risk to
leave one window open but if they lived life well they could generate
enough Dust to compensate for that one window, but no more. I think
they could have had two windows open, to be honest, but perhaps that
was more his comment on the nature of humans everywhere than on how
wonderful his characters are. Plus they couldn't open any more windows
because every one made allowed spectres into the world. 

>He's pulling rabbits out of  hats (or Spectres out
>of windows?)  

Quite. <g>

>to  manhandle the plot where he wants  it to go.  That's
>clumsy,  particularly  compared  to  how  smoothly  plotted  _Northern
>Lights_ was.

Slightly, yes, I see what you mean. But compared to, say, Hardy it's a
barely noticeable correction to the narrative path. <g>

>
>> Heh. That whole scene has a sort of 'let's pan away to the cosy open
>> fire' effect, 
>
>Indeed!  I couldn't tell if they actually lost their virginity or not,
>and I was  never sure whether Pullman had  deliberately left it unsaid
>or if he had said it so coyly that I missed it.

I really don't think he said it coyly. It was sort of left ambiguous.
As far as I can see, anyway. To me it was more about the change in
consciousness and in their relationship than any particular physical
act. 

>
>> Dust is  attracted to conscious  beings; their experiences  had made
>> them unusually conscious, and then  they tipped over into that phase
>> of young adulthood which allowed the Dust to stick?
>
>Maybe, though  I'm still having  a hard time  with the idea  that they
>were  able  to heal  the  multiverse  with  nothing more  than  raised
>consciousness.  

I think they stopped the spread of disease rather than fixed it. There
was still work to be done - the angels shutting all the windows, for
example. 

>I was *expecting* to  be told that they became special
>because they  had travelled through  the place of  the Dead, but  if I
>was, I didn't notice.

They did in a way, they split themselves off from their Daemons. What
that signifies in his universe (seeing as witches are the only other
group who can do so) I'm not sure. Perhaps he'll write soem more and
we'll see.

>
>>>IIRC  Will becomes  delirious from  the wounds  he receives  when he
>>>fights for the  Subtle Knife, and doesn't recover  until he's healed
>>>with Bloodmoss at the end of  the book.  I couldn't see the point of
>>>that, other than to stall the action while the others caught up.
>>
>> It didn't  really stall  the action though,  he kept going  with the
>> wound.
>
>IIRC he kept going but he  was too delirious to do anything proactive.
>It prevented *him* from taking action.

OK. Not sure I agree with that. Mostly they were moving, travelling,
and he'd decided on that course of action and kept to it. 

>
>> ... my  problem with it was more  that the boy must  have had twenty
>> pints of  blood in his body to  begin with, seeing as  he was losing
>> blood all the time.
>
>I read it that he was  delirious from fever and the bloodmoss restored
>him by  healing the  infection.  I agree  it's unlikely he  could have
>survived serious blood loss for that long.

That was a clunky bit. 

>
>>>The  breaking and  reforging of  the  Subtle Knife  was similar,  it
>>>looked like a cheap delaying tactic to keep things in sync.
>>
>> Hmm,  I saw that  as a  mettyfor. <g>  His concentration  broke, his
>> heart  could have  broken  too, but  since  he was  focussed in  the
>> knife...
>
>OK, I'll keep that in mind when I reread.

And also when he gets rid of the knife altogether (although - the
knife is held still in its sheath to avoid cutting it. How does he
manage to put bits of knife in the sheath without them falling
straight through? Does the blade lack the weight to cut through
absolutely everything as it can when it's whole?).

>
>> I've forgotten which subplot we  mean now. Mrs. Coulter finding her?
>
>Hmm, the more we discuss this  the more I realise I've forgotten great
>chunks of the second and third books, but the first remains very clear
>in my  mind.  

Same here. :-) The first is more memorable, for sure. 

>I feel  that I was  devouring every detail  of _Northern
>Lights_, but later  on my mind was starting to wander  and I was often
>twiddling my thumbs and thinking "why is this happening?", "why are we
>getting a lesson  in alien biology when there's a  war on?"  etc.  And
>then I'd wonder whether I'd missed something important.

Again, same here - as interesting as the world of the mulefa was it
was slightly 'OK, tiny birds, big insects - so what?'. I felt like I
was charging through to get to the action. I read really quite quickly
anyway, but it started to feel like I'd skimmed bits of the book.

>
>> In Lyra's world it seems to be  one of those rites of passage - 'now
>> you are a man, my son, for your daemon has stuck' and all that. Plus
>> of course the fact that the daemons change so much before puberty is
>> a bit of a signal that the children change a lot too. :-)
>
>Maybe  it's  a metaphor  for  having  to  make choices;  children  are
>mercurial but adults have to be stable, which means committing to some
>options and abandoning others.

Could well be. There's that discussion about people being unhappy with
what their daemon has settled for, and the people whose daemons turn
into dolphins or something. Does that signify conflict in the people?
Are they always unhappy? Don't they know themselves even slightly?

>
>>>> Got tickets booked for the film, too. <gleeful bounce>
>>>
>>>And Pullman says he likes it, which is a good omen.
>>
>> I've suddenly lost all trust in his sense of judgement then. <g>
>
>Well, I've since  seen it and enjoyed it, so I  guess you'd better not
>trust my judgement either.  :-)
>

Heh. :-) I'm an excessively picky person about those sorts of things
though. I felt it was OK, but slightly out of order, and they could
have just put the members of the Magisterium in black cowboy outfits,
so subtle were they that Here Be Bad Guys. <g> For me it lost some of
the sense of Lyra being caught up in wider, adult events and growing
up as she went and moved into 'Here's a kiddy adventure story!'


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

On 2007-12-16, Halla  wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:57:13 -0600, Jeremy Henty
> blethered:
>
>>I was *expecting*  to be told that they  became special because they
>>had travelled through the place of  the Dead, but if I was, I didn't
>>notice.
>
> They did in a way, they split themselves off from their Daemons. 

I wondered if that was it, but it was never made clear.

> I'm not sure. Perhaps he'll write soem more and we'll see.

There's another  Lyra story in  the works, set  10 or so  years later.
And a Iorek Byrnison / Lee Scoresby prequel.

> (although - the  knife is held still in its  sheath to avoid cutting
> it. How  does he manage to put  bits of knife in  the sheath without
> them falling straight through? Does the blade lack the weight to cut
> through absolutely everything as it can when it's whole?).

That puzzled me too.  I think it's a plot hole, plain and simple.

> Could well  be. There's that  discussion about people  being unhappy
> with what their daemon has settled for, and the people whose daemons
> turn into dolphins  or something. Does that signify  conflict in the
> people?  Are  they always unhappy?  Don't they know  themselves even
> slightly?

And what  of the  minority who's  daemon is the  same gender  as them?
It's mentioned once and that's all.

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:02:00 GMT, Jeremy Henty wrote:

>> Could well  be. There's that  discussion about people  being
>> unhappy with what their daemon has settled for, and the people
>> whose daemons turn into dolphins  or something. Does that signify
>>  conflict in the people?  Are  they always unhappy?  Don't they
>> know  themselves even slightly?
> 
> And what  of the  minority who's  daemon is the  same gender  as
> them? It's mentioned once and that's all.
> 

Probably gay - at least that's what I assumed.

-- 
http://www.rexx.co.uk
To email me, visit the site.

http://www.rexx.co.uk/runes/ - personal online rune readings

On 2008-01-08, Rexx Magnus  wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:02:00 GMT, Jeremy Henty wrote:
>> And what of  the minority who's daemon is the  same gender as them?
>> It's mentioned once and that's all.
>
> Probably gay - at least that's what I assumed.

I suspected that  too.  I just think that it's  wierd that such people
are mentioned exactly once and nothing else is said about them.  We're
not even  given a  name or nickname  for them,  which is odd  when you
think how keen Pullman is to show off invented nouns for other things.
It reads  like an idea  that seemed good  at the time, didn't  come to
anything and was left in out of laziness or oversight.

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty

Sooooo... I've been looking through my outbox... <sheepish grin>


On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:21:28 -0000, "Jymn" 
blethered:

>In urp, Halla  wrote in response to Jymn:
><snip>
>>> Don't think I've seen him in anything major other than Tomb
>>> Raider, but going off a couple of interviews and some clips
>>> I might even be tempted to watch him as Bond.
>>>
>>
>> I say this as a friend - watch him as Bond. 8-) General
>> consensus from those polled so far is 'phwoar' (or 'wow' if
>> the viewer concerned happens to be immune to his charms).
>
>I'm following your advice, Casino Royale obtained and will be watched later 
>or tomorrow.
>

Enjoy. :-) (did you?)

>> He
>> is quite a good Bond, although I was stomping about whinging
>> about their choice of actor for months before the film came
>> out.
>
>I watched one of the Brosnan's and enjoyed it, (Bond tends not to be high on 
>my priorities) and was surprised when they changed actors so soon.

I was astonished that they changed styles and all sorts. Worked
though, as far as I'm concerned.

>
><snip>
>>> The Magisterium appears to be a projection of how the Church
>>> of Rome would have been if not for Luther.
>
>> I think a few of the boycotters have forgotten that the book
>> is set in an alternative universe. An institution can be
>> painted in a horrible light if an author is - gasp! - making
>> it all up. <g>
>
><G> Or even if they aren't, but one ofthe key points of HDM is parallel 
>worlds, though that might mean I'm expecting them to read the books before 
>complaining.

Ohbut they're really big books... <g>

>I really should learn to lower my expectations.

Let's just drag everyone else up, kicking and screaming if necessary.
;-)

>
><snip>
>>> The number of comments I've seen that suggest the film might
>>> tempt parents into buying the books for children and that
>>> being the big threat.
>>
>> Yep. Astonishing, isn't it? Makes me wonder how people view
>> books these days.
>
>They obviously are regarded as being able to make people think and have the 
>ability to sew seeds of doubt/inspiration etc.
>Powerful things - non ofwhich I'd disagree with, but I see it as something 
>to celebrate.

Well yeah, except an attitude of distant reverence or mistrust doesn't
actually *help* as such - the sods have got the *read* the things
before the ideas magically leap into their skulls. <g>

>
>>> Children reading and asking questions could be pretty
>>> threatening, just imagine, they might even think for
>>> themselves as well.
>>
>> I know. How awful. Eek. etc.
>
>:~)
><snip<
>>> Or just how often the're seen, peacocks still have some of
>>> that exotica mystery around them, whereas the reality is
>>> the're too bloody noisy to be put up with if you've got
>>> neighbours, so they never made it to allotments and
>>> smallholdings.
>>
>> Heh. Yeah well. Pretty feathers etc. I don't fancy plucking a
>> peacock for the table, although I suppose once the tail is
>> out of the way the rest would be the same as a hen?
>
>At least the tail feathers are easy to get a hold of and pull. Though I 
>suspect they'd lose their charm as decorative items if you've plucked a few.
>Peahens are easier though ;~)

Were peacocks not served with their tails fanned out behind them
anyway? 


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin