His Dark Materials (BBC serial)

[Ursa major]

Where are the Lion or Bison daemons?

And where are the T Rex daemons?

"You can't let your daemon be a T Rex, Lyra. It'll be far too dangerous."

"But it'll be mostly 'armless...."

 

[HareBrain]

All those guard's dog daemons which look identical are a bit odd, but I guess you could explain that away by saying it's a family profession or something.

I can see they might recruit people with dog daemons as guards, as they might expect them to be fierce and loyal -- but yeah, to specify a particular kind of dog seems a bit like an obsession with uniforms. Maybe they look good marching together through Red Square or equivalent.

 

[CupofJoe]

I can see they might recruit people with dog daemons as guards, as they might expect them to be fierce and loyal -- but yeah, to specify a particular kind of dog seems a bit like an obsession with uniforms. Maybe they look good marching together through Red Square or equivalent.

Or there an indoctrination process for children of the Magestrium [I'm thinking Hitler Youth, the Young Pioneers or Khmer Rouge] that can mould the daemon to take such a specific form?

 

[Dave]

There is another problem with not seeing the Daemons. It is highly unusual (if not impossible) for an adult to be apart from their Daemon. Lyra saw that Mrs Coulter was in a different room from her Daemon, was shocked, and couldn't understand it. Not only has the TV series failed to make that point very clear, but the absence of Daemons on screen makes it appear quite normal.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Not only has the TV series failed to make that point very clear, but the absence of Daemons on screen makes it appear quite normal.

Agreed. I hope they fix this by the next episode or the one after.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I'm not really sure Pullman thought his system through.

I seem to remember an early interview where he mentioned writing in the daemon to give Lyra somebody to speak with during the opening scenes, which, otherwise, could get a bit dull and prose-y. In the tv documentary he describes how he wrote the sentence first, about Lyra "and her daemon," without knowing what it was, then went on from there.

 

[ctg]

So, what prevents daemons from reproducing? Do you need to use mystical dust for it? I quite cannot understand how humans can reproduce but the animal daemons can't.

 

[-K2-]

They gave me a gerbil daemon... I mean, c'mon, what am I supposed to do with that?...

In any case, I've tried watching the show, yet I'm so out of touch with all of it, including the GC, that I just can't get into it. Did this series start where you needed some preliminary info, or am I just that dense? Don't answer that...

K2

 

[Mouse]

So, what prevents daemons from reproducing? Do you need to use mystical dust for it? I quite cannot understand how humans can reproduce but the animal daemons can't.

They're not really animals, they have no need to reproduce.

What I don't get, is how they're 'born'. I mean, do they pop out along with the human babies? And who names them?

 

[tinkerdan]

I've had the trilogy of novels sitting around the house; never read until now.
Saw pieces of the movie mostly near the end.
So really coming at this mostly not too dirtied up with expectations.
Watched the first four episodes available before deciding to read the book.

I think that the daemons and their counterparts are made clear enough. Both the notion of separation anxiety and necessity to always be close come through clearly and the idea that witches somehow are allowed to have greater distance from their daemons. The notion that everyone has a daemon is clear and that anyone without a daemon would be considered an abomination. Also the dust and how it is possibly affecting adults and basically those who have reached maturity and onward seems quite clear. What might not be as clear is the prohibition against touching other's daemons(because of the scene with the destruction of the journalists butterfly daemon). In the book it seems as though it is inculcated early in life that this is something you simply don't do. Also what seemed to be missing that was in the book was the comparison of Iorek's armor to their daemons and calling it a second soul-possibly indicating that the daemon is like a person's second soul or maybe even like the soul they wear on their shoulder so to speak.

The bigger problems I see are where they took license to change events.
There are changes in how Lyra learns who her father and mother are and from whom she hears those and omission of other pertinent details that show up in the book. More so there are some changes, such as her confrontation with Iorek when he goes berserk in the village. The change here was enough to diminish the strength of Lyra in this scene(when compared to the book). I think that it is likely things like this that are going to hurt the overall impact of the story rather than a perception that there aren't enough daemons in scenes.

Also the inclusion of people already traveling to alternate worlds diminishes the strength of the ending of the first novel and Lyra's decision. All of this is predicated on the horror that is perceived by her father stepping through to the other world. [This is before the reader finds out later that there might be others already doing this]. It diminishes much of the Novels ending and it will be interesting to see what they do in that respect in this series.

I'm just finished with novel 1 and will continue now that I got started.

So, if anything, watching this has gotten me to finally read the novels.

 

[Dave]

I quite cannot understand how humans can reproduce but the animal daemons can't.

Like @tinkerdan said, I think the daemons have been at least as adequately explained as in the books. The are physical manifestations of the human soul. If you lose one you become a ghost of yourself, and only a witch can be apart from it. The experiments cutting away daemons from children are therefore an abomination.

The bigger problems I see are where they took license to change events.

I think you may be correct but it is too long ago since I read the books.

Also the inclusion of people already traveling to alternate worlds... before the reader finds out later that there might be others already doing this...

I see now why I was confused over the Will Parry parts, because these didn't happen until the second book. I do remember that the second book seemed a little slow, so I think that adding this in earlier will help to up the pace when the series gets to that point, but it does diminish the surprises. It also means there is a lot to take in, a lot of info-dumping and I'm not surprised that people aren't easily following this.

 

[ctg]

The experiments cutting away daemons from children are therefore an abomination.

In their words, abomination, but in my mind I would have tried to save them with another daemon. But I also though that if they are animals, then what is stopping them from having a quick one with their species, since that is allowed to humans. In scientific terms the genetics between animals and us is so small, but when you add a daemon (another soul) and tie it to the character, the whole thing turns to an intriguing challenge. I'm sure that in their world, they would have had a few mad scientists, who have ran experiments.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

What I don't get, is how they're 'born'. I mean, do they pop out along with the human babies? And who names them?

Exactly the same could be said of the imaginary concept of the soul, or spirit.
Which, perhaps, was one of Pullman's points.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I much enjoyed last night's episode, which retains the very high standard.
I'm impressed with how the Will story is being woven in - terrific stuff. Both actors there extremely good.
Pullman wrote TSK in the 1990s when young carers wasn't such an issue in public circles (it was in private lives, of course). I think that shows some of his insight.
Bolvangar looks hideous. Next Sunday's episode is going to be grim.

 

[HareBrain]

Exactly the same could be said of the imaginary concept of the soul, or spirit.

A daemon is physical and visible, but hasn't always existed, so at some point its coming into existence must be observable. I think Mouse's question (apart from the naming bit) is what would that observer see? But Pullman doesn't tell us, as far as I remember (probably wisely).

 

[tinkerdan]

Pullman's story of the bible includes a man and his daemon and a woman and her daemon in 'paradise'. So it is a part of the creation story as though the two are created together. I get the impression that there are only one human and one daemon and no extras of either hanging around, so not sure where one would get extra daemons to replace lost ones. The relationship between them is more than just a limb such as a hand, arm, foot, or leg; it is more like a vital organ that you can't live without. Except that it's reciprocal in that the death of either should end the other.

That's the impression I have from reading.

However the fact that they are not to touch anothers daemon makes me wonder if there is a chance for cross contamination. I've only read book one so far, so there there might be more about this.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

A daemon is physical and visible, but hasn't always existed, so at some point its coming into existence must be observable. I think Mouse's question (apart from the naming bit) is what would that observer see? But Pullman doesn't tell us, as far as I remember (probably wisely).

No, I don't think he does.
He confesses that when he wrote the word first he had no idea what it was.
As an atheist, I remain wryly amused by this...

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I think all authors can sometimes overlook the consequences of their inventions. I'm not saying PP necessarily did this, but, reading the comments above, loads of points have been raised that I never thought of when I last read the books.
In my novel Muezzinland I had to "retro-fit" some of the aspects of the aether so it would work with human brains, i.e. consequences occurred to me at the end that I had completely missed at the beginning.

 

[tinkerdan]

Well, regardless of what or how....

A daemon is physical and visible, but hasn't always existed, so at some point its coming into existence must be observable. I think Mouse's question (apart from the naming bit) is what would that observer see? But Pullman doesn't tell us, as far as I remember (probably wisely).

They seem to start more as shape-shifters rather than animals. Taking all kinds of shapes heedless of any concern over conservation of mass. Until one day at the human's age of majority or some such they are frozen. Reminding me of my mother and her favorite saying 'Watch your face and those expressions, some day it will freeze like that.' And poof one day, 'damn a Sloth...what was I thinking.'

There certainly are a number of things we could pick at.

 

[Dave]

I never had the problems with daemons when reading the books that some people here have expressed at watching them on the small screen. For a start, I never saw them as animals because they were not animals, only "represented" by animals. I never had to wonder why I couldn't "see" everyone's daemon all of the time. The physical pain being separated from your daemon was described in detail. I think these are all problems with the adaptation from book to screen, but I can't actually tell you how that could have been avoided.