#hyperchorasmians

[hyperpotamianarch]

Well, I'm reading the Secret Commonwealth, I have some thoughts, and am unlikely to get to talk to anyone who has read it in the near future, so I'm going to dump my thoughts here! We'll see where it goes.

I'm currently at the middle of chapter 6. To start with, this book is very clear that our current focus is on special roses that come from the Levant. By which I mean, for the duration of the second chapter (I think?) literally everything ties back into those roses. I suppose the Gobblers had a similar role in Northern Lights/the Golden Compass? I don't know.

The book also seems to start to play out as a mystery/detective story, but I guess I'll have to wait and see where that leads.

More tidbits I might want to make include... well... people who've followed my HDM related posts know I'm trying to work on Judaism in Lyra's world. I already knew this book has to do with the Ottoman Empire, so I suppose it could showcase some things about Islam in this world. This would be a step towards seeing how strong is the Magisterium worldwide. There seem to be implications they burned rose gardens because of a connection discovered between those roses and Dust, so it's clear their long arm can reach into the Ottoman Empire. That is interesting, as I'd expect the Ottomans to be against outside influence in their land. Coverup stories or no, something is suspicious and the Ottomans probably also have income from the export of roses. I mean, if those roses can only grow in lands under their control... I would expect them to protect their interests better. If they can't... That has bad implications all around.

Also, Miriam is a Jewish name which appears at the beginning. I don't know how common it is among non Jews, I kind of assumed Maria was the more popular version, so it makes me just a tiny bit interested in that character - though with the way colleges work in Lyra's world, I'm not sure she could practice any religion that isn't Christianity.

Also on the front of Judaism in Lyra's world but a lot more distant, this world probably doesn't have a Sigmund Freud. The connection is that Freud was Jewish (though relatively assimilationist). The reason I think he didn't exist here is that therapy seems to not exist here, and I believe Freud's field of Psychoanalysis is what led to that existing? Also, if Freud existed I highly doubt this "The Hyperchorasmians" book would've survived without any Freudian interpretations of things. I might be extrapolating too much on that field, let's give this book a separate paragraph.

To be clear, I'm team Pan regarding this book, though my reasoning might defer from his. "It was nothing more than what it was" is a completely rubbish statement on events in a fictional novel. Everything can go through literary analysis and be found to have metaphors. I find it odd that I'm saying that because I'm not too fond of literary analysis, but saying there is no symbolism in your book is... a rather odd statement. But in universe, Pan's complaints about the different books can easily seem as him being a crybaby over people who deny the existence of dæmons. It does seem as if this book is going to explore what dæmons are more deeply, or so I'm assuming.

I do have a half-hearted theory regarding what the Hyperchorasmians was intended to represent. Thing is, I've seen HDM described as a book about teenagers killing God, and it's supposedly written as an antithesis to Narnia while being just as preachy in a different direction. Equivalents could be drawn. Obviously, the core problem Pan has with this book is something HDM can't really be blamed for... I'm having some trouble articulating my point exactly, we'll see how things go either way.

The desert - Karamakan - is interesting. It's portrayed as similar to the Land of the Dead or the place in the north the witches use for their practice of separation, but Dr. Strauss's dæmon managed to get there - and it seems that the only way to get into the building is with one's dæmon? So I don't know what's going on. This is another thing to be seen.

Also, Malcolm from La Belle Sauvage is a scholar now. I don't really remember much from this book, and I'm not sure what's going to be relevant? Bonneville is dead, I think, and likely irrelevant. There's the odd faerie woman from the flood, which... I don't know what she has to do with anything. I'm not sure what anything has to do with anything from this book. Again, I suppose we'll see.

That would be it for now.

[lordeasriel]

TSC Analysis: Talbot vs Brande

Or “Why philosophy is so powerful in a world filled with fear and ignorance?”

I have been meaning to write this piece for a long, long time; both concepts are among the things I have enjoyed the most from TSC and the new dæmon lore. Brande is certainly my favourite aspect of them both, so know that this will be harsh on Talbot’s opinion in general, though I shall try my best to be as impartial as humanly possible.

Spoilers for The Secret Commonwealth and, just to be safe, anything prior to that book.

We start TSC and right at the beginning we get slapped in the face with Brande’s The Hyperchorasmians, followed closely by a very succinct description of Simon Talbot's The Constant Deceiver. These two books shape, not only Lyra’s early adulthood and her plights through the plot, but the lore of the world and they are responsible for a considerable intellectual shift in the youngest generation of scholars. They are responsible for the devastating presence of dreary philosophy as Lyra struggles with her melancholy, Delamare reshapes the Magisterium and Olivier Bonneville delves deeper into the mystery of the new method of reading the Alethiometer.

These three represent the core of the greater plot, and should (theoretically) be followed and concluded. But we are here today to question the haunting presence of these philosophies in a world that is facing enormous and intrinsic change.

What made me decide to finally write this was a moment in TSC when Pan is talking to Sebastian Makepeace, and they are discussing Brande.

“If he’s a philosopher, why did he write a novel? Does he think the novel is a good form for philosophy?”

“He’s written various other books, but this is the only one he’s famous for. We haven’t—Lyra hasn’t read any of the others.” (TSC, ch. 10)

Makepeace has a good point. Why choose the novel as the medium for his philosophy? Is it really the best way to pass on your thoughts? Pan’s answer is equally interesting: The Hyperchorasmians are the most popular book of Brande's, but there were others he didn't know about. We see, when Pan is with Brande, that he is dictating his new work and his speech sounds very technical instead of literary prose. So why did he choose to use a novel?

Who is Brande and what do we know about him? He is a philosopher of some renown, his work is popular among the youth, his main ideia is that nothing is more than what it is. The Hyperchorasmians are not fully described but we see the main ideia of the book, which is a young man setting off to kill God, an action he does out of reason.

It told the story of a young man who set out to kill God, and succeeded. But the unusual thing about it, the quality that had set it apart from anything else Lyra had ever read, was that in the world Brande described, human beings had no dæmons. They were totally alone.

(...) At the end of the novel, as the hero looked out from the mountains at a sunrise, which in the hands of another writer might have represented the dawn of a new age of enlightenment, free of superstition and darkness, the narrator turned away from commonplace symbolism of that kind with scorn. The final sentence read, “It was nothing more than what it was.” (TSC, ch 6)

Artistic characters are written as useless and reason is exalted, the ending being the main character successful in his task, defeating God and watching the sunset, knowing that no hidden meaning existed anymore, that nothing was more than what it was. More importantly - and in truth, perhaps the most important thing - is that the story has no daemons. It's not a world with missing daemons, but a world where having no daemon is the innate Truth.

You've read TSC, you know where this is going.

How ironic that a man whose daemon is not his own, a man who probably was abandoned by his daemon, should write a story about a world where people have no daemons!

While we don't understand how he lost his daemon, it's easy to think that the abandonment was a blow to him. He struggles with the Fake Cosima, he is haunted and in suffering, Pan's compassion signals that quite clearly. And I think this is where the reason behind The Hyperchorasmians being a novel lies; it's an idealised vision, an idea of a universe where Brande can belong to. The people in his world “were totally alone”, just like Brande, but unlike him, they were in their natural state and content.

Talbot's work, on the other hand, is more tangible in the real world and has greater influence because it's not seen only as enjoyment literature, but an active form of study.While Brande creates a world devoid of daemons - a concept that it’s virtually inconceivable realistically for people in Lyra’s world - Talbot takes advantage of the existence of daemons and twists and creates a different understanding around them.

This is where Brande and Talbot diverge.

You see, Brande's popular novel is certainly a powerful way to create a movement, and it has affected a great deal of people because of its choice to be written in novel form. Novels are more commonly read than academic theses, anyway. That aspect allows Brande to reach a greater number of people, but it forces his work to be scrutinised by the academic community, who prefers a much more solid (and somewhat elitist) approach. His work is also very arid, even if it's quite powerful (he is a man of strong convictions), which makes it a hard read, given it's a 900-page manifesto on why reason and logic supersede anything else. Which is bullshit, but the man is in denial.

Talbot's work is meticulous, charismatic; unlike Brande, who shuns his creative or intuitive side as a whole, Talbot is a sort of charlatan. He half-lives his Truth, bound by convention, by ambition, by a desire to belong just as much. His book is rooted in scientific jargon, but in a way that is approachable, even reasonable. He is often described as a clever and charismatic man; ultimately, he is a hypocrite, but that doesn't change the fact The Constant Deceiver has a great and powerful impact on society at that crucial moment.

His book is a scientific article on the nature of daemons, but not just that. Talbot's main belief is that nothing means anything and that society is entirely made out of pre-conceptions, including the most ingrained things, such as daemons. Therefore, since everything is imagined or just a delusion, nothing has any meaning at all and so, actions have no consequences.

From what we see or hear of Talbot, however, it's clear he is not as feverish about his beliefs. Nowhere near as much as Brande seems to be. Not only does he seem to function appropriately with his daemon, but he is very much aware that actions do have consequences; he sees that very clearly when he talks to Marcel about Malcolm's presence in Geneva and he fails to deliver accurate information because he is biased towards Mal’s simple manners.

Capes and Godwin’s daemon also say that, if Talbot meant his philosophy, he shouldn’t have anything to do with the Magisterium because they wouldn’t have common ground. Which is quite shown when we learn that, not only he is involved with the Magisterium, he does specific and quite illegal schemes for Marcel. which i would also do frankly but u know, not the point at all

“Do we know of any connection between him and Geneva?” asked Malcolm.

“No,” said the whisper of Godwin’s dæmon. “There could hardly be any common ground, if he means what he says.”

“I think the point is that he says nothing means anything very much,” said Capes. “It might be quite easy for him to play at supporting the Magisterium. I’m not sure they’d trust him, though.” (TSC, ch 13)

The book - through Narrative, through Pan, through Lyra sometimes - tries to tell us that Brande and Talbot are two sides of the same coin. And while I think they do share some common ground, I wholeheartedly disagree that they represent the same thing.

Here's the thing: both men use reason to unravel their theories.

Talbot is meticulous, charming, explaining every detail that needs explaining, answering all the questions that need answering in order to prove his point. He has acquired a following because his scientific thesis vibes make him quite popular and together with his bonhomie nature, he has a considerable reach. He is said to be a sterling lecturer, he has the character traits to succeed publicly and socially. Mild, witty, a “flashy writer”.

Brande, on the other hand, is less concerned about his reach and following. His novel is, despite its fictional nature, a depiction of a place that features things from his reality. When we take the themes of TSC into consideration, we can see that he is a man trying to assimilate Truth, not develop it. By writing The Hyperchorasmians, Brande speaks of a world where people like him can fit in, without shame, without being treated like second-rate citizens in a society bound by superstition.

So much of daemon lore is superstition, created and developed by society as it evolved. In LBS, Malcolm thinks that the touching taboo was perhaps learned not innate. He is, perhaps, correct; in a world shaped by the Magisterium, how much of daemon conduct wouldn't be dictated by religious bias?

So, how do the three main plots connect with these philosophers? How do they affect the world around them?

Well, Lyra is the most obvious one. She represents our understanding of Talbot and Brande, their ideas shaping her relationship with Pan and the world. She has become narrow-minded, following reason too closely, incapable of projecting another view on subjects because she shuts down the things around her that bring memories of a life she should let go of.

On the other hand, because Lyra is so blindsided most of the time, she can't really see The Hyperchorasmians or The Constant Deceiver for the potential they bring to her world. The more I read TSC, the more I realise how much Pan and Lyra would benefit from independence from each other. Much of their misery comes from the preconception that they should love each other, that they should share each other’s views, that they should be happy together. These Truths about daemons create a schism in her world, it's why so many people exist that have lost their daemons.

As opposed to Lyra, who clings to reason in order to survive her melancholy, Olivier escapes these novels’ ideas. Instead of bowing to their shallow principles of reason and logic and dryness, he finds his way around the new method by experimentation, renewing his perception in order to master the new method. I think this is why Olivier is such a strong contrast against Lyra; you never even see him think about the philosophers, he is simply not interested. He cares only about improving his reading method, and about his Alethiometer.

And then we have Marcel, by far the most engaged with the philosophies, which is rather ironic, given who he is. He warrants a separate analysis because a lot of his character ties both scholars into his actions in TSC, but the main idea is that Marcel is a combination of Lyra and Olivier’s resolve. He is willing to experiment and try new perspectives to achieve his goals; he proposes heresy to his mother regarding the roses, he believes Truth is malleable - not only that, but he believes it is possible to shatter a previous concept of Truth and teach a new one.

Marcel, however, always acts through reason, but because he is not - so far - blinded by his ambition, by a lack of perception (which is how they talk about imagination), he is able to navigate the world more successfully and share the strongest points of both current philosophies.

He doesn’t shun the roses and the oil as mere superstition; he tries to reckon with it and that’s why he can do things so easily.

Do I have a point with all this? Maybe not, but I wanted to organised my thoughts and this is, well, close enough lol

[junawer]

The Book of Dust - The Secret Commonwealth

The Two Authors

Chapter 6

“The Hyperchorasmians, by a German philosopher called Gottfried Brande, was a novel that was having an extraordinary vogue among young people all over Europe and beyond. (…) It told the story of a young man who set out to kill God, and succeeded. But the unusual thing about it, the quality that had set it apart from anything else Lyra had ever read, was that in the world Brande described, human beings had no dæmons. They were utterly alone.”

“(…) Even his quest to find God and kill him was expressed in terms of the fiercest rationality: it was irrational that such a being should exist, and rational to do away with him. Of figurative language, of metaphor or simile, there was no trace. At the end of the novel, as the hero looked out from the mountains at a sunrise, which in the hands of another writer might have represented the dawn of a new age of enlightenment, free of superstition and darkness, the narrator turned away from commonplace symbolism of that kind with scorn. The final sentence read: ‘It was nothing more than what it was.’”

“That phrase was a sort of touchstone of progressive thinking among Lyra’s peers. It had become fashionable to disparage any sort of excessive emotional reaction, or any attempt to read other meanings into something that happened, or any argument that couldn’t be justified with logic: ‘It’s nothing more than it is.’ (…)”

“‘It’s the fault of that Talbot man too. He’s just as bad, in a cowardly sort of way.’”

“‘Talbot? Simon Talbot? Make your bloody mind up, Pan. There couldn’t be two more different thinkers. Complete opposites. According to Talbot there’s no truth at all. Brande -’”

“‘You didnt’t see that chapter in The Constant Deceiver? (…) The one where he pretends dæmons are merely - what is it? - psychological projections with no independent reality. That one. All argued very prettily, charming, elegant prose, witty, full of briliant paradoxes. You know the one I mean.’ (…)”

“Simon Talbot was an Oxford philosopher whose latest book was much discussed in the university. Whereas The Hypochorasmians was a popular success that was dismissed as tosh by critics, and read mainly by the young, The Constant Deceiver was a favourite among literary experts, who had praised its elegance of style and playful wit. Talbot was a radical sceptic, to whom truth and even reality were rainbow-like epiphenomena with no ultimate meaning. In the silvery charm of his prose, everything solid flowed and ran and broke apart like mercury spilled from a barometer.”

“‘No,’ said Pan. ‘They’re not different. Two sides of the same coin.’”

Chapter 9

“The narrative of The Hyperchorasmians treated with contempt the characters who were artistic, or who wrote poetry, or who spoke about ‘the spiritual’. Did Gottfried Brande mean that imagination itself was worthless? (…) As for Simon Talbot, in The Constant Deceiver his own imagination was on display throughout, in a kind of charming but heartless play with the truth. The effect was dazzling, dizzying, as if there were no responsibilities, no consequences, no facts.”

Chapter 18

“‘Plenty have been taken in. It’s a corrosive thing, his [Talbot’s] way of thinking. Even corrupting. A sort of universal irresponsibility.’”

[star-journey]

Haven't finished Book of Dust: The Secret Commonwealth yet but so far:

♡ I like the old secret magisterium danger shit, forces moving behind the scenes and stuff

♡ This new stuff with ideology, the books such as The Hyperchorasmians (absolutist rational thought) and The Constant Deceiver (faithlessness in the face of a constructed reality) is a whole new dimension of conflict and an expansion upon the wider theme of discovery that is part of this series' narrative pattern. I think the danger of ideology is under-explored in mainstream fiction and certainly not to this developed degree. I pity those author’s daemons, ignoring their own soul. As a small add on, recently discussed Weber’s ideas of rationalisation, how the protestant idea of transcendentalism, that God (or the authority R.I.P haha) is allowing the world to work to it’s own design, and so this allowed people to go “what is that design then?” instead of assuming “Oh it’s God.” Weber specifies that science doesn’t disagree with religion, but that it doesn’t leave space for it. Obviously this creates some delicious confusion as the religious organisation in this universe is out to get Lyra, but according to Pan religious belief (which allows for the presence of the Secret Commonwealth) is the way to make Lyra happy again. (criticism of the church.) Lyra’s beef with Pan is actually beef with herself. 

♡ I think making Lyra unhappy was smart, she's had this massive story of the original trilogy, and I think she's not recovered from that ending, it feels like she's been drifting. That’s horribly accessible. Another smart decision was stripping her of her connection to the Alethiometer as it is believable. Now she can have a journey (of restoration hopefully but again haven't finished yet so we’ll see.)

♡ I mean, i haven’t finished it yet so it’ll be fun to look back on this and see how much is BS but I love this universe so much. The entire part of La Belle Sauvage with the flood had no rational thought whatsoever and i loved it, my most memorable part of any book ever, both of the volumes of the book of dust so far have got me out of a reading slump as well, bless them.

♡  The people who have finished the book that I've talked have said it had a strong ending so, oof. I wonder if Lyra being symbolic of Eve from the original trilogy has anything to do with it, i hope so. I hope Pullman hasn’t got so many elements of symbolism running he can’t arrange them all. 

Anyway if anything i say sounds stupid then sorry, this isn’t planned out nor checked. Weird brain dump over. I know I use too many commas.

[robotlit]

“The Hyperchorasmians”

A short story generated in AI Dungeon 2, inspired by a fictional book in Philip Pullman’s novel The Secret Commonwealth. [PROMPT: You are a young man beset on all sides by superstition and stupidity. Its source is obvious: God. It is irrational that such a being should exist, and rational to do away with him. The only rational solution is equally incontrovertible: you must find and kill God.] And so it was that you were born into this world. You have no memories of your past life save for the briefest flashes of memory when you are in danger or under stress. Your mind has been completely wiped clean, but as you grow older, your memories begin to return.

The first thing you remember is waking up in an empty room. You look around and see nothing but darkness. Then you hear a voice calling out to you from behind a nearby wall: "Welcome back, my little shadow."

You turn around and see a tall, thin figure standing before you. He wears a long robe which covers his entire body except for his hands and feet. His face is covered by a large black hat which partially obscures his eyes, making them appear red instead of their normal blue.

He holds a staff in one hand and a book in the other. As he approaches, you notice that his robes are made entirely of cloth rather than fabric. They seem to be woven from some sort of dark green plant-like material.

He looks at you and smiles. "Ah, you're awake! I'm glad to see you too," he says.

"I've been waiting for you to wake up. We both know who's really in charge here; we just need to talk things over."

"Who are you?" you ask.

"My name isn't important," he replies. "What is important is what I want from you."

"And what would that be?"

"Well, I don't think either of us wants to fight right now. So let's start off slow." He takes a step towards you and begins to walk slowly forward.

(Consider whether it is rational to fight the man)

You decide against fighting. If you continue to argue, you will lose anyway. Perhaps if you run away, however...

"So what did you want to discuss?" he asks.

"We can get right down to it," you reply.

"Very well then. What exactly do you wish to discuss?"

"I want to know why you've been tormenting me. (I want to understand a rational reason for your existence. If you are in fact God, and if such a thing exists.)"

"That's not necessary, my friend. I am no god. In fact, I doubt if there even is such a being as God. The idea of a supreme being who created everything and has ultimate control over all things seems like nonsense to me.

"Then if you aren't God... who are you?"

"I suppose I could tell you. But that might not be necessary. After all, I have already told you why I am here."

You pause for a moment, trying to find an appropriate response. "Why are you here? Why have you come to this island?"

"Because I love you. And because I believe that by doing so, I can help bring about your own salvation."

This explanation doesn't satisfy you. It makes no sense.

(Consider a rational response to this situation)

"But why would you believe that?"

"It's simple. I believe that without me, you wouldn't be able to experience true happiness. Happiness which would ultimately lead to eternal bliss."

There is something very strange about this statement. Something very wrong with it.

("Love is an irrational emotion. Bliss is an imprecise categorization of experience.")

"Happiness is a much more accurate term. Happiness refers to the absence of pain or suffering, while bliss refers to the presence of pleasure. Both are equally valid terms."

The words seem to make no sense at all. They're meaningless.

(Leave the man and continue your search for God)

As you continue on your journey, you begin to realize that there is nothing else worth finding. There is no meaning in life other than your own happiness. This realization causes you to question everything. Why does this world exist? How did we ever come into existence?

Is there any purpose? Are we just mindless animals living out our lives? Does anything really matter?

Is there any hope for humanity? Can humans ever escape their animalistic nature and become truly civilized beings? These questions are answered when you encounter a large, metal door.

A voice calls out from within.

"Who goes there?"

A young woman steps forward. She wears a white dress and carries a long wooden staff in her hands. Her face is covered by a black veil, but she appears to be human.

("I refuse to waste any more time with this nonsense. Are you God?")

"Yes, I am. And you will answer my question." She looks at you with disbelief in her eyes. "Are you God?"

"No! No, I'm sorry!" You exclaim. "I don't know what came over me.”

(Refuse to let God tempt you into irrationality)

"I'm afraid I cannot do that."

"What?!" The woman asks incredulously. "How can you not know what I am?"

"That's none of your concern," You reply. "My only concern is whether or not you are telling the truth."

(Kill the God-woman)

You walk up to the woman and swing your sword. Blood spurts forth as you cut through flesh and bone. You stab her repeatedly until she falls backwards onto the ground.

"I'm sorry," She says weakly, before collapsing back onto the floor.

(Walk to the mountains and look out upon a sunrise, rationally)

You stand in silence for several minutes. Finally, you turn around and walk away from the scene of your murder.

You walk towards the mountains and gaze out upon a sunrise. A beautiful one, if you hadn't been so preoccupied with killing someone yesterday.

When you reach the mountain top, you stop to take in the view.

(It is nothing more than what it is)

It is nothing more than what it is. Nothing more. It has its ups and downs, but ultimately it all comes down to you and how well you deal with them.

The sun rises higher above the horizon, illuminating the landscape in an orange glow.

[lordeasriel]

I've been meaning to write a full-on analysis between Brande's Hyperchorasmians and Simon Talbot's The Constant Deceiver, as well as how daemons are so differently perceived, but that will take a lot of time, so for now I'm just rambling.

I think Brande's whole concept of "Everything is what it is and nothing else" is a product of whatever happened between him and his daemon. He is a man who writes a story about a world without daemons, and unlike Talbot who is very much a prick and a snob, Brande is a troubled man. He is suffering, it is clear; he is troubled by the presence of Pan, and his questions, and he is troubled because Cosima, his daemon, is not actually his daemon - or at least that's what's implied. He very much writes about a world in which he fits in, and he tries, desperately to fit in; he buys a daemon to replace his missing one because he wants badly to belong to society. He is broken and it is sad, so to me his entirely philosophy has to do with that. It clashes with his way of life, because if things are what they are and nothing else, then he wouldn't struggle so hard with trying to fit in with the rest. Being separated from his daemon is what it is and nothing else, I think.

There is also the possibility that he bought his daemon back instead of just buying a replacement, perhaps because she left him due to his philosophies or whatever has happened with his daughter and her mother. It could be that her mother left her in an asylum or something, given she is mentally ill, or maybe she left Brande and the girl because she couldn't handle raising the girl in her condition. I mean, something did happen, that much is very clear. Much to ponder, yes, and Philman will likely never explain lmao

[lordeasriel]

Ok, I’ve read chapters 1-11 of The Secret Commonwealth and this is my set of impressions so far. I’m using the audiobook, which is wonderful and I recommend it! Under the cut for spoilery reasons:

First and foremost, the audiobook: Michael Sheen is A-MA-ZING! And because he did La Belle Sauvage too, lots of voices are recognisable and I love it. Pan sounds a lot like young Malcolm, but less sweet and more sharp and snappish and it’s beautiful. Marcel has hints of Bonneville = Papadimitriou aka disgustingly smooth but scholary and witty. Lyra sounds amazing; Alice and Hannah have the same voices as they did in LBS (i love you michael for this). Malcolm has a mix of Coram’s voice and Asriel’s voice, he sounds worldly and sexy scholarly at the same time, I love it! Olivier sounds like a lil bitch.

I love the part where Lyra is telling Miriam about her origin story and it’s added that she wasn’t sure about the horse, but she liked it. She won’t give up on the romantic vibes of Asriel saving her, first the swordfight, now a horse lmao;

“I saw someone being mudered” Pantalaimon no chills lmao I love this adult Pan, he is so special to me, but then again I always loved him and his grumpy mood.

The Hyperchorasmians: this was such a wild moment, I laughed out loud and was like “is this a self meta?” but someone did brought to my attention it may be a self parody, I love it regardless.

Pantalaimon saying "I do exist (...) we exist” and so on, was really powerful, because it feels like a horrible existential crisis and I get his anger with Lyra and I feel his entitled to it. Right now, they’re struggling with their sense of self, yet they are one, and while Lyra finds that concept interesting, Pan is afraid because the same concept suggests he ain’t even real. In our world, our existential crisis consists of asking “do i exist or not?” but in Lyra’s world, is like asking if only a part of you is real and that’s bloody horrible to even think about.

I love how smoothly Pullman retconned Alice’s age, in “Lyra now thought she wasn’t as old as she first thought” like yeah my man, nice try, but I see through the lies of the jedi your retcon, yet I love it all the same lmao I’m glad she’s alive and well.

I love that remark of Lyra having learned how to charm people and manipulate information out of them with her wits and small talk. That’s such a Marisa trait, at least as I always perceived her and it really made be bubbly and cheerful as I noticed that.

I also noticed how Lyra refers to Asriel either by his name or as Lord Asriel, and she still refers to Marisa as Mrs. Coulter, although she acknowledges them as father and mother when other people refer to them that way. I’m a little sad she doesn’t refer to them as mom and dad, but then again i feel like they never earned that treatment from her and I get it.

Pan suggesting Malcolm and Alice may be lovers and Lyra stares at him then ignores him because the mere thought of it it’s inconceivable LMAO

Lyra remembering Asriel’s moonlight walk with her was too much for me, that’s as emotional as I’m gonna get. It really made me sad that Asriel was living hand to mouth and that he left her nothing; to think that his most recent luxury was his house arrest on Svalbard is, well, sad.

On a happier note, Dr Carne supporting Lyra is my favourite thing. He cared enough about her to actually give her a home and support, and I think people should respect him more. This guy is the father Lyra had, however quirky the entire situation was and I have an immense love for this character.

Oh my God, I cannot believe they kept Lyra in the dark for so long. She is so fucking clueless about everything! What is wrong with those people? Tell the girl everything for fuck’s sake! The moment she snapped I snapped too; for fuck’s sake, she should have known about that stuff the moment she came back from the other worlds. Also, the fact she does not know about Asriel and Marisa is infuriating, but that one I can forgive because they kinda did threw themselves into a fucking void and didn’t wanr anyone about it, so...

HOW THE FUCK IS THE MAGISTERIUM STILL STRONG???? I am so fucking angry! I can understand why it takes a long time for them to dissolve entirely, but they are still strong and influential and Asriel’s war was for absolutely nothing. He and Marisa died for nothing, everyone that died there died for nothing and I am so angry because I hate theocracies with every fiber of my fucking being and I AM SO FUCKING SMAD;

Lyra does mention “the witches of the north” and that got me thinking that there may be more types of witches around the world and that not all of them have split daemons. But I don’t know, just a thought.

I only read 11 chapters, but so far I am 95% percent sure Lyra and Olivier are going to end up together by the end of the third book. I will not elaborate on this now since I have very little to go on with, but I will speak more as I read more. I do not approve of this, but I fear this may be the route Sir Phil is going for. I hope I am wrong.

Malcolm’s description of his feelings for Lyra are creepy and cringe. If he only, I don’t know, “discovered” his feelings for her recently, I could overlook it with a certain frown, but he’s been having those weird ass feelings since she was his student and a minor and that’s creepy, to say the least. I know he acknowledges that what he felt wrong was wrong and weird, and wow, thank god, but the fact he indulges himself on those feelings now that she’s older is weird. I feel like Pullman is deceiving us, I’m just not sure. I love Malcolm, I do, and I am slightly attracted to him now lmaoooo but no, you see? No. Not okay, but as I said before, I don’t think they’re ending up together. I hope I am right.

Also the way Pullman describes it lmaoooo “Malcolm Polstead, age 31, was in love with Lyra” or something like that. It was so funny, I felt like I was read a very well-written fanfiction that suddenly the author had a stroke and wrote as if they’re 12 and in love. It was very cringe, I don’t know, I was embarassed on Malcolm’s behalf.

I really love that Oakley Street is still going strong, sort of lol and that Malcolm is now a member and I hope we get to see more of them. I love spies and I love Oakley Street and I’m sad Nugent is dead.

Makepeace referring to Pan as “my boy” warms my heart because it shows the daemons’ treatment we should see and treat them: they are people and they have feelings and they exist and should be acknowledged. I just cherish the whole conflict between Lyra and Pan because this is what it feels so far: the struggle of being who they are and the pain that comes with it.

I have an unpopular opinion here, but I love the relationship between Pan and Lyra; I love their banter, their fight, their anger with each other. It feels right, although I am sad that they are fighting a lot because of the existence business, I think Lyra is really being inconsiderate with Pan. But, I think their constant disagreement is in-character; they always disagreed with each other, they always were very different from each other, so I love that they struggle with that, it’s just sad that they’re bordering on self-loathing and they need to work on that. I want them to find the spark of love they had, but not to the point where they are clingy again; they’re people and they’re different and they are the same person, so they need to come to terms with that. It really hurt me when Pan had to yell that he exists, that hit so close to home and I don’t know, I felt speechless for a moment.

Pan saying: “You are in a world full of colour, and you wanna see it in black and white” was a powerful. I really appreciate how that argument was handled. It’s beautiful and sad and painful to listen, there’s so much emotion in Lyra.

Back to Malcolm, I think that Pullman is going for a weird route here, not gonna lie. But so far I think that Malcolm’s awareness of its weirdness is alright, I think and as long as he never acts on his feelings, we’re gonna be fine. I want Lyra to end her story alone and with a healthy relationship with Pantalaimon, because that’s what really matters in life.

Now, more Oakley Street: I’m sorry but Glenys Godwin is awesome and I am so happy that a woman is the head of my favourite spy organisation, thank you sir phil for this gift. I love her and her daemon, and that OS is a bit stronger than before. RIP Lord Nugent, thank you for your service, you ruthless bastard.

I do not trust that priest tho; I think it’s cool and stuff, but I just dont trust religious figures in general lmao i hope he is not a traitor.

I don’t know what is wrong with Marcel, but I like him cause he’s clever but I hate him cause he’s a Magisterium bitch. I had the spoiler that he is Seasea’s brother, I had this theory that maybe they’re twins, but so far it hasn’t been mentioned and I am horribly curious. I wonder, did he changed his name? Did Marisa change her name? I thought van zee was canon tbh

Giorgio Brabandt is a man, my friends, and what a man he is. He is AWESOME. I loved him immediately. I love the gyptians in general.

What the heck is happening to those roses?

[lordeasriel]

I think the window to the spirit world is actually a very good guess. One of my theories for the red building is that Lyra would learn about her parents’ fate there, meaning that in some way it would have to be a connection with the windows. I also used to think it could be a tear to the abyss, and that somehow Dust was leaking out of it into the roses’ ground, but I’m not sure how could that work. Given the abyss is a state of permanent inconstancy, that line about ‘not being there if here’ would fit in well, in my opinion.

That bit about Serpentine is very interesting and very fitting too. If spirits are made of Dust, death against them would mean a place void of it, sort of like a black hole. Like you pointed out about Van Dongen and Dinessa, if in a barren wasteland devoid of Dust there is a second plane, a plane with Dust, once daemons complete their alchemical destiny - there is, they die - they cross to that plane. Maybe the red building has a way to cross without having to die.

But I don’t particularly think that the poem has much play in how the story might play out, because it does exactly that. It tells an entire tale that fits well with everything. Malcolm points out the details - the evil uncle wanting to claim the roses, the lovers trying to escape - all of it is so on the nose it feels unlikely. Not that Philman wouldn’t do it, because of course he could do it, but he has in the past changed the course of a prophecy and the betrayal ( he says he always knew the ending of TAS, but frankly I don’t believe him lmao and I think he saw the chance about the betrayal with Lyra’s separation from Pan and took it - a clever, creative move, but I doubt he actually planned it lmao We’ll never know tho). So Lyra being Rukhsana, metaphorically at least, I think has more to do with Philman smoothing the path into the idea she and Malcolm could be lovers, or he is simply misleading into that idea (although he was very defensive of it when people came to complain about how he handled the whole business, so I’m not super sure).

I wouldn’t be surprised if in the end, Lyra has to burn the garden to prevent it from spreading or fallen into the wrong hands. It would be an interesting twist, especially since you mentioned the Republic of Heaven and how in doing so, she would be going against it. I feel like Philman sort of made fun of himself with The Hyperchorasmians, and by having Lyra do something against the Republic, he would put the cherry on top of the cake of his self-awareness, I suppose. It could be the very opposite too, like you suggested, she could find a way to help the roses grow everywhere.

I wonder if the priests at the red building use the daemons to make the roses grow. Cause at first I was intrigued because none of the people returns. The priests says "they may not leave" but the camel dude says no one ever returns, which I suppose is not exactly opposite lines but the priest implies that they are not necessarily forced to stay, but that they may stay. Idk

But then they mention how the red building only accepts people who did the akterrakeh journey AND brought payment, meaning that they only take in people who separated. This is not clear, but I supposed it is implied, that despite only accepting people who can separate and pay, you need to have your daemon with you (Dr Strauss's daemon arrives the day after and they go in together).

This is wild though, because the priests says the payment is a life. A daemon could be a life; a human could be a life. It isn't clear if Strauss pays with his life for going in. However, what if he pays with Hassall's life? He gets in and the life he pays with is Hassall's, who dies three months later. Odd.

Then again there is that feeling of 'this is a window' in the story. Most people I know think it is a window, which is a reasonable thing to assume, but I do wonder: the priests speak Latin, implication that they had contacts with the Romans of Lyra's world. This means the red building would have existed long before the subtle knife was ever made (iirc, it was created to 200/300 years prior to the events of TSK, don't quote me on that tho). It can't be a window, unless it was opened by other means (which i don't think it was)

No, I think the red building is darker than that. The priests are said to have no daemons; they are described as Persian like, pale skin and round eyes, despite the fact the Karamakan is in the Chinese desert. They could be from somewhere else, but then we're back at the the window dilemma. Unless Philman forgot about his own lore lmao - very possible - it can't be a window, so they can't be from somewhere else. Unless that somewhere else is the secret commonwealth aka the land of the fae. But they don't look like fae.

I think the roses need a sacrifice to grow with their properties. Strauss's journal mentions that no matter how similar the environmental conditions are, the roses do not match the ones from the Karamakan desert. When asked about it, the priests look with scorn at him; it makes me feel like they're saying 'to get something, you must give something' so maybe they give their daemons to a secret commonwealth business, like a doorway, or crossroads and the daemon nurtures the roses from one side, and the human nurtures the roses from their sides. Maybe that binds them again but then they can't leave because this is the only way they can be fully be bound again? Hmm Again, odd.

Imagine if that is the case; there is a veil in there. Philman said recently about how daemons are an aspect of imagination; imagination being tied to the SC. You wound yourself separating to get there, it's a sacrifice in order to achieve something. Then you pay with a life, your own by staying there and serving forever; your daemon's, by locking them across the veil so you can nurture the roses and make them special with the dust that flows between you and your daemon through this veil, which is an imaginary field where the roses draw from. While in different sides of the veil, your bond is restored but your daemon and you are forever separated, as they now leave among the secret commonwealth, the Imagination Land. You are together, but outside the red building the commonwealth exists thinly and sporadically, so you cannot live outside it. You can't leave without leaving your daemon, this time for good perhaps. Hmmm no sounds insane.

This is what the inside of my mind looks like all the time by the way lmao I bet the red building is just a red herring.

[hyperpotamianarch]

You know what I forgot to mention? The "everything is connected" angle. I'm saying that because, in an attempt to check what Hyperchorasmians was supposed to mean, I discovered an ancient civilization existing not far from the Karakum desert. Which is close enough to Karamakan, I think. I'll need to check the geography better, but now every second thing is somehow related to west Asia or roses, more often than not both. Except for the recurring pianist.

Yeah, I'm barely on chapter 6, but come on. If you pile this many references to the same things in the early chapters of a book, I'm bound to notice. It's weird.

Well, I'm reading the Secret Commonwealth, I have some thoughts, and am unlikely to get to talk to anyone who has read it in the near future, so I'm going to dump my thoughts here! We'll see where it goes.

I'm currently at the middle of chapter 6. To start with, this book is very clear that our current focus is on special roses that come from the Levant. By which I mean, for the duration of the second chapter (I think?) literally everything ties back into those roses. I suppose the Gobblers had a similar role in Northern Lights/the Golden Compass? I don't know.

The book also seems to start to play out as a mystery/detective story, but I guess I'll have to wait and see where that leads.

More tidbits I might want to make include... well... people who've followed my HDM related posts know I'm trying to work on Judaism in Lyra's world. I already knew this book has to do with the Ottoman Empire, so I suppose it could showcase some things about Islam in this world. This would be a step towards seeing how strong is the Magisterium worldwide. There seem to be implications they burned rose gardens because of a connection discovered between those roses and Dust, so it's clear their long arm can reach into the Ottoman Empire. That is interesting, as I'd expect the Ottomans to be against outside influence in their land. Coverup stories or no, something is suspicious and the Ottomans probably also have income from the export of roses. I mean, if those roses can only grow in lands under their control... I would expect them to protect their interests better. If they can't... That has bad implications all around.

Also, Miriam is a Jewish name which appears at the beginning. I don't know how common it is among non Jews, I kind of assumed Maria was the more popular version, so it makes me just a tiny bit interested in that character - though with the way colleges work in Lyra's world, I'm not sure she could practice any religion that isn't Christianity.

Also on the front of Judaism in Lyra's world but a lot more distant, this world probably doesn't have a Sigmund Freud. The connection is that Freud was Jewish (though relatively assimilationist). The reason I think he didn't exist here is that therapy seems to not exist here, and I believe Freud's field of Psychoanalysis is what led to that existing? Also, if Freud existed I highly doubt this "The Hyperchorasmians" book would've survived without any Freudian interpretations of things. I might be extrapolating too much on that field, let's give this book a separate paragraph.

To be clear, I'm team Pan regarding this book, though my reasoning might defer from his. "It was nothing more than what it was" is a completely rubbish statement on events in a fictional novel. Everything can go through literary analysis and be found to have metaphors. I find it odd that I'm saying that because I'm not too fond of literary analysis, but saying there is no symbolism in your book is... a rather odd statement. But in universe, Pan's complaints about the different books can easily seem as him being a crybaby over people who deny the existence of dæmons. It does seem as if this book is going to explore what dæmons are more deeply, or so I'm assuming.

I do have a half-hearted theory regarding what the Hyperchorasmians was intended to represent. Thing is, I've seen HDM described as a book about teenagers killing God, and it's supposedly written as an antithesis to Narnia while being just as preachy in a different direction. Equivalents could be drawn. Obviously, the core problem Pan has with this book is something HDM can't really be blamed for... I'm having some trouble articulating my point exactly, we'll see how things go either way.

The desert - Karamakan - is interesting. It's portrayed as similar to the Land of the Dead or the place in the north the witches use for their practice of separation, but Dr. Strauss's dæmon managed to get there - and it seems that the only way to get into the building is with one's dæmon? So I don't know what's going on. This is another thing to be seen.

Also, Malcolm from La Belle Sauvage is a scholar now. I don't really remember much from this book, and I'm not sure what's going to be relevant? Bonneville is dead, I think, and likely irrelevant. There's the odd faerie woman from the flood, which... I don't know what she has to do with anything. I'm not sure what anything has to do with anything from this book. Again, I suppose we'll see.

That would be it for now.