Talk:Dæmon (His Dark Materials)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Dæmon (His Dark Materials). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Human-Daemon Separation

I think it is unclear in the article about separating the daemon from its human. Does it mean separating just physically or actually breaking the bonds between the daemon and the human? Also, it is not only witches who can have remote daemons, as demonstrated in the books. Ukdragon37 14:21, 26 September 2005‎

Zombi

I don't think it matters whether it's Zombi or Zombie. One is just an alternate spelling of the other. Besides, I don't even remember those who were "Spectre-fied" being referred to as Zombi(e)s, but there you go.(Also isn't Daemon just a bit too close to Demon? Just a thought) Jalada

Well, instead of making it a wierd [[zombie|zombi]], I just made it zombie. The sentence isn't talking about zombis in the context of the books (I think the word appears very few times anyway), and it's probably better to use Wikipedia's spelling. AySz88^-^ 23:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Jalada 07:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that this ties into simulacra or doppelganger?

No. Daemons in the book have nothing to do with those topics, nor do zombies. Krychek 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Characters and Their Daemons

Mary Malone is listed as having a snaked, as far as I'm aware it was some kind of bird. Don't have time to look it up, but... very defintiely a bird, it perches on her finger. I can't see a snake perching, hehe. --Orias 02:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed; someone put the dæmon's name as "the Snake" for some reason. --AySz88 ^-^ 02:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To be updated

What does that mean, to be updated? Can someone with a copy verify John Faa's Daemon's name or put "not named"? That just looks odd to me, but I recently moved across the country and had to leave some books behind, so I left the series for my stepsister to read. Kuronue 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, his dæmon was never named in the books, unless I somehow missed it multiple times. Polveroj 07:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Daemons in our demension

Do you think this is appropiate for the article? I do not believe it should be in the article. BTW, I am a daemian. -Drew 'n' Bell

It probably should go in its own article, if it warrants one at all right now. Jumbling both definitions into "Dæmon (His Dark Materials)" isn't really accurate. --Polveroj 12:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't believe it belongs here, take it out. Leaving it in with a citation needed tag is a bit sloppy. Krychek 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a citation, but the current domain of the site is blocked by the spam blacklist (due to an unrelated issue). The "citation needed" tag is just to mark that the citation needs to be fixed when the time comes (i.e. when they switch over to the new domain). —AySz88 \^-^ 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that, but a citation of an unusable page is no citation at all IMO. So we have an entire section that at least three people agree is of dubious merit, citing a Web page that may or may not eventually be moved to a non-blacklisted site. And that's okay with everyone? Krychek 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me explain: The disputed part is currently only two sentences, which is well within the standards for due/undue weight. The first paragraph of the section (about very similar ideas in other cultures and contexts) is easily verifiable and fine for inclusion - it's about pretty much a prose-ified See Also. If it makes you feel better, since the idea definitely doesn't belong in a separate article, consider it as having been merged into this one. Now, there is also no verifiability problem - the part is verifiable, it's just not citable yet due to a technical problem. Other than the hassle of all this, there is no problem with the Dæmons in our dimension section!

When I put that big unreferenced tag there, by the way, I was meaning that the rest of the article needs citations. The first section that could possibly be culled is the table of characters and their daemons, or at least the column of meanings, which is all original research. —AySz88 \^-^ 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps a lot. I'd be all for removing that column of the table, especially if it gets rid of the big citation tag. Perhaps a species column instead? Krychek 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cittàgazze and the Spectres

In the article it was stated that:

Cittàgazze has ghost-like creatures called Spectres

But aren't the Spectres only there because of Lord Asriel's bridge? Something should be done.--Deon 12:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the place does have them, regardless of how they got there. Your argument could just as easily apply to the statement "America has people of European descent." Krychek 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Spectres are there because that is where the Subtle Knife was created and was used there very often which led to the creation of many Spectres because they are created every time someone cuts into another world. Hesper42 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This article is tagged for not having adequate sources, but what kind of reliable sources can you find for a fictional metaphysical matter. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just the books themselves, along with other writings and interviews by the author. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Daemon Page

I removed a paragraph about The Daemon Page from the Daemons in our Dimension section. The Daemon Page, while being related to the concept of daemons from Philip Pullman's series, builds off the concept so much that one might well determine them to be separate ideas. I felt that this was not a reliable source because members of the Daemon Forum itself often proclaim that their view of daemons is not in accordance with the one presented in the series. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 14:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone currently working on a page concerning daemianism as a concept in our dimension or The Daemon Page? I'm just curious...if not, I'd be happy to start one. I think it's important to have one. Balaurul 17:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Balaurul

I don't believe so, but I left some comments on your talk page. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the removed paragraph as it was, but I think there should be a small mention, which I've added (replacing something that an anon did). Although it's not quite the same concept, it doesn't belong in its own article and this is the obvious/best place for it. —AySz88 \^-^ 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And about "reliable sources", I don't understand your reasoning. All that is needed is to show that the belief exists (since that's all that's being said). I don't see how the compatibility of their beliefs with the books has any bearing on whether the site is a reliable source. —AySz88 \^-^ 20:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that it doesn't exist - I'm not an expert in articLes deaLing with fiction. (Excuse the capitaL L's pLease, this computer does something weird if I type a non-capitaL L) ALL I want to say is that I don't know how you can reaLLy cite a source for such a LittLe known beLief. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 10:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality?

A person's dæmon is usually of the opposite sex to its human, and so can be seen as an external expression of the Jungian concept of the anima or animus. However, in some cases it may be the same sex as the person, which is often believed by readers and fans to indicate that the person is homosexual. Um, who thinks that? Unless someone can find a source, I'm deleting it. Crowstar^{Vaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends!} 12:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it says so in the books, but I do know that this is no longer commonly believed by members of The Daemon Forum, if that counts for anything. Give me some time to skim through my books, please - I'll add a {{fact}} tag for now. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 12:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I thought that at first (I later came to believe it merely represents some sort of gender diversity, and unrelated to sexual orientation). And the fact that Pullman actually commented on it means people were wondering. His comments are cited as well, so you have no right or reason to delete this.Rglong 00:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For that matter I just read that interview, and Pullman admits that it MAY OR MAY NOT indicate homosexuality:

"TB: There was one point about demons which you say, I think, right at the beginning of Northern Lights, that somebody's got a demon of the same sex as themselves, and this is very rare. Now, does that indicate homosexuality? Or what?

PP: I don't know. There are plenty of things about my worlds I don't know, and that's one of them. It might do! But it might not! Occasionally, no doubt, people do have a demon of the same sex; that might indicate homosexuality, or it might indicate some other sort of gift or quality, such as second sight. I do not know. But I don't have to know everything about what I write."

So this article already has an anti-gay bias, which I am going to fix right now.Rglong 00:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghosts and deaths

Wasn't sure where else to put this info. Should they have articles of their own? In any case the idea that people are comprised of multiple facets parallels, among other things, St. Agustine's "mind, body and soul", or whatever it is that he wrote. So someone can add that in, I know I've read it before about the daemon, ghost, death thing, I just forget where. Also does this section need a spoiler warning?Rglong 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What does this reference mean?

"UNIQ356631577b459ba7-references-00000003-QINU" is utterly meaningless to me, and I suspect to a lot of other people, and as such is a poor reference without some context. How do I go about looking it up? 81.153.111.37 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This was apparently the result of a botched edit, and means nothing to me either. Sorry about that! I changed things back to the way they were before the botch. (and did some reorganizing in the process....) :) —AySz88 \^-^ 03:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of dæmon names

Within the article itself, it states the name of a daemon is "normally given by the dæmon parents." If you read the cited article (the interview with Phillip Pullman), Pullman states that "the parents' daemons choose the name of the child's daemon." I find the difference in these to be misleading, as Pullman does not imply that the parents' daemons are also the parents of the child's daemon, while the article does. I have altered the article to reflect this change. I'm open to discussion about it. --76.112.75.100 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In other languages

I have changed the section "in other languages". I am Danish, and the Dæmons is also named "Daimons" in the Danish version of the books. I have also deleted the section, mentioning the word "deplonso", because that word isn't used anywhere in the danish version of the books. Mathias 12 January, 13:59. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.13.210 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the name is changed in the swedish language as the letter æ does not exist in the swedish language (as it does in danish and norweigan). Can someone look this up, as I dont really know how to look this up myself.

deleting "pronunciation controversy"

I removed the following paragraph, as it cites no sources, borders on original research, The Subtle Knife clearly establishes the correct pronunciation through Will's confusion, and the film should be enough to remove any lingering doubts.

While most dictionaries denote the pronunciation as DEE-mon (and British readers have reported that author Pullman specifies this pronunciation in Northern Lights), alternative pronunciation is noted in dictionaries that refer to daemons in computing. Many online discussions show the book's and movie's fans struggling with this issue, with a strong contingent preferring the DAY-mon pronunciation. Those who read Pullman's "daemon" as soul or personal genius in the ancient Greek (daimon, daimonion) sense of the word tend to prefer to differentiate the pronunciation to follow the spelling differentiation.

Best, Mdiamante (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusion about The Daemon Page

So I take it the people at that website think these fictional animal companions exist in the real world. If not, the website certainly gives me that impression. I don't think articles about elements of fiction should link to websites that consider such fictional works to have a basis in reality. As an anology, imagine linking a Harry Potter article to a personal website that discusses Harry Potter elements as if they are real. Though such sites may make good references on occasion, linking to a site that treats fictional subjects as if they are real can be quite confusing. -Avidya- 07:16, Feb 22 2008 (UTC)

Because it presents the idea as a potentially valid fact that has not been discredited, we can and should not judge the website's subject matter (Dæmons in the "real" world)to be incorrect or not, besides, the page gives an in depth analysis of the effect of personality on a Dæmon's form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.226.101 (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Connection to Fylgja

I've some personal background studying Old Norse and Nordic beliefs and the concept of a Fylgja seems to be almost exactly the same as the Daemons of Pullmans Trilogy. Namely that the Fylgja is an animal companion that is comprised of a spiritual essence external to the human, but that it is also connected intrinsicly to the person's soul and so is a seperate and independant minded entity but whose nature and existence is dependant upon the human. This would be of some interest to those researching real world analogs to the fiction of Pullman. Ixaxar (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of word?

I removed the part of the lede which claims that "dæmon" comes from the Greek Δαίμων - this is the same as claimed by demon, so I find this somewhat dubious (just copied from that article?). Is there any source or other evidence to back this up? —AySz88 \^-^ 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dæmon in Scandinavian languages

In Norwegian, and most likely also in Danish and Swedish, demon is spelled demon just like in English.

The reason dæmon isn't used is probably because the æ gives a very strange pronunciation in these languages. Delta Tango • Talk 20:42, 14 July 2008

It is spelt with an 'æ' in Danish only.

Danish: en Dæmon.

Norwegian: en Demon.

Swedish : en Demon.

Note, some Norwegian dialects might use 'æ'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.25.184.131 (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Daemon Page references

I have removed a small part of the article referencing The Daemon Page on the basis of concerns made above. Whether or not the site can't be discredited, the fact that this article is about HDM and not theories about daemon existence makes me think that TDP ought not to be mentioned in the article content, although the external link is okay. Corvus coronoides _talk 20:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Anima-animus

Look at this: "The anima and animus are, in Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology, the unconscious or true inner self of an individual, as opposed to the persona or outer aspect of the personality. In the unconscious of the male, it finds expression as a feminine inner personality: anima; equivalently, in the unconscious of the female, it is expressed as a masculine inner personality: animus."

Isn't this why deamons are of the opposite sex of humans? because they actually are the Anima and Animus of People? Maybe its worth mentioning. Jahiri (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Jahiri

This article is really accurate, but I agree that such subjects shouldn't be put on a non-fiction site like Wikipedia.