Talk:His Dark Materials

Editing the His Dark Materials Article

I have heavily edited the His Dark Materials article. A small part of the reason is that much of it was poorly written -- overly long sentences, weak syntax. However, my stylistic editing is limited to sections that I edited for a substantive reason.

The substantive reason is that the article, before my editing, was highly misleading. It missed the whole point of His Dark Materials. Like George Orwell's Animal Farm, His Dark Materials is an allegory. And it is more than that. It is an unprecedented (in literature but not in film) triple allegory -- three interwoven allegories. The allegories are the whole point of Pullman's trilogy. And they are where Pullman's basic points are raised.

Summarizing His Dark Materials without identifying and emphasizing the allegories is like doing the same with Animal Farm. Without thorough discussion of Animal Farm's symbolism, you would be left with a superficial summary of an animal story that had no meaning. Now that the HDM article has been edited, the edited parts of it finally tell the reader what is really going on.

Unfortunately, some other editor (apparently Haploidavey, who left a message, but possibly someone else) decided to delete the most fundamental information about His Dark Materials: the fact that HDM's most basic hidden story is about a war between knowledge, symbolized by dust, and religious superstition, symbolized by the specters. A closely related problem is that the same editor also deleted my simple explanation in the article's introduction that HDM is an allegory and that the allegories are A, B, and C. By restoring the original introduction, the deletor gave us an "introduction" that is not just superficial but also highly misleading. Atticusattor (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Animal Farm is intended to be a direct satire on specific individuals and specific events, there are countless interviews in which Pullman refutes any such literalist interpretations of HDM. Is it not more a case of 'if the cap fits'? Pullman has encouraged such open reading of the book and should we really know better than the author what his intention was?Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My argument's based on sources, not depth or superficiality. Your simple explanation was based on a single source (White Wheat), whose opinions and constructs were given undue weight and significance – or so I believe – in the introduction. Pullman describes his influences as Kleist, Blake and Milton; of course, an Amazon interview is hardly an exhaustive treatment of themes and sources but do any other sources agree with White Wheat that the novel is an allegory whose themes, framework and characters (or what have you) derive from A, B and C? If so, fair enough; but I would strongly dispute the detailed inclusion of the same in the introduction. Besides, an introduction should stand alone, sufficient unto itself, worth skimming through; readers should not have to refer to the main text for explanation of anything therein. Likewise, readers of the main text should not have to refer back to the introduction to grasp something dealt with under a later heading. That's just a matter of dutiful organisation.

I'm more concerned about the source itself. I'm not saying it ain't a notable scholarly source but it doesn't appear in google's scholar-search. Has it been peer-reviewed? If it's to be used in the main body of the article, I'd rather see it disentangled from the Character section; most readers will be after straight summaries of Pullman's text, and we should clearly distinguish this from any secondary source analysis/commentary. By the way, you're perfectly entitled to restore the material I deleted (here's the pre-deletion version), but I'd welcome discussion here on its use. And of course, I could be quite completely, utterly and embarrassingly mistaken, having strayed dangerously far from my usual cobwebbed corner. Best, Haploidavey (talk)

This editor made similar inappropriate edits to the Character section and plot summary in the article on The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe using the same material. All the stuff here on undue weight applies both here and there.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Speculation and theorising, throughout

Many authoritative commentators have written about the symbolism in Pullman's works, so there's no excuse for the quantity of unreferenced, original theorising that permeates this article. Over the next few weeks, as I find the time, I propose to go through, section by section, and try to find sources but, failing that, make deletions. WP policy here. Any suggestions as to the line to take, before I get going, welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has 78 footnotes and a bibliography that displays nine books. You call this "unreferenced"? Saints preserve us!Atticusattor (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As several editors have attempted to explain on your talk page, it's the theorising and conjecture that's unreferenced, not the article. Please read the post more carefully, and you will see that there's no need to inconvenience the saints with requests for assistance. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:WickerGuy has pre-empted a lot of this: grateful thanks! --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Atticusattor has been referencing the same problematic book by Leonard Wheat on the page about The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe (from C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles) where my deletion efforts prevailed earlier. Wheat's books makes very extravagant claims (to put it mildly). While much Christian symbolism is acknowledged in Lewis' Narnia books, his claim that the Professor from The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe represents God is problematic to say the least. Wheat has a book on 2001: A Space Odyssey that argues that the four orbiting satellites represent the four goddesses that started the Trojan War, and that TMA-1 (sic) is an anagram of "NO MEAT". This is WP:FRINGE stuff and at most should be mentioned briefly in conjunction with more mainstream scholarship. Atticusattor does not understand the policy of WP:UNDUE and has repeatedly claimed that Wheat's views are blindingly self-evident and appears to conclude they should therefore be treated as fact on Wikipedia. Atticusattor has also misrepresented his own edits which were deleted on the article on Slan. He wrote a section making Van Vogt's Slan an elaborate Christian allegory. He claims on his own Talk page that he cited a source, but he did not. It was entirely unreferenced!!--WickerGuy (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to point out that my own disagreement with Wheat is irrelevant policy-wise as to whether these edits belong in Wikipedia, but also arguing my own position at the same time (which may be unwise.) I am much less familiar with Pullman than C.S. Lewis. I have seen the 6-hour stage version of His Dark Materials, seen the film The Golden Compass, and read the entire study of Pullman by Donna Freitas and Jason King entitled Killing the Imposter God, but have not actually read the Pullman books, so I am not in a position re Pullman to argue too specifically against Wheat's opinions, but as I said in my edit-sum, a section on symbolism referencing only Wheat and NO use of work of others such as Lois Gresh, Kurt Bruner, Donna Freitas, George Beahm is a clear violation of WP policy!! Same goes for Atticusattor's edits explaining the allegory in the Narnia books on that page over there.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Soul

I have just made several short edits .... The core of which is WHY are literalist interpretations being given which are specifically and consistently denied by PP himself .... Surely there is no more authoritive source than the author, rather than others riding on the back of his success? Of course Pullman is playing games with the reader by hinting at ideas/events/dogmas/places and names in OUR world, but that seems to be very different from suggesting that, for example, the Magisterium IS the Catholic Church, or indeed that ANYTHING in the book IS something in our world. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just removed the word soul from the description of daemons, I know that many people have used this word, but Pullman himself has consistently avoided the word, and is it not true both that daemons are MORE than souls ( at times conscience, at times best friend, at times 6th sense, at times the crafty inner voice and in the case of Mrs Coulter, the expression of her devious soullessness). In the absence of a suitable catch-all word, does "inner-selves' cover all of these?Pincrete (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I have also made the same change on the terminology and daemon pagesPincrete (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Parallels with real floods in C20 Britain

"Apparently a parallel to the North Sea flood of 1953" has been deleted as uncited, but restored again. It's the "apparently" that gives it away: WP:NOR without a source that draws the parallel. Tagged. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look for a source, and delete it if I can't find one. (I am not the original poster of this material). Your edit sum sounded like you needed a source that that floods happened. I wonder if there is a way to rephrase it to make it less NOR. Perhaps not.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That rephrase looks like a fix, until we find a RS making the connection. I'm looking for one, but not too hopefully. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the edit-sum, it's on a lot of fansites, but not really mentioned in anything that meets our standard for a reliable source, although it would be worth looking into the book in HDM by Donna Freitas.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP has made these into a table, which seems like a reasonable fix: we can see the connections for ourselves now. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor biographical point, Pullman was, (I believe), living in Norfolk in 1953, Norfolk is on the N. Sea and was affected by the flood Pincrete (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it really a trilogy?

It's made up of three books, but it's a single story line. Just as Lord of the Rings is actually a single story, even if it was published as three books. 84.210.60.115 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Originally, to be considered a trilogy, the three works with interrelated stories needed to be also self-contained, rather than three installments of a larger work. However, the term seems to have become de facto expanded in its definition, since the publication of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Random House dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica still go with the narrower definition, but Collins & Merriam-Webster & Cambridge dictionaries use the wider definition.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Among "Awards" mentioned here, evidently The Big Read considered His Dark Materials a single work, same as The Lord of the Rings; in contrast it considered Harry Potter #4 a single work.

I wonder whether the Whitbread Awards considered Pullman's first or second volume for annual honors. It's almost incredible that neither one made the Children's Book shortlist. [--almost incredible at a glance but Harry Potter made the shortlist only twice with novels #2 and #3, only the latter winning.] Even if Whitbread officially lists The Amber Spyglass [it does], contemporary sources may reveal a sense in which [the 2001 Whitbread Awards effectively] recognised the "trilogy".

interjection 2014 (simultaneous with some editorial changes in square brackets): Costa Book Awards shortlists 1995 to 2011 (pdf) is the primary source here. It shows Pullman a Children's Book finalists only 1996, Clockwork or All Wound Up, and 2001, The Amber Spyglass. --P64 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Other annual awards and all-time lists (Carnegie, Guardian, The Observer top 100) considered the books separately. So did the Locus Awards. --P64 (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

See also [Gnosticism]

Hello, I think a "see also" section with links to the gnostic Ophiate and Sethian heresies, the book =Lucifer and Prometheus and other related pages? Thanks! --122.62.144.13 (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

About gnosticism see below, point 1 of #Time for some pruning? 2014!. --P64 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian coverage

Here is some contemporary coverage of His Dark Materials published by The Guardian, whose online archive dates only from 2000(?) when the third volume was reviewed. Linknames are those dates displayed at the heads of the articles. Dates that head cross-reference links and appear in URLs and search reports are the same or one day later.

2000 The Amber Spyglass

Kate Kellaway review interview 21 Oct 2000

Robert McCrum, Not for children 22 Oct 2000

2001 Booker Prize (spyglass makes the longlist)

Sally Vincent, Driven by daemons: Philip Pullman ... 9 Nov 2001

2001 Whitbread Book of the Year (spyglass the first children's book to win overall)

A taste of Spyglass 22 Jan 2002

Fiachra Gibbons, Epic children's book takes Whitbread 22 Jan 2002

John Ezard, Fully booked: The Whitbread judges made the right choice. Philip Pullman's extraordinary novels are not just for children. 24 Jan 2002

Amy Fleming, 'I didn't expect to win' 24 Jan 2002

2007 Carnegie of Carnegies (northern lights the 70th anniversary all-time winner)

Michelle Pauli, Pullman wins 'Carnegie of Carnegies' 21 Jun 2007

John Ezard, Pullman children's book voted best in 70 years 21 Jun 2007

--User:P64 00:15, 16 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Oblation board

The gobblers' name actually comes from the General Oblation Board, the church body that runs them--75* 17:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Time for some pruning? 2014!

I seem to be the only one talking here at present, so I'll talk to myself! I think some tidying and pruning is called for across the whole HDM coverage ... anyone want to join me?

1. I question in Influences section "Pullman also referred to gnostic ideas in his description of the novels' underlying mythic structure." It certainly WASN'T in the ref attached to it (Pullman-Rowan Williams debate), so I moved that reference to the other comments about RW (in Controversies) as it is an interesting insight into PP's beliefs and methods.

Does anyone know whether the 'gnostic beliefs etc.' are in the new Intro by PP. it was unclear as to whether the text is in the Intro or is meant to be supported by the PP-RW debate. Either way, the present wording is so vague as to be meaningless. ('referred to gnostic beliefs', did he say they were there/ weren't there/ that he had no idea what it meant ... etc) Pincrete (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

2. I've slightly modified the entries on Muscovy and Russia as they contradicted each other .... Just to point out that in our world, Russia can refer to 1. A small-ish though dominant republic of USSR/Tsarist-Russian-Empire centred on Moscow .... 2. colloquially the WHOLE of USSR/Tsarist-Russian-Empire ..... 3. modern shrunken Russian Federation ..... 4. probably as many historical, intermediate stages as any of us can think of! Anyone know which applies to Russia/Muscovy in HDM ? Pincrete (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

3.MINOR quibble is with the use of the sub-heading 'Alternative terms' (alternative to what?) . I think that we should be able to come up with a better way to describe that these words are inventions/adaptations/borrowings by Pullman to describe things in parallel worlds. Update I've moved pronunciation to after the terms (it seemed more logical to describe the terms BEFORE how to pronounce them). I've also changed "alternative terms" to "renamings", which seems clearer ... I realise that alternative terms is shorthand for invented/adapted/archaic terms used by Pullman to describe something very like what we would probably describe using other words in our world, but renamings seemed to cover that fairly efficiently. 'Alternative' makes me ask, 'alternative to what?' ... I may do some other tidying and pruning. Why not join me? ... two heads could not be worse than one!Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Whilst many definitions are clear and concise, others seem vague/obscure (I'm not sure what " A nightmare in the mythological sense" means ..... I can only guess that what is meant is NOT our everyday use of the word nightmare, but rather the mythological creature(s) assumed to be behind our bad dreams) ... I'm sure that this can be said more clearly (the physical embodiment etc. ?). Update I've altered this wording.

On a connected point, under Tualapi (list of characters) is there any evidence that " The wings symbolize the sailing ships on which early missionaries sailed to their destinations" ? Sounds fairly 'marginal opinion' to me I'm afraid, but perhaps I missed something! Update I've removed this sentence.

Lastly, are the student productions of the trilogy really noteworthy? Update I've removed minor and student productions.Pincrete (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we please remember that this is fiction ?

I have objections to "References in Northern Lights imply the calendar of that universe is the same as our own, and that the date is around 1960:", which has recently been re-inserted in the 'Settings' section. This claim (and the table that follows it), was removed last summer. The grounds for removal were that Will's world has ATMs, PCs, and mobile phones and therefore cannot be the 1960s. I agree with that objection (though I don't remember the PCs, only the ATMs and phones).

However, I also have a much more fundamental objection. Put at its simplest my basic objection is that "it's a story"! Furthermore a story which mainly takes place in invented universes, with their own rules, therefore we cannot reasonably conclude ANYTHING apart from what Pullman has stated EXPLICITLY in the story, or clearly outside of the story.

Pullman may be referencing the real North Sea floods in the story (he grew up partly in Norfolk, where they may well have been part of folk-memory), but why do we imagine that 1953 in Lyra's world is 1953 in ours? 1953 to us means 1953 years since the (mis-calculated) birth of a Nazarene carpenter. Are we to assume that Lyra's world must have had the same carpenter / the same mis-calculation /the same floods in the same place at the same time and the same 1918 flu epidemic ? Odd then that so much else is different there!

These points may seem to be quibbles, to some extent they are, but I make these quibbles as examples. Even in wholly earthbound-literature, there are many examples of authors playing 'fast and loose' with the timings sequence or consequences of real events for no better reason than that it suited their story.

I think making some reference to approx. period is appropriate in relation to Will's world. In relation to Lyra's, it doesn't make much sense to come to a conclusion as to what year it is AT ALL, especially one expressed in terms of OUR years AD. It makes very little more sense to say it must be 1960's than to say it must be the 1650's (when the real John Faa was King of the Gypsies).Pincrete (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Update I've just re-removed the text in 'Settings' which dates the story to 1960, also the table which was below it, anyone wishing to see the original text & table should see revisions prior to 16th Feb 2014.

Whilst I think some comment about dates may be worthwhile, the previous is wholly speculative and contradicted by the existence of cell phones etc. and by dates in the sequel. If no-one else does, I will attempt to re-insert some of this info, without speculative conclusions, when time allows. Also attempt to place sequence in the coverage of 'Settings'.Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Call them allusions rather than references and go ahead in prose, at least the second and third of these three. The first is valuable only with the observation "Tokaji wine (formerly spelled Tokay in English)" --where I quote our disamb. Tokay-- but the possibility of long storage seems lame to me.

Any table is inappropriate here IMO.--P64 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Well it's nice to no longer be talking to myself on the HDM pages! I appreciate the advise re: the table, and had already intended to cover the matter in prose. Put at its most succinct it would be that Will's World appears to be our own in the decades immediately prior to the writing of the book, but despite (cited)references/allusions to events & dates in the books, it isn't possible to come to any conclusions with regard to other worlds. I apologise for putting my new sections out of order, however the other sections seemed to be on matters which had long since been resolved. I've also toned down my own section heading on this page. Unfortunately, this is only one of a myriad of speculative/irrelevant/confusing or inappropriate parts of the coverage across all the HDM pages, also unfortunately other editors seem to have lost interest in the content.Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

At one point Will withdraws a hundred quid from an ATM. While the first one in Britain was installed in mid-1967 they didn't start to become commonplace until the 1970s, which would seem to mitigate against a 1960s setting for Will & Mary's world. I've got a vague recollection of there being a withdrawal limit of £50 when I first used them in the early 1980s, but I was a Penniless Student Oaf and thus didn't have that much money anyway. Mr Larrington (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr Larrington, there are also mobile phones in Will's world (though only used by 'secret service types'). The indications are therefore that Will's world is consistent with the time shortly before it was written (c.1990's). However my main point remains that as this is NOT an historical novel, it's problematic to pin the time down too much, even more problematic to extend time conclusions to 'other worlds'. Pincrete (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Editorial (in)activity and Archive 2

I created Archive 2 manually, comprising only the one longest-inactive section Talk:His Dark Materials/Archive 2#"Steampunk" in infobox. Although there was no final notice on the talk page, that point "had long since been resolved", as Pincrete says just above, in that a flurry of activity, skirmish if not war, concluded without mention of steampunk in the infobox Genres or the Categories. For the crucial article history see 12 edits October 2011.

I inserted the {{archive box}} beside the table of contents (above) for visibility; now many visitors will notice that this page does have WP:ARCHIVEs.

"2004-2009" and "2011-present", my annotations for Archives 1 and 2, imply a gap without any talk at all. In fact that was more than two years, Mar 2009 to May 2011. Beside any slowdown that is general to English Wikipedia, I feel sure that one reason here is the passing of five or six years activity in film adaptation, production, and distribution, 2003 to 2008. There is a WP:TASKFORCE of WP:NOVELS for His Dark Materials, established only in 2009 and apparently never active, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/His Dark Materials task force. FYI, the Harry Potter task force is inactive since completion of its film series, and the Narnia much less active since suspension of its filming.

--P64 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I tagged the task force inactive, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/His Dark Materials task force. I posted to its talk page a note that directs here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/His Dark Materials task force#Inactive.

Hope it helps. --P64 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"Samoyed: The Sami hunters of northern Scandinavia."

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, surely the Samoyed are Samoyed rather than Sami. Iapetus (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to find my e-copy of HDM, but couldn't. To be honest I don't remember Samoyed or Sami. However, since the ref to BOTH is in a 'glossary', there is no need for EITHER if no 'translation' is required. So yes, you are dead right, in the absence of evidence Samoyed=Samoyed.!Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the line. Iapetus (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Gyrocopters

Similarly to my last point - is there any reason to believe that Pullman's "gyrocopters" are helicopters (as currently stated), rather than actual gyrocopters? Iapetus (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Again not sure, I have now accessed the .pdf of the text. The problem with ALL these terms is that Pullman frequently borrows and 'mixes and matches' terms for things/places/institutions to create a feeling of 'familiar, but not the same' in the invented universes, especially that of the first book (Lyra's world). I will try to check 'copters' and 'Samoyed' when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC) .... ps they are a standard method of air transport in Lyra's world, but it is quite possible that they are EITHER or NEITHER, since this is a fantasy and does not have to obey the laws of physics.Pincrete (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Terminology and Pronunciation sections

Following this discussion on the Amber Spyglass page, I think we have to remove the Terminology and Pronunciation sections. My reasons are:

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. These sections are fancruft - trivia, superfluous to an encyclopaedic understanding of the subject.
• The sections contain original research, such as this introductory paragraph: Pincrete has now removed the original research passages.

"To enhance the feeling of being in parallel universes, Pullman renames various common objects or ideas of our world with archaic terms or new words of his own. The names he chooses often follow plausible alternative etymologies to those which have prevailed in modern English, thus making it possible to guess what everyday object or person he is referring to."

• Additionally, it strikes me that most of the entire list might amount to original research. Is there any place in the books, for example, where Groenland is explicitly explained to mean Greenland? Popcornduff (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the "To enhance the feeling of being in parallel universes" text, I agree completely that we shouldn't be interpreting WHY PP has coined these terms, or what their effects are. These lists used to be a separate article, which survived two AfD's. I think these lists ARE of value, (with the possible exception of pronounciation) and will try to make my case when I have time. Meantime, previous AfD 2007 (Keep) and AFD 2013 (no consensus but unopposed merge). Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I still want to delete these. If no one responds here in the next few days I'll assume everyone's stopped caring and do it. Popcornduff (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with removal of punctuation (since any worthwhile examples, such as 'daemon', are or could go in the relevant places) and any OR clean-up within the list. To me the value of the rest of the list is that pointing out that these terms 'echo' or 'borrow' real world terms is not OR, even if explaining why Pullman has used these terms would be. As you know I think, I spent months removing real world links from all these pages, eg PP's magisterium is not the RC magisterium, his John Faa is not the historical John Faa, Lyra does not live in our Oxford etc. How do we engage in the informative exercise of pointing out that there IS a real world magisterium, without implying that we know what the relationship is between the two? Doing this to me is not substantially different from pointing out that "His Dark Materials" got its name from elsewhere. I don't think the list is inherently OR, since the function within the book is established, and the origins of each word in our world are dictionary-like, this is compilation not synth.

The killer argument for me when AfD was held a few years ago, was that our list was being recommended as a source in a book by a US educationalist. The BBC website has a similair resource for both characters and terms. We could painfully go through each entry, reffing it to the BBC, but is it worth it? Another objection to the list which has been made is that some examples are borderline obvious (Brytain, Aerodock), I decided against pruning the super-obvious, because I could not see a 'cut-off point' of linguistic recognition.

I'm fairly certain that it is never explicitly stated that Will and Mary come from our world, but nonetheless we say they do. Writing a plot summary is itself technically OR, but nonetheless we do it because it benefits the reader. I would put this list in the same category, though any 'pruning' of OR I would endorse. Pincrete (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Writing a plot summary is itself technically OR, but nonetheless we do it because it benefits the reader." When writing plot summaries, the text itself is the source; we have to summarise the plot in a way that a reader can go and check, avoiding controversial or ambiguous readings, or drawing conclusions not spelled out in the plot (eg "there is blood on his glove, implying that he killed her", etc). Areas of this list do require assumptions and guesses and that, I think, borders dangerously on original research.

By the way, the preface of Northern Lights, at least my copy, contains this sentence: "The second volume, The Subtle Knife, moves between three universes: the universe of Northern Lights; the universe we know; and a third universe, which differs from ours in many ways."

The fact that the list was recommended by someone has, to me, no bearing on the argument. If something doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and goes against our policies, it doesn't belong, even if the Queen of England herself loved it.

More than anything, I don't see what's useful about this list from an encyclopaedic perspective, no matter who recommended it. It just seems to be a product of the urge to exhaustively catalogue, without actually telling us anything meaningful about the subject. Mentioning that the books use alternative names for things, with a couple of examples, would be justified. An entire list isn't. To me it is a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Popcornduff (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It told ME something meaningful when I first came to these pages - not a policy based argument of course. What it did for me was to increase my awareness of what a playful 'magpie' PP had been in his namings and usages. I'd spotted many examples myself, but not all, to me Magisterium was simply a majestic, magisteratial name, I didn't realise where PP had found it, because I know little about the RC Church.

The issues that people raised in the AfD (often people who didn't know the books), was whether a 'glossary' was necessary to understand the books - absolutely not. A kid can read these books and simply like the names of people and things and places. In some ways the namings are like the 'adult jokes' in a children's work, playful, mischievous, resonant, but certainly not vital info. It would be infinitely preferable if we had a thoroughly researched RS discussing this aspect of HDM, but we don't! Is it outside strict policy? Maybe. Is it OR? Maybe yes, maybe no. Could it be pruned more? Probably.

We clearly aren't going to agree here, I was extremely glad when you became involved here, it has been a painless and productive collaboration. If policy is applied strictly, you are probably right, but IAR is sometimes valid, somewhere between fancruft and cold-blooded application of policies designed for ALL articles, there is space for a little sensitivity to the material IMO. … … … ps, I agree about Good Queen Bess, she's old enough to look after herself! Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've created a RFC to get some other editors' opinions. Popcornduff (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: should we keep the Terminology and Pronunciation sections?

The Terminology and Pronunciation sections list fictional terms used in the His Dark Materials books and how to pronounce them. I'm concerned that this is fancruft unnecessary for an encyclopaedic explanation of the books, and possibly original research. Another editor, Pincrete, thinks the section may be useful to readers, and points out that it was recommended by an academic.

See the "Removal of Terminology and Pronunciation sections" section above for previous discussion. Popcornduff (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This content used to be a seperate article: previous AfD 2007 (Keep) and AFD 2013 (no consensus but unopposed merge) Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• The Terminology section appears to be largely Original Research, though portions of it have some sourcing. The Pronunciation section does indicate where the pronunciations are originating, but I am concerned that there's nothing here that's particularly non-trivial. My inclination is to say that non-sourced portions of the Terminology section need to go, while the Pronunciation section should be removed because it's trivial information. DonIago (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. The terminology section is not WP:OR anymore than a plot summary is or the various character descriptions are. All claims about what things, places, propfessions etc are verifiable within the books. Pullman adopts, co-opts and invents plausible terminologies using a number of languages and a wide range of historical and geographical milleus. Very few adults - and even fewer children - are going to have that breadth of cultural reference. There may be traces of OR left within the terminology list but I would oppose deleting in entirety, since IMO it would be throwing out the baby with the bath-water. I would not oppose removing the "pronounciation" section since most entries there are either self-evident, or would be more useful on the relevant pages. Pincrete (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• These should be removed per WP:NOTDICT. I also agree that they are fancruft. Lastly, someone should provide the referencing for each and every one of them in WP:RS to establish their appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, I see this as a reasonable WP:CHALLENGE as well. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. The pronunciations are sourced to an audiobook read by the author. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they're significant and should be included here. DonIago (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, per Pincrete. At least the terminology, it's an important part of the distinction between worlds. Pronunciation can go, but the terminology is encyclopedic and the article would be worse with this information. JesseRafe (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah mon Dieu! Pincrete (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

... So did we come to any sort of conclusion here? Apparently not. Popcornduff (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a minor detail, but finding the 'French' page nudged my memory. I suspect that the original source of this content is "Bridge to the Stars" ... an 'official' HDM fansite. Hardly RS, but not wholly OR either. The site no longer hosts the content (I think). Pincrete (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

... Not much of a great discovery, no offence. Popcornduff (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

None taken! I think there is loose agreement that 'pronounciation' is unnec, (one dissenter). Any non-obvious pronounciations would be more useful in individual articles (if not already there). Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article for years, but the recent edit to the Terminology section caught my eye on my Watchlist. I took a look at that section, thought "there is no way this should be in the article", came to this talk page, and was astonished to see the discussion above, which I have absolutely no memory of whatsoever.

I'm loath to start a new RfC, but I will say this: I'm afraid I agree completely with my 2017 self. This list is WP:UNDUE cruft that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. If this list were in some other area of the encylopedia, such as a video game article (see WP:GAMECRUFT), it would be swiftly removed. Shrug! Popcornfud (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think my opinion on it is much changed from the view I expressed at the time, if that helps. DonIago (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't changed either from above and from a previous discussion. Yes this is technically WP:OR, but no more so than a plot summary, or the descriptions of places, races, characters and worlds in HDM all are, the source is the book. I don't understand why this is dismissed as 'fancruft', any 'fancrufty' material can be removed, but babies and bathwaters come to mind. In the past this WP page has been mentioned in a book by an American educator as a good source of info. I agree that entries should be minimal, but the fact that HDM names draw on so many languages/concepts is not something which is going to be obvious to all, especially youngsters, who are the book's target audience. I think this is a valid WP:IAR situation. Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the original research here is not supported by the policies around plot summaries.

Take a look at MOS:PLOT:

Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source.

Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work.

But this terminology section is full of interpretation. For example: All scientific enquiry derives from the church and so the language that describes it has religious overtones (a chapel is ordinarily a place of religious worship).

Does the book tell us that Gebraltarik is "Gibraltar, from its Arabic name Jabal Tāriq"? Does it tell us that Groenland is from the Danish name for Greenland ("Grønland")? Does the book tell us that coal-silk is "a synthetic fibre made from coal, was invented as a substitute for natural silk, akin to Nylon"?

This is all interpretation and not permitted under Wikipedia policy. Popcornfud (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was supported by plot summary policy, nor any policy for that matter. I said it was not substantially more WP:OR than plot summary, or the descriptions of places, races, characters and worlds in HDM. How is describing a person, organisation, race or group of beings or a world or place which exists in HDM substantially different from describing a concept or a thing or a place-name in that world? Since many of those places, creatures etc are simultaneously fantastical and recognisable, a fair degree of concise inventive description is inevitable and is employed on many of the HDM pages. I agree that some of the entries could be pruned, but fail to see what is achieved by throwing out the whole section. Yes, in most instances it is almost impossible to conclude from reading the books that the names are not derived from foreign or archaic terms for equivalent places/institutions/peoples etc which they echo closely (a transient people called Gyptians?). But we shouldn't be saying we know how PP chose them and should rephrase 'Gebraltarik'. When I first read the books I recognised the origins of many Latin, Greek and theological, geographical and historical terms - I hadn't recognised others like the Dutch and Arabic ones until reading this section (though the phonetic similarity to Gebraltarik is pretty obvious). Guidelines are guidelines, not sacred text. I spent many months removing fancruft from the HDM pages, and 'real-world' links. There may be more which I missed, but I cannot see any benefit to removing this. Pincrete (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's original research, by your own admission, and so it goes against the WP:OR policy. Popcornfud (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My own admission is that it is WP:OR to the same extent that plot summary, or the descriptions of places, races, characters and worlds in HDM are - ie 9/10 of the coverage of the HDM pages, since only sections like 'controversies' and 'sales figures' are much discussed in WP:RS. So let's delete the lot while we are at it! Pincrete (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it's not the same as the plot summary. It contains extensive interpretation, which plot summaries cannot include. I gave some examples of this above. Popcornfud (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I can understand the logic of INDISCRIMINATE, I cannot understand the WP:OR logic, since even if we ignore plot summary (though I believe plot summaries often are more WP:OR than we like to admit. Our plot summaries on WP are very often bloated and full of inconsequential detail, but deciding what needs to be included and rendering it concisely is fairly creative IMO), even if we ignore plot summary, describing what is necessary to introduce characters, worlds, races and 'species of beings' in worlds with different physics, history, terminology etc from this world is - necessarily IMO - a million miles from rendering a 'flat-footed' factual account.

I don't know if they still do, but the BBC used to maintain an HDM 'glossary', covering places, characters, terms etc. I cannot remember whether they included 'etymologies', as we sometimes do. Ultimately - and this goes throughout the HDM coverage*** - ultimately it boils down to questions such as whether it is useful (to a teenage audience) to include info which is often fairly obvious to adults (the background or origins of words/terms such as alethiometer, Gyptians, Zeppelins, Magisterium, natural philosophy, places and regions etc). I think much of that info IS, useful and takes up little space.

• • Incidentally, many of the HDM 'character' pages could usefully be merged IMO, they simply 'bloat' the coverage. Pincrete (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I actually think the WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem is much larger than the WP:OR problem. I focused on the OR problem first because I didn't want to bludgeon the debate.

At the end of the day, this simply isn't the kind of information that Wikipedia documents. It's not simply that we should worry about whether things are clear to teenagers (we shouldn't — we focus on a general audience and don't get more specific than that). It's that this information isn't necessary to understand the subject matter in terms of giving a broad overview, from an encylopaedic perspective.

We shouldn't have this information in the article for the same reason we don't permit long lists of power-ups in video game articles, or lists of cars used in a movie about cars, etc. That is what is meant by "cruft".

There's no doubt this information would be useful and interesting to some readers. But there's lots of useful and interesting stuff that Wikipedia deliberately does not cover — for example, recipes, or how-to guides. Those things are for other sites to cover.

I agree about the needless character pages. Popcornfud (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Influences: The Alteration

As an influence on the series, albeit an unconscious one, I would argue the Magisterium bears more than a passing resemblance to the Church as it appears in Kingsley Amis' The Alteration. Instead of removal to Geneva by Pope Calvin, the Church in Amis' vision elects Martin Luther to the Throne of St. Peter as Germanian I. Thus, the disciplinary impulses (and abuses) which were occasioned by the Reformation in our world are avoided; as are the nationalist movements of the German princes; and the Risorgimento. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You'd need a source to make that argument. DonIago (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Controversies

I came to this page to look at the 'Controversies' section and found that rather than this there is instead a section called 'Reactions from Christians'. I really feel this heading should be changed to 'Controversies', as is the case with most pages. The current heading feels like an attempt to undermine the fact that there are controversies simply because the source of them is Christians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.113.167 (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I notice that this edit was reverted. If there is a good reason why the section title shouldn't be 'Controversies' then please do explain it or I will simply change it again. 82.25.113.167 (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Title referring to dark matter

It's quite obvious that the title refers to dark matter, since Dust is revealed to be the same thing as dark matter in the second book. The title is literally translated as "Dark Matter" in Spanish, for example. I've been trying to find sources confirming this, but my edits have been reverted twice so far, claiming WP:SYNTH. Here's the sources I've found:

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3340760/The-quest-for-dark-matter.html

She appears in the second book of his award winning fantasy trilogy, His Dark Materials, in which she sItalic texttudies dark matter, now the subject of a real-world scientific quest. "The very phrase dark matter is so evocative, mysterious and profound," says Pullman. "When I found the phrase 'his dark materials' in Milton's Paradise Lost, I leapt on it with glee. It was just the poetic effect I wanted."

Pullman here seems to pretty unambiguously say that dark matter inspired the title. I can see this is borderline WP:SYNTH, but I'd say it falls on the safe side.

• The Magical Worlds of Philip Pullman, by David Colbert

Pullman didn't imagine having Dust in his story because he'd read this passage in Milton. His idea about Dust came first. He found the passage when he was looking for a title that conveyed the idea of it. He was thinking of the scientific term for it in our world, “dark matter”, which is the term Mary Malone uses.

A published source clearly stating how the title was inspired.

I'd really like to include this information, since it makes the title a clever double reference to dark matter and Paradise Lost, and I presume many readers may not realise the slightly subtle reference. Any opinions if those two sources are enough? If anyone finds a clearer statement by Pullman, that would be great too. Mats84 (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There are many, many, many sources in which Pullman states explicitly that the title is from Milton, there are also many echoes of Milton in the books. I know full well that Pullman is interested in scientific ideas - including dark matter, but that is all the Telegraph source endorses, it's mainly about science not HDM. That when choosing the title PP MAY have had dark matter in the back of his mind and liked the echoes the Milton quote gave him, may well be true, but until he says explicitly - "the title refers to dark matter", we go with what he has said explicitly and repeatedly - that the title is from Milton. Equally, Colbert is interpreting, he cannot possibly know what was in PP's mind when naming the book - his is one opinion among many, but even so, in context, the emphasis in the Colbert text is to the complex resonances of Miltonic, religious and other ideas in HDM - of which dark matter is simply one. Nowhere does PP or Colbert say the title refers to dark matter - so it is WP:SYNTH to say it does, and appalling synth to say it MAINLY refers to dark matter. PP uses language in clever ways that bring all sorts of echoes and resonances, he clearly delights in doing so - but we do not/cannot interpret them on his behalf. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I was not disputing that the title refers to Milton. This is obvious, since this section from Paradise Lost is the preface to Northern Lights. Mats84 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I found a Pullman quote that explicitly confirms the dark matter reference: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/debate-human-nature-universally-acknowledged-k8tj068fcf8 (copy without paywall: http://www.celiadodd.co.uk/downloads/Times_08052004_Philip_Pullman.pdf) Mats84 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is the most explicit declaration yet and should be used in some way - but I don't agree with how you have used it, even less so with statements such as "In The Subtle Knife, it is revealed that Dust, a fictional elementary particle that is a central plot element in the trilogy, is the same as dark matter in "our world". This is utter nonsense - Lyra's world, Mary Malone's world (even though 'hers' is nominally 'ours'), are both fictitious. Dust is conscious, dark matter 'speaks' to Malone's computer, ie ultimately Malone's dark matter bears as little relationship to anything real in physics as Red Riding Hood/Big Bad Wolf does to anatomy or King Lear does to history, The Tempest to geography. In each case audacious imaginative leaps exploit nominally credible - or pleasing - ideas or 'facts' as 'jumping off points'. Pullman borrows the term dark matter, just as he borrows names and ideas brilliantly from innumerable sources. Your claim is MOS:INUNIVERSE, and makes no more sense than claiming that the portal that Will passes through in North Oxford is real (I grew up in Oxford, and know precisely where Pullman locates it, I used to go past that point daily - but I also know the portal is not real). Borrowing the term 'dark matter' - and even the imaginative ideas the term unleashes, does not mean the dark matter of physics and Mary's dark matter have anything in common at all - except the name.Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

With due respect, WP:GOODFAITH, please. You sound condescending, and your last edit summary ("this is pure nonsense") was not constructive.

I understand your concern with the "our world" phrasing, that's why I used the scare quotes and the word "fictional". I'll try to rephrase it to clarify, since I find it worth remarking that (a fictional version of) dark matter actually appears in the books and is central to the plot.

I'm also removing the "partly" you added ("Pullman chose this particular phrase from Milton partly because..."), since there is no other apparent reason for him to choose this particular phrase (not counting "to reference Paradise Lost", since this is already established).

Mats84 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologise, because I DO believe it is ridiculous to confuse/equate the fictional stuff Mary is studying with the factual stuff of physics. It is part of the brilliance of the series that PP imports and plays with ideas from many realms and has us all believing, or at least going along with, his created world. I, and a small number of other editors spent months cleaning up text that implied that for example, PP's John Faa, is history's John Faa - he isn't, a work of fiction exists in its own world, especially one as fantastical as HDM.

It isn't ultimately whether you or I think that the dark matter connection is an important theme of the book, nor what precisely the nature of the connection between PP's/Mary's dark matter and factual dark matter is - it's whether the balance of sources, give credit to the idea being important, or PP himself of course. I don't think they do, but I share what I take to be your core desire, which is to 'open up' the enormous range of ideas/references which PP employs - without engaging in WP:OR nor reductionist explanations as to his purpose or intent in doing so. He is quite capable of making his intent clear, to the extent he wishes to do so IMO.

You were right, 'partly' was unnecessary, I've removed it. I think 'this particular quote' is necessary, since it is clear that he definitely wanted to quote from Milton in his title.

Sorry I'm going to remove much of your recent addition, it has little to do with the title, is tortuously phrased due to the number of 'fictionals' necessary to retain accuracy, and is poorly supported as being important to most commentators. I've just rechecked, and my memory is correct that whilst it is strongly implied that dust equates in some way to Mary's dark matter, it is never stated. I even believe that I am correct when I say that whilst we are clearly meant to believe that Will's/Mary's world is the reader's world, even this is never stated explicitly.Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Mats84, I'm not going to revert your most recent version of the 'dark matter/dust' text. Personally I feel that it has to insert so many 'fictionals' as to be confusing rather than informing. I don't doubt what the novels say, what I doubt is how much one can conclude from a fictionalised substance (borrowing an actual scientific term), being studied in a fictionalised version of our world. PP likes to borrow exotic terms from science, philosophy, geography and history and 'play with them' for his own reasons - to great effect I add - but in the last resort they are connected only imaginatively to anything in the 'real world'. Pincrete (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Christianity and Jesus in the series' universe

"The dominant religion has parallels with Christianity, and is at certain points in the series (especially in the later books) explicitly named so..."

The "In the later books" part is not true. The word "Christian" occurs three times in the series, two of which refer to Will's world. The remaining one is in the first book, where Mrs Coulter has promised Jofur to have him baptised as a Christian.

"... while Adam and Eve are referenced in the text..., Jesus is not."

Technically, Mary Malone does mention Jesus twice, although this refers to her world of course. (Also, there's the Madonna as an alethiometer symbol.) Anyway, The Book of Dust does mention Jesus. So I don't think this factoid should be included in the article. Besides the statement being technically inaccurate, the current source for this is simply a journalist's personal observation; including this here is borderline WP:SYNTH. It would be appropriate to include it if it was brought up as part of the controversy (e.g by a Christian critic or apologist for HDM).

Mats84 (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the 'parallels' part of the above - mainly because saying "a version of" implies some real branch of Chritianity. Actually very little is made explicit about what the religion is, though it inherits some of "the trimmings" and terminology of catholicism.Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Spoilers in character section

I do not understand why the character section has to reveal a HUGE GIANT PLOT TWIST. Nothing angers me more than spoilers being in basic sections. I think twists should only be in detailed plot summaries. I know this is a losing battle but I'm going to share my displeasure. A person should be able to look up very basic information about a work of art without it being spoiled for them. How anyone in the world thinks revealing plot twists in a character bio is acceptable is insane to me. Daleylife (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it stuff that you feel is excessive as outlined at WP:SPOILER? One could just as easily argue that if people don't want to be spoiled about a work of fiction then they shouldn't be reading an encyclopedia article about that work of fiction. DonIago (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikpedia has become a good resource. I'm arguing that critical, SPOILING THE ENTIRE PLOT could be deep within, not in the character bios. That's what's insane. Yes, the character bios here and many other pages like to tell you a character's entire story instead of a basic description. Yes, it is excessive. And because of a certain character bio, I know know a major plot twist and an answer to an entire mystery plot point in the tv series. It's just so frustrating. Daleylife (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I think... a character bio section should be be extremely basic. But if I click on a character's name, THERE is where are all the information could be. When I'm just on a main article page about a work, it shouldn't spoil me unless I'm reading the entire plot summary. Daleylife (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Daleylife, are there specifics that you think are excessively detailed here? Pincrete (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. The fact the character bio of Mrs Coulter reveals she's Lyra's mother and responsible for the children going missing... I would not have those details there, only if you clicked on the character to go to her actual article page. After reading her bio, I stopped and hers was the only one I read. Daleylife (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Those are key elements of the series and, as such, seem appropriate for inclusion here. My opinion, of course. DonIago (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The Mrs Coulter revelations are also fairly early in the plot. I don't see how we could leave out such info and still cover the series.

Something I often do when consulting film plots (to establish whether the film is likely to be my 'cup of tea') is simply read the first para of the plot - often enough to establish whether it is the sort of thing I'm likely to like - and then jump to the reviews, where I often know who/what I tend to agree with. Read the book then look it up at WP is obviously what someone should do. Pincrete (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You are probably the first person I have come across who reads the review sections on articles. I mostly ignore it, unless I a personally try to expand it. My brother and other Wikipedia readers which I have encountered similarly ignore it. Force of habit, since professional reviews tend to mostly reflect the writers' biases and not any useful information. Dimadick (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I often read the first paragraph of the plot, being careful not to read further to avoid spoilers, and I also read the reviews to see if the film or book sounds worthwhile or conversely to see if I need to check more ratings and reviews before committing myself to renting or buying it. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I emphasise that I read reviews judiciously- aware of whose 'biases' tend to align with/differ from my own! Pincrete (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Picture captions

Zacwill, regarding these edits my captions were based on what the source(s) say.

In the case of the 'compasses' picture, the owner (British Museum) titles the work 'The Ancient of Days' and describes it as a frontispiece to "Europe a Prophecy" showing "a bearded nude male (probably Urizen) crouching in a heavenly sphere, its light partially covered by clouds; his left arm holding a pair of compasses and reaching down with them, measuring the surrounding darkness". Even if we left out the reference to Urizen, there's no way we could conclude it is 'God' or that it is called that.

The Gustave Doré is titled "The fall of Luciferìì" , Paradise Lost describes 'Satan' as being the post-fall name of Lucifer. I'm not sure where 'struggling through the "wilde Abyss" separating Hell from Earth' comes from, possibly partly from Milton. We don't necessarily need to slavishly follow titles, but we should not imply that the titles are something we have concocted IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

"The fall of Luciferìì" is not the "title" of the Doré engraving but rather the description that was added to it when it was uploaded to Wikipedia. The fact that "Lucifer" is misspelled should be a clue that it is in no way authoritative. The engraving originally appeared in Book II of Paradise Lost, which chronicles Satan's journey across the abyss separating Hell from Earth (and is the source of the phrase "his dark materials"). The original caption reads: "With head, hands, wings, or feet [Satan] pursues his way / And swims or sinks, or wades, or creeps, or flies."

Regarding the Blake print, at least one source suggests that it represents the God of the Bible rather than "Urizen". We need not get too deep into speculation about what Blake was trying to depict; it is enough for our purposes that the print serves as a suitable illustration of Milton's verse about God wielding the golden compasses. Zacwill (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What concerns me is that we should be clear about what is depicted and what each is called (which may not be quite the same thing). The 'Blake' source says "The frontispiece represents the " Ancient of Days," as shadowed forth in Proverbs viii. 27 : " when he set a compass upon the face of the earth " ; and again, as described in Paradise Lost, Book vii. line 236 : a grand figure, " in an orb of light surrounded by dark clouds, is stooping down, with an enormous pair of compasses, to describe the world's destined orb""

I wasn't able to access the 'owner' of the Doré, but assumed (wrongly obviously) that the WP title was the original title. I'm still not sure if the individual Doré illustration actually has a title. We largely agree about what it depicts, if not how best to describe it. I'll have a think. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither work has a title – not an official one, anyway. The Blake print is commonly known as The Ancient of Days, but Blake himself did not attach a title to it. Zacwill (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've attempted to rephrase the captions distinguishing what is shown from what it is generally called.

I've used your 'Blake/compass' source, but an 150 year old book ain't the greatest source and doesn't actually claim it's 'God' in the picture. You probably know, but Blake was notorious for inventing his own set of beliefs and interpretations. It's clearly some celestial being 'marking out' his creation and whether it's Blake's or the Christian creator is a bit academic in context. Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. If you agree that the distinction is academic, then why did you object to my caption in the first place? Additionally, why didn't you object to the previous caption, which read "God as architect, wielding the golden compasses"? Zacwill (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Q1. IMO it matters that we shouldn't be inaccurate about the subject matter nor imply a wrong title, It's clearly some celestial being 'marking out' his creation, I was partially wrong about my original assessment though and have largely restored your Doré text, slightly distinguishing 'subject matter' from 'title'.

Q2. I had never checked what the 'owner' (British Museum) said the picture showed or was called and assumed that the previous caption was accurate. It looks like 'God' after all, but probably isn't in the conventional sense! Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Still confused, sorry. What part of my caption was "inaccurate about the subject matter"? If it was my use of the word "God", then how is this "inaccuracy" rectified by your rephrased caption, which makes the claim that the print illustrates a specific verse in Proverbs involving Yahweh himself? Zacwill (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to find a way around saying who this 'celestial being' actually was, but none of the sources say that this is a drawing of 'God'! . The British Museum is pretty clear that it thinks the picture is of Urizen, I give more credit to their assessment than a Victorian biography, but was trying to reach a compromise and I recognise that exploring Blake's theological beliefs isn't very helpful on HDM. But not being helpful isn't a good reason for saying it's a picture of something contradicted by the experts (The British Museum). 'Your' source is very ambiguous about the relationship to the Proverbs quote: "as shadowed forth in Proverbs viii. 27". What does "shadowed forth" mean? Inspired by? Predicted in?. I'm open to all suggestions, but no source says that this is of or called 'God'.Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Would it make you feel better if we instead used an image that unambigously showed the Christian God, such as this one? I think it would be a shame to ditch Blake's work, but I also would like to put an end to this increasingly silly and tiresome discussion. Zacwill (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Pullman, Blake and Milton tie together very well and Pullman is an admirer of the other two, also the image is arresting so it would be a shame to 'drop' the image, which in many ways illustrates Milton's text more than it does Pullman's, except indirectly to illustrate Pullman's series title choice.

I'm sorry you find it silly and tiresome that we should not be using a description of the picture that is not endorsed by the 'owners' and experts (BM). They don't think it's a picture of 'God' except in the sense that it's a picture of a being that was part of Blake's (very individual and unique) theological beliefs (one of 'Blake's gods' if you like). Our own article describes the pic as taking its name from Daniel, being a picture of Urizen and being a rendition of the 'compass' text from Proverbs.

How we accurately caption it in such a way that also 'informs' about Milton and HDM, I am uncertain now, but it isn't IMO acceptable to simply call it 'God' just because it suits our purpose. Pincrete (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

What if we substituted "creator being" for "God"? Would this placate you? Zacwill (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Being accurate about what authorities say the picture is a picture of isn't 'placating' anyone. I'm sorry that you see it in those terms!

They don't say "creator being" either, they say a specific "creator being" called Urizen. We either be accurate about that name or find a form of words that avoids defining him, perhaps "The Ancient of Days" itself?

Do you object to the present text? Pincrete (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Then we simply caption it "The Ancient of Days by William Blake" and let the reader make his own mind up about what it depicts. How's that? Zacwill (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think textually linking it to the quote and Milton is preferable, but I'm not going to object, especially if we retain the 'Ancient' wikilink. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)