#hdm meta: simon talbot | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lordeasriel · 2 years

Text

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

#the book of dust #the secret commonwealth #hdm meta: worldbuilding #hdm meta: daemons #hdm meta: gottfried brande #hdm meta: simon talbot #meta by effie

18 notes · View notes

lordeasriel · 3 years

Text

Effie’s Meta for His Dark Materials: a Masterpost

Per an anon request (sorry for the delay, I actually write A LOT lmao) here’s a masterpost to all the meta and analyses and other stuff I’ve written for HDM and TBOD in the past two years. Usually I add spoilers when I write analyses (and I point out which books are being spoiled), but be warned that there may still be some hints about The Book of Dust in these posts.

This will be updated in case I write new things, so you can bookmark it if you want to.

Analysis and other meta posts about His Dark Materials & novellas.

Why Asriel requires no redemption arc?

Thoughts on ‘Uncle’ Asriel.

Oakley Street during His Dark Materials.

The Three Satans: Mary, Asriel & Xaphania.

Why Marisa lied to Lyra about their relation?

Thoughts on Lyra and Asriel’s similarities.

Lyra’s relationship with Asriel.

Thoughts on Ruta Skadi.

Thoughts on the Witches.