Philip Pullman - His Dark Materials

[caliburncy]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "lupinesque" <aiz24 at h...> wrote:
> It is only Will's own thoughts that would make an audience think he 
> was a murderer for that first death, I think.  At least, that's
> what I was thinking as I read it--"come on, Will, you didn't mean
> to kill him"--and so what emerged was a sense not that Will was
> dangerous but that he was extremely, even overly, conscientious.
> How will that be brought across in a screenplay, I wonder?

I was thinking the same thing! :-)

Everything from this point on is As Far As I Know.  I am no expert, 
nor even a terribly well-versed layman, when it comes to filmmaking.

The "conscientious" bit would actually probably not be that difficult 
to convey in the final product, but the onus would lie almost 
entirely on the actor and the director, not on the screenwriter.  
This is because most of this would be conveyed primarily through 
hesitations and facial expressions ("beats", really).  In this 
instance, a screenwriter would need to write some kind of reference 
to these things into the screenplay (I think the standard practice is 
to put "beats", like other descriptions, in square brackets), but the 
ultimate success, I suspect, would be dependent upon whether or not 
the director, especially, is familiar enough with this aspect of the 
book in order to solicit these kinds of reactions from the actor.

In other words, most screenwriters are not pretentious enough  (nor 
would they be successful in the industry if they were) to write in 
very much in the way of explanatory stuff.  Some surely, but very 
little.  So a screenwriter might write "[Will looks back over his 
shoulder at the body on the stairs and blanches]" (although even 
this, for a 'visionary' director might be invading their space too 
much), but the screenwriter would never continue "[Will blanches 
because . . .]"  The director and actor need to understand and convey 
the motivations behind the actions.

 
> The alethiometer, on the other hand, says he's a murderer.  So it's 
> as hyperconscientious as Will.

This actually, I found almost more surprising and illogical than 
Lyra's later comment (below).  Okay, let's assume that the 
alethiometer, being an infallible arbiter of truth, uses dictionary 
definitions for precision of language.  If so, then every dictionary 
definition of "murder" that I have ever seen goes beyond 
merely "killing".  i.e. My Webster's New World Dictionary Second 
College Edition gives: "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated 
killing of one human being by another".

Okay, let's apply this to Will's situation.  Unlawful?  There's no 
real way of knowing how this would play out in court, but let's just 
be agreeable and assume, for the moment, that it *would* be deemed 
unlawful (although in truth I doubt it).  Premeditated?  No, but 
since that is preceeded by the word "or", it doesn't have to be to 
qualify as murder (only to qualify, legally speaking, as first 
degree).

So okay then, but malicious?  I don't see this at all in Will's 
situation.  Did the alethiometer perceive malicious intent here?  If 
so, I would be rather surprised.

Pullman uses the O.E.D, as I recall, and even if he doesn't it should 
probably be used as the standard in this instance since HDM is 
British.  Does the O.E.D. give a wildly different interpretation of 
the word "murder", or something?

Obviously, since alethiometer uses symbols, not words, one could 
argue that the choice of the word "murderer" is Lyra's own 
interpretation and there is definitely some validity in this.  But in 
all other circumstances it seems as if the Dust (i.e. controlling the 
alethiometer) conveys its original intent quite clearly despite any 
allegorical hurdles.


> They could omit Will's whole evolution, how much he's sickened by 
> violence (even accidentally inflicted), which would be a shame
> because I like it--but there are several complex characters in
> those books and they'll have to be greatly simplified.

You are right that some of the complex characters will need to be 
simplified, but I highly doubt that this will include Will, seeing as 
how Will is the second most important character in the story.  
<Luke's eye takes on a threatening glint> Right, Mr. Filmmakers?  
Right?

If I were doing this film (ha!), I would definitely *not* get rid of 
the way he is sickened by violence, because frankly, if we go back to 
Barb's point about acceptability, this is one of the things that 
makes the books palatable from an ethical standpoint.  Why get rid of 
it, if doing so would only alienate more viewers?  Furthermore, I am 
well aware of time constraints and differences in medium, but these 
do not seem to greatly impact Will's evolution--this still should be 
possible to convey in a film adaptation.  The things more likely to 
go, due to these time constraints, are a lot of the trivial subplots 
and characters, like pretty much anything involving Ruta Skadi, who 
is almost totally useless from a plot point of view (and I can't say 
I'd miss her, myself, but that's beside the point).  Or anything that 
works well in a book, but does not convey well to the screen 
(differences in medium), especially any sort of exposition and any 
thoughts.  And it is pretty much inevitable that events will be 
altered, combined, and eliminated to some extent (a la LOTR, 
especially), but of course the questions "how" and "which ones" 
depends on the screenwriter, who, for all I know, might even decide 
to *keep* Ruta Skadi.


> I have never understood why Lyra relaxes when she learns he's a
> murderer, though I'm intrigued by it, and I'd love to hear people's 
> interpretations.

Well, I took this at sort of face value, but I can't say I have ever 
felt like I fully understood it either--if there is something beyond 
the face value (explained hereafter) then I don't have any clue what 
it is.

I suspect one of the biggest reasons is because Iorek Byrnison, too, 
is a murderer, and I do not think Lyra automatically equates being a 
murderer with being a terrible person largely because of this 
influence (in truth the same could be said for people like Lee 
Scoresby, but the book seems to particularly emphasize the 
comparisons between Will and Iorek, in more than one instance).  But 
furthermore, her impression of a murderer seems to be that a murderer 
is someone who can do what they have to do, who isn't, as the book 
puts it, "untrustworthy or cowardly".

Obviously this is a bit of a mental leap in logic, because it is 
especially a fallacy to presume an inherent connection between 
trustworthiness and being a murderer (on *either* side of the coin, I 
might add: it is equally a fallacy to presume that all murderers are 
untrustworthy).  Even Lyra does not seem to pan this thought of hers 
out to its full implications, which would require her to deem people 
such as Lord Asriel, Mrs. Coulter, Father Gomez, etc. as also 
trustworthy, which does not appear to be the case.

I think the reason that in this instance it "relaxes" her, rather 
than putting her on her guard is frankly just because I think Lyra 
already has started to get some sense of who Will is, and so her 
first instinct is not to presume that Will is a murderer in the 
dangerous sense, but to presume a character more parallel to that of 
Iorek.  That first interpretation perhaps just fit better with what 
she already knew about him and subsequently relaxed her because it 
reassured her of some other things that she did not already know (see 
above).

Does that make it logical?  Well, no.  It's twisted.  But I think I 
can sort of see how she came to that conclusion.

Hmm, I bet that didn't really help at all, because my gut instinct is 
telling me that Amy was already quite aware of everything I just 
wrote, and that she too, like me, is just wondering if there is some 
deeper explanation.

Okay, what the heck, I'll try and take a stab in the dark at that.  
My suspicion, although I would *love* to hear theories to the 
contrary, is that, no, there is no explanation beyond that face value 
one.  But I do think there is a *purpose* that is deeper than the 
face value, because it's pretty obvious that Pullman's motivation in 
writing that line was ultimately not because he thought it was in 
character for Lyra.  Sure, it may well *be* in character for Lyra, 
but I don't think that's really why he wrote it.  I notice that one 
of Pullman's particular skills is to add a touch of sensationalism in 
order to make a point, by phrasing things in an off-kilter manner or 
expressing an idea that's inherently contrary to the conventional 
wisdom.  The purpose always seems to be, as best as I can tell, not 
necessarily to have people swallow whole and be converted to the 
things he is saying, but to jolt them back into a position of re-
examining their own take on the conventional wisdom.

Obviously, Pullman at no point in HDM condones murder, but the 
comment about murderers (which is, IMO, a *very* distinct concept 
from murder) does seem to have, as a primary goal, a little bit of 
shock value just to get the reader in a position to effectively re-
examine themes (for which this question of "murderers" is a very well-
suited introductory example) such as people vs. actions, intentions 
vs. results, and, yes, even the quintessential good vs. evil.  The 
latter of which I was pleased to see Pullman take on in a non-
traditional fashion throughout HDM, but I wish he had gone even 
further into what I believe to be the next step, into what I (and 
perhaps others, though I don't know about them) call non-comparative 
morality.  That would have made me cheer.  As it is, I can't help but 
have certain qualms with Pullman's expressed worldview (though since 
it's his and not mine I will leave it to its own devices), because 
was so disappointed to feel like it falls just a little short of my 
own personal best guess at the truth.  So close to a bit of 
affirmation and then . . . doh! didn't quite make it.  Anyway, that's 
another story.

-Luke