In the third chapter of The Amber Spyglass, Serafina Pekkala rushes to the company of an ally in order to spread news of disaster in the other world. Intrigued? Then it’s time for Mark to read The Amber Spyglass.
CHAPTER THREE: SCAVENGERS
I guess I was right, but I wouldn’t find out until this book: Lord Asriel’s actions have set in motion the destruction of Lyra’s world. Is he ever going to have to stand accountable for what he’s done here? At the opening of chapter three, Pullman narrates the terrors of the natural world through Serafina Pekkala, who openly weeps at the sight of her once-beautiful land and how it is now being destroyed. The ice caps are melting. The snow has disappeared from the mountain caps. The sun is out. When she finally comes upon her destination (OMG IOREK BYRNISON!!!!), she finds the bear-king swimming to catch a walrus, which is unusual because they should be hunting on the ice.
It’s sad to hear Serafina express such disappointment in herself as she begins to tell Iorek that his comrade, Lee Scoresby, has died. I guess we’re dealing with that now, eh? I didn’t want to. I’m still in shock that he’s dead, and I’d like to believe there’s a chance we could see him again, one last time. But that’s the thing about death: you rarely get to say what you want before it comes.
Serafina reveals that she cast a spell on Lee to prevent him from decomposing and then gives the bear-king instructions on how to travel to this parallel world so that he may see his friend one last time. We’d spent so much time in the world Iorek lives in that I forgot that this parallel world has talking animals in it. As these two speak of other worlds and Lee, a few Arctic foxes are eavesdropping on the two. I knew that they were referenced in the chapter title, and I was intrigued to learn that they can only understand speech in the present tense, but I can’t say I understood why they were here at all. They are scavengers of speech, apparently, but how did that relate to anything else?
Before we get back to that, let’s celebrate one thing, and one thing only: Having (part of) a chapter from the point of view of Iorek Byrnison. Doesn’t that sound perfect forever? Because it is. It truly is. Iorek’s narration is more matter-of-fact than anyone else’s, and it feels well with his generally-calm demeanor. I don’t take Iorek to be the kind of bear to show a wide, varied spectrum of emotions, so he sets off on his journey to find Lee Scoresby in a no-nonsense kind of way.
It does not take him long to find what he is looking for, and he walks determinedly towards the gully where Serafina told him he would find Lee’s body. The ground is littered with the after effects of war, though it seems many other people had died her long before the Tartar guards. Iorek is a patient creature and he walks with just that one goal in mind: To see his friend one last time. I started feeling sad when Iorek passed the giant boulder, marked with bullets. I didn’t know that I wanted to see Lee’s lifeless body without Hester alongside him. Iorek does not think in such terms, and he presses on to discover the body of the aeronaut who saved his life.
I really loved this line:
Lee Scoresby looked not asleep, nor at peace–he looked as if he had died in battle–but he looked as if he knew that his fight had been successful.
I still can’t really accept it. WHY PULLMAN WHHHYYYYYY. I just wanted more chapters with him, but now he’s gone. As I became increasingly upset at the thought, I wondered how Iorek would take seeing Lee’s body like this. I got my answer.
And because the Texan aeronaut was one of the very few humans Iorek had ever esteemed, he accepted the man’s last gift to him. With deft movements of his claws, he ripped aside the dead man’s clothes, opened the body with one slash, and began to feast on the flesh and blood of his old friend. It was his first meal for days, and he was hungry.
Oh, well don’t let me stop you there, Iorek. Keep going!
My shock at this was brief, lasting only a few seconds before I came to understand how…romantic this was? I suppose that’s the only way I know how to describe it. I don’t mean it in the sexual sense, but it is an overwhelmingly intimate moment for Iorek, don’t you think? In this moment, however, thoughts swirl into Iorek’s head. He worries about Lyra; he worries about the “agitation among the witchesâ€; he worries about the existence of parallel worlds, one of which he just swam into; he worries about the loss of the ice and how it has divided his kingdom, leaving him to seek out a new place for the panserbjørne to live. Out of everything, Iorek chooses to focus on but one of them: vengeance.
Iorek would avenge him. The good man’s flesh and bone would both nourish him and keep him restless until blood was spilled enough to still his heart.
Uh. This is…..the greatest possible character direction for Iorek??? This bear is BUILT for revenge. And without Lyra to calm him or stop him….oh shit, it’s gonna get REAL. EXCITE!!!!
Briefly, Pullman switches over to a cliff-ghast. No, seriously! We learn that they know Scoresby is dead, and this seems to excite them. Do I know what this means? I don’t!
I do know that we get another bit of Lyra’s dream in the world of the dead. Is she actually there, though? Does that potion that Mrs. Coulter fed her do this? Either way, Lyra seems to be stuck in the world of the dead for the time being. Is it possible that Will could stumble upon her there if he finds a way to travel to that world? I suppose anything is possible at this point.
——————
Remember, visit BridgeToTheStars.net to discuss this week’s posts in a spoiler-happy environment!
Now it seems a lot more poetic and I understand it, but as a child I was SERIOUSLY FREAKED OUT by Iorek eating Lee. Like, that was LEE and he ATE HIM.
Well, not all of him. He left some marrow for other scavengers! Yeah, I can see how it would freak out a little kid.
In a weird way, it's sweet that Iorek is getting strength for his vengeance from Lee. And leaving the flower on Lee's remains is lovely.
I definitely think it's really quite a nice idea now. I just remember being 13 and going "HE DID WHAT TO LEE?????"
You're far more mature than I am, because my first reaction is still
<img src="http://i51.tinypic.com/2rqhwev.gif">
It makes sense, but I'm still shocked!
But it's only meat that Lee isn't using anymore? Someone else might as well, and who better than Iorek!
I did like the flower part. I could see it perfectly in my head. Bravo, sir!
I know. I'm a polar bear bigot. Scenes of carcass eating will always cause a visceral reaction!
It's a great scene. I'm really enjoying the short, vivid chapters in this book!
YOU BIGOT OMG WHAT WOULD IOREK SAY
Nah, seriously: Different people have different reactions, coming from different places. I apologize for not being as empathetic to your POV as I could've been.
Let us agree on the short awesomeness of this chapter!
lol thank you for your consideration!
To be honest, I never understood the problem with maneating. If it died of natural causes (well, Lee died fighting, but it's not like Iorek murdered Lee to eat him), and the person who used to live in that body would be okay with it, and you can get over your "I'm eating HUMAN FLESH" mental block, I say bon appetit.
When I die I'd rather be eaten by worms, armored bears, what have you than to be pumped full of preservatives and made to look pretty.
Anyway, all that to say that I wasn't bothered in the slightest when Iorek ate Lee. Circle of life and that.
My will states that I'll be cremated. Because fire's awesome. Being left out like Lee for nature to have back would also be cool, but probably not acceptable in, oh, any number of health codes.
It was done in SFU. The body was buried without being embalmed and without a coffin. I'm waiting to see how that storyline's going to turn out.
I plan on donating becoming an organ donor and donating the rest of my body to science. I feel as if it'd be more useful that way.
There's a place somewhere in the States – I don't remember where, I want to say one of the Southern states but I'm not sure – where donated bodies are left in various containers and situations to decay so that the remains can be studied in order that the (real) CSI/NCIS type people can learn to more accurately gauge time of death and that kind of thing. Not sure I'd wanna work there… but at the same time it's useful work, especially for anyone who for whatever reason might not be eligible for organ donation.
Hmmm I meant what the people studying do is useful work… kind of sounds a bit like I'm suggesting decomposing in a field somewhere as a career option but it's late and I can't figure out how to say it better…
They're called "Body Farm's" and they're amazing.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_farm
Thanks for the info 😀 I have a feeling it's the Texas or Tennessee one I saw – on a programme about Stephen Fry touring America.
These body farms look like my kind of place. I'll get to decompose and my body will help educate others.
Exactly! Soon as I read your post I thought of that.
It's kind of gross but fascinating at the same time, and there's no doubt it must have helped forensic scientists over the last few decades enormously to have access to that kind of information.
I'd like to be cremated and then my ashes used to enrich compost, once all appropriate organs had been donated of course.
Same, only I'd like my ashes tossed in the face of my enemies. Or used to grit the path in winter. Either/or.
There's such a thing as sky burial or air burial, which is practiced in Tibet, I think. The corpse is dissected on a mountaintop and left for birds of prey and other animals to eat. Apparently this came about because other burial practices were too difficult in the harsh climate of Tibet–the ground is too hard to dig graves, and wood is scarce–but I think it's kind of poetic. Giving the body back to the world, nourishing further life, in a direct, physical way.
ETA: Dammit! Someone beat me to it. Redundant comment is redundant.
The whole pumping people full of preservatives to make them look pretty thing is the freakiest thing ever I have to agree. Ugh.
And then your loved ones parade by and look at you. I understand the need for closure, but at the same time it creeps me out. I'd rather decompose naturally, thanks.
Yeah… ugh. I even find having a closed coffin somehow a bit… I dunno, I just don't like it.
When my dad died, we had the service at the crem first, said our bye byes and what have you (closed casket, thankyouverymuch) and then the service afterwards didn't have a coffin sitting there looking at us and was a celebration of his life, not sitting there reminding ourselves that he was dead. So many people commented on how much nicer (insofar as funerals are ever nice!) that was.
THEY'RE EATING HER (Him)
AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO EAT ME!
OH MY GOOOOOOOOD!
You forgot to mention that Serefina is now off to find John Faa. That was the most exciting part for me.
The sequences with Lyra and Roger are another highlight of the audiobook. Pullman's usually straghtforward narration becomes very slow and atmospheric, and it's backed by a very creepy, atonal piece of music. Plus, all these sections actually flow directly into each other. It's pretty cool to go back and read them like that.
How does the audiobook deal with the 'dream' sequences flowing straight into each other? Every time I read one of those I always have to flip back to the previous one to find out how the sentence started. It's easy enough to get the gist, of course, but I'd find it very unsatisfactory if I didn't have the option to know what the complete sentence was that's being said. Does the audiobook help you out in any way with that?
They just cut off, and then the next one starts like it's the beginning of a sentence.
I bet they were all recorded together as one session and then they cut it in pieces to put in the different places so everything comes from the same recording only in parts. At least that's how I'd like it to sound like, as if it was just one piece that we were listening to in parts. Do you know if the background music begins again with each piece or continues where the previous part left off? That'd be a way to know how it was made.
It plays on its own for a bit at the beginning and end of every segment, so I'd guess they were done seperately.
I think the words were done all at one time, and when they chopped it, they added music later. At least, it seemed to me that it flowed pretty well. But, I haven't listened to the audio version in a loooooong time.
But it's better to go back and read them together once you have them all. While they're happening, it' best to just go along, but when they're over you can go back and read it all through.
Agh, the beginning of this chapter. It's like those WWF commercials with Noah Wyle narrating, and I feel terrible about the polar bears starving to death, but I can't mute it because it's a book. Serafina Pekkala broken up over the loss of Lee Scoresby and her inability to protect him makes it a million times worse.
But yay, Iorek is back! And he's ready for revenge. Joy!
I have always found this part of the book rather beautiful. Iorek honours his friend by making him part of him in a way. You just know that Lee would have told him to do it.
Mark Reads Stranger in a Strange Land, anyone?
I would grok that.
I was just thinking of that.
Although I think Mark would be seriously perturbed by the sexism and homophobia in that book.
Yeah. The first time I read it I was a bit squicked out, but with Iorek's culture and Lee's character, it makes absolute sense.
Also I think Mark got it spot on when he said that it is a very intimate thing. I get the impression the armoured bears aren't big into sentiment, but somehow eating Lee is a very sentimental thing for Iorek to do.
I always thought this too, I think that sentiment is a very important thing there. Iorek wouldn't eat any old body he found, and I can almost hear a sardonic "well, I ain't got much use for it now" from Lee on the matter. Lee's a practical man.
Yes 🙂 yesyesyes!
Terrifying stuff, really, that a world is dying.
And worse; the world in which one may get a daemon. The place that grants even outsiders that beautiful insight, and that lifelong companion… is being destroyed.
"The knght's bones are dust, / And his good sword rust;- / His soul is with the saints, I trust."
*S. T. Coleridge*
Today's chapter quote is especially apt. Lee is gone, and all we can hope is that he is in a better place, and that Iorek will WREAK ULTIMATE VENGEANCE!!! Ahem. Hem. Pardon.
Thanks again for the beautiful contribution. Until it was mentioned here, I didn't know that not everyone had those quotes at the beginning of each chapter. I love my edition more so for this. 🙂
There are chapter quotes? Which edition has these? I have very early editions of most of the books (1st edition for the Amber Spyglass) and mine don't have them.
Is it a US edition? I have a first edition UK Amber Spyglass and it has all of the quotes, as far as I remember. (I'm listening to the audiobook at the moment to keep up because I'm on holiday but none of the quotes are surprising me and I remember them being glorious lots of them. I am a massive quote-hoarder, I have a giant word document full of beautiful/funny/awesome quotes I've collected over the years.)
Yeah, it's the US first edition. Huh. I'll have to look those up.
The edition I have is probably from the same as the first UK edition as translations from that one also have the quotes. I don't know if you have it like that, but at the beginning of each chapter for TGC and TSK there is a square with a picture in it at the beginning at the left of the text. That same square is filled with a quote instead of a picture in each chapter of TAS. These are the quotes being transcribed here by theanagrace.
My edition is the one with the constellations on it. I hope this link works?
And it has the quotes but they are extremely tiny, and printed at the top of the page for the new chapter, above the chapter title.
I have them but my copy isn't printed that well so some of them are illegible. Do you know if there's anywhere online that has them listed?
BTTS has them now 🙂
http://bridgetothestars.net/misc_gallery/Extras/T…
Thanks for that!
Thanks for posting these quotes. My edition doesn't have them, and I never knew what I was missing!
Great! I didn't know what you'd do with these dream sequences if you forgot to point at the previous one last chapter.
I like how Iorek's point of view is the point of view of a creature of Nature, where everything goes back to nourish the rest of life when it dies. This isn't a society where you bury the dead because you don't want to see it to be reminded of your mortality. This is Nature, where everything is a useful part of it, even when it stops being useful to you. This is Nature, where there's no shame in dying, where it's accepted as part of the natural order of life and a welcomed part as well as it generates more life in many other strata. Nothing is lost, nothing is wasted. I simply love the way Pullman doesn't forget the different natures of different species just because he's speaking from a human consciousness. Most writers don't even bother to separate the nature of creatures as they don't understand any other than the human nature.
Keep going, SHIT IS NOT EVEN REAL YET.
"I simply love the way Pullman doesn't forget the different natures of different species just because he's speaking from a human consciousness."
Yes – that's one thing that he is excellent at. One gets the impression that all these cultures are very well rounded in his head, and that he probably knows a lot about them beyond what ever appears in the books.
Following a cat through a window is how you do it when you're so much of a BAMF to begin with that you don't need to show off about it.
Fair point. If Will had used a method proportionate to his BAMF-ness, Cittagazze would no longer be there because that window would have exploded from sheer awesomeness.
I was very moved by Iorek eating Lee, and quite horrified as well. I love the alien-ness of it, and how it makes sense and is fitting and yet is still DUDE YOU'RE EATING YOUR FRIEND WTF? Bravo Pullman. Iorek is such an ace character.
Johnny Faa's coming back! It's like rounding up the old gang! Bring it on! 😀
It reminds me of a bear-character in a Terry Pratchett book called Strata. The bear-like creature is called a Shand (I forget her actual name though) and Shandi can only metabolise Shand proteins – ie other Shand (I forget if they can eat other things from their home planet or whatever, but def. the whole Shand eating Shand is a big thing). They even have a ritual game where the winner gets to eat the loser, and indeed keep the loser in his/her freezer in order to have sustenance over a longer period. It's another really interesting culture clash thing, in the midst of what is in general quite a humorous book.
Jo Walton has a book called Tooth and Claw, about civilized dragons who bequeath their corpses to their children, because only through eating dragon flesh can they grow larger and more powerful. It's a very cool book, part legal battle, part coming-of-age, and a few other things as well.
Oh god, this chapter freaked me out so much! I understand it, I really do, after all, we're talking about polar bear, but once I imagined scull cracking and everything else, I got sick.
To be honest it was a bad week for me, having finished Sheldon's Master of the game, and found out what a human centipede is, but still, dreams after reading this weren't pleasant. On the other hand, I admire Pullman's courage to actually write something like this chapter.
I really hope we're going to spent time with the Gyptians again… find them fast, Serafina!
Iorek approaching the battle field was a really touching scene and even though the thought of Iorek eating Lee is a bit revolting at first, it makes perfect sense.
Perhaps the fact that it's not even a question for Iorek, it's so natural to him, makes it easier to comprehend…
Please don't use "lame" on this site.
My apologies. I will delete my original post and reword. I didn't think and thank you for pointing that out to me.
Thank you.
"Lame" is also banned? I think it's time to create a glossary of forbidden words if this is the extent to which it's going to be carried. It would never have crossed my mind to think of this as a negative term in the way you imply which also makes me think on how many regular words actually fall in the category of being negative instead of positive (50/50 in the entire English language, I should say) and the use of a negative word itself and how the negative nature in the entire language is being outcasted -there, I just said "outcast" and it's a negative word; am I banned for it? And "ban" is also a negative word, as well as "forbid". Clearly I have to abandon half the language if I want to write anything. Even the word "no" will be taken out at this rate.
This is not a criticism, don't take it as that, it's a simple thought on how words that I always considered completely harmless are being given an evil nature by the negative use of them some people take. If I go along your line of thinking (I don't say it's wrong, I just say not everyone can see evil everywhere if they're not looking for it and you are now making me look for evil in everything regardless of nature) I can see the entire language as built on evilmonger terms, always looking for the sin and the wrong to point out. With this thought in mind, how can I speak a language which was made to shame people into submission to the powerful?
All I'm saying, from the perspective I was in, is that now I can't view the language as having any harmless terms in it. This is why I thought of pointing out the need for a glossary, otherwise I think I'll have to abandon the language itself for being evil in its usage. Like how I can't think of a way to say this any better without sounding offensive. I'm merely concerned at the vast extent of negative connotations that's been taken into account here. I need guidance lines to get a stronger footing here.
A pretty rough and ready guideline is – is it a word with a negative connotation that is also associated with a group of people?
Lame fits that, the examples you give don't. Who would possibly be possibly be offended by the word "outcast"?
And I'm not sure if this was your intention, but your line of argument comes across as extremely passive-aggressive. For example, nobody is going to ban you for using a potentially offensive term, they'll just ask you not to – and that'll give you a new perspective on the origins of some words in language.
Honestly, there are only a handful of them and the potential for offence is pretty clear when you think about it. Its just that we don't always stop to think – but nobody will be blaming you for not realising. It's a pretty innocent mistake to make.
This, on the other hand:
"If I go along your line of thinking (I don't say it's wrong, I just say not everyone can see evil everywhere if they're not looking for it and you are now making me look for evil in everything regardless of nature) I can see the entire language as built on evilmonger terms, always looking for the sin and the wrong to point out."
is just nonsense – the potential for offence exists clearly in a few words, not all of them, and all you have to do to see it is put yourself in the position of the person who could be offended by it. Spinning it out into some generalised argument is pointless – just use some empathy and a bit of humility.
And I say all of this as a white straight able-bodied European male.
Edit: and there isn't a list as such but "lame" does get a mention in rule 3:
http://markreads.net/reviews/about/
Plenty of explanation there.
I know plenty of people who would be offended by "outcast" as well as plenty who would feel proud of being considered as kicked out of a society who doesn't appreciate them. For those who don't like it, it'd be tantamount to call them "philistines". That's the point I tried and apparently failed to make. As for blaming me for not knowing, I know some would and I can't stop them from doing so, therefore I'd like to avoid it if at all possible.
I know the paragraph you mention wouldn't even sound coherent but as that was the worried state of mind I was in when I wrote it, I left it in case anyone wanted to call out against it (the truth is, that'd be the only way for me to know where others don't want me to go). And I stand by what I said though differently; the language was built to shame people in as many ways as possible. You say only a few words have that quality and I can see more than half of them if I look for the evil, as I said. Putting myself in the position of the offended party doesn't help either, as some things would sound as praise and others as offense. Empathy and humility I think I don't have if I can't see more clearly into this. This is a personal fallacy which I don't know how to fix.
This is the reason why I'd like a list of terms not to be used in this site, updated as they show up, so I know precisely what not to say in here.
This discussion is getting off-topic now, so I won't prolong it past this. Outcast is used to describe someone who has, in some way, been cast out from a society. It is, essentially, an accurate description of their situation, independent of whether they feel positively or negatively about that. I'm not aware of it being used as a slur – although I could possibly imagine a situation where someone might not like being called an outcast. However, and this is key, I can't see a situation where someone else being described as an "outcast" would be offensive, if they'd been cast out of their society. It's just a description, there isn't a another use of "outcast" to mean a bad thing that might, in turn, be offensive to people who have been cast out of a society.
"Lame" has general meaning of something being not good, not up to scratch or inadequate but also has the meaning of not being able to walk properly. By using the first meaning, you are associating not being able to walk properly with inadequacy in general, which is potentially offensive to anyone who has any difficulty with walking. Do you see the difference? It seems pretty clear to me. It's using a group of people to represent another, negative, thing. Now if you can show me a way in which "outcast" fits that then I'll agree it's offensive and that I was ignorant in thinking otherwise – but that principle really doesn't apply to half of the words in the English language.
If said "The horse threw a shoe and so it was lame" that wouldn't be offensive, that's the original, non-derogatory use of the word. But I soon as use lame to mean "not very good" I'm making an association between those qualities, which could easily cause offence.
Honestly, I'm baffled, that you can't see this – which is why I've taken the time to try and explain. However, the discussion is ultimately off-topic for this site. So I'd say just play it by ear – make a not of words that you are called out on (if you are) don't worry if that happens. If you want to get to the bottom of why some people find them offensive, then google is your friend – but don't try and argue the point here, just make a note and move on.
But really, as I've kind of said below, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Certainly not to the point where you're going to need a list to avoid getting banned. If someone thinks it's a good idea and they have time then maybe they'll write one – but don't demand one and don't make a fuss if one is provided and you get called out over a word that isn't on it. Writing hard and fast rules in advance of all eventualities is pretty much impossible (which is a good reason not to have a list at all, I think).
If you want to improve your awareness, here's a list to ponder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-r…
Edit: some better resources to consider in these search results:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ableist language
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sexist language
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=racist language
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=homophobic langu…
Thank you, and I apologise for whatever I sound like. It's a fear of being unable to understand other people's feelings completely and by that causing more pain each time so I become despondent. I don't know how else to describe my lack of empathy.
I'm going to keep these links you put here, they're useful.
Goodness me, don't worry. What looked maybe a bit confrontational or passive-aggressive in your first post has been firmly put into context by your subsequent replies. I wouldn't even go too hard on the "lack of empathy" bit if your were unaware of the original, less common, usage of the word "lame".
The people who are arseholes about this sort of thing go on about terms "aren't really offensive" and aren't even willing to accept that they don't have all the viewpoints. There's certainly nothing wrong with not realising a term is part of an oppressive culture until that's pointed out to you – if you haven't experienced that oppression then it's understandable that you wouldn't be aware of it. Also, in the more subtle cases (like "lame") the word carries a connotation that a lot of people using it will be unaware of, the reinforcement of oppression is coincidental, not intended. So without some etymological knowledge, you aren't going to guess at the offensiveness of the word from the way it is used.
I suspect there sometimes comes a point where words are so distanced from their original use that they lose whatever power for oppression they once had – but that's a discussion for elsewhere. Mark and his team have to make the judgements here and we need to respect them and try to understand. Because, ultimately, we're not talking about language, we're talking about books and there are plenty of alternative words to use.
"Who would possibly be possibly be offended by the word "outcast"?"
Untouchables in India? I'm not being facetious… just pointing out that what one culture may see as inoffensive, another may.
Maybe. Although both the word "untouchable" and "pariah" seem have more negative connotations. Outcast just seems to be a description of what society has done to them. Possibly describing yourself as an "outcast" when your situation is much more privileged could be seen as being belittling. Even then, though, the meaning of "outcast" is dependent on context – you can be an outcast in different ways without any suggestion that they are equivalent.
Obviously if someone pointed out to me how the term "outcast" contributed to their oppression I'd concede the point and stop using it – I'm just finding it difficult to imagine how say describing Iorek, when we first meet him, as an outcast would be oppressive. It seems it can only be used as a specific term to describe a situation, not as a general insult.
Anyway, I was mainly trying to show the reasoning behind defining certain word usages as oppressive. I hope I managed that – it doesn't rule out the possibility that outcast is an oppressive term in a way we're not aware, but I hope I showed the difference between "lame" and "outcast" going on the information that we do have.
Thanks, helpful and informative post – as I say, I wasn't attempting to be facetious – just interested in words and language usage, and so it's interesting to talk about what is and is not acceptable and why 😀
Specific words you shouldn't use are "crazy", "lame," and "bitch" which are regarded as ableist and sexist slurs. Whether you regard them as slurs or not, whether you agree with the policy or not… it's Mark's site and that's the deal. I understand your frustration, but those are the rules. It's only the one site on the Internet, you're free to continue using the words wherever else you want to use them. Just don't use them here.
My frustration is in thinking that I will use plenty of words which I can't even consider offensive and I'm frustrated because if I can't see the harm, I can't see the offense and will be liable to be banned for thoughtlessness. If I couldn't even see this tiny example as offensive, how am I going to be able to write without feeling I'm positively doing something wrong?
I know this is Mark's site with his own rules, that's why I ask for a list, to be able to tell the difference when using something. Matthew up there said I should use some empathy and humility; I'm afraid that's what I lack which is a great frustration to understand another point of view. This is why I ask this, even if it doesn't sound well.
Well, the three I listed are the ones that get flagged most consistently, because they are things that people commonly say. Another one I just remembered is "spaz," although that one does not appear very often. Rule of thumb: if it's related to a physical or mental illness and/or generalizes a group of people, it's probably a bad idea.
The mods generally understand that you may not be aware that specific words are problematic, that's why their response is usually just "please remember not to use that word." No one will ban you for making an honest mistake or slipping up, as long as you're gracious about it. Mostly, the best action is to apologize, make a mental note, and move on.
The one thing that will cause trouble is trying to defend the use of any of the words. Don't do it. Even if you disagree… best to debate that point somewhere else.
I don't defend the use of the word. I got worried because I realised I wasn't even aware the word "lame" is meant for someone with a physical disability in a limb. If I don't see the meaning related to physical and/or mental health of a word, how can I avoid it until is too late? I worry about how many more I'm missing.
You won't be banned, though. You'll be asked not to use the word again. So just make a note of it and move on.
You could, possibly, be banned for not accepting what you've been asked to do and continuing to argue about it.
I doubt anyone has the time to put together a list and, honestly, I don't see the need. There's no shame in ignorance and nobody will ban you for showing ignorance. I doubt if anyone will even feel that reflects badly on you as a person.
What seems odd is this "I can't post unless there's a list of things I shouldn't say" position. Of course you can post, if you inadvertently say something offensive then someone will point it out and you just have to take that on board and not say it again. You aren't going to be banned because of it.
Sorry if I've mischaracterised what you're saying, but you seem to be creating a problem that doesn't exist.
I think you should stop thinking "offensive" in your mind and replace it with "harmful," or possibly "oppressive." Anyone can take offense to anything, but if a word perpetuates systematic harm, i.e., oppression, then it's best to avoid that word and use others.
I doubt anyone would ban you for using a word without knowing that it's harmful, which is why the original poster of this comment was asked politely not to use the word, rather than banned outright.
I find it a little difficult to keep up too sometimes, but look at it as an opportunity to use other words instead!
You might think something is silly, annoying or ridiculous. Perhaps you find it puerile, facile, and trivial.
An argument could be hollow, unfounded, and specious. Or if you want to be more vehement about it, call it pathetic, contemptible, disgusting. That villainess you hate doesn't have to be a 'crazy' or 'a bitch'; she could be evil, foul, a conniving malicious creep or even a putrid rotting stain on humanity.
You get my point. There are plenty of words in the English language that aren't outright offensive to minority groups and it's much more fun trying to use them instead anyway. I'm sure we all have access to a thesaurus. And hey, if you think writing a glossary would help, why not go ahead!
I'm sure no-one is going to get banned here for using a word they didn't know was offensive. Mark has said several times that the idea is to educate people about WHY these terms aren't used here – no-one is going to be penalised for simply not knowing.
This comment goes to my special folder of thoughts. Thank you! 😀
I want to try new vocabulary and new ways of saying the same things without offending. I just hope that by experimenting I don't come again across a new breach in the rules.
Reposting original comment: Iorek swam into another world LIKE A BOSS. For some reason, swimming seems so much more of a BAMF method of entering a new world than flying, either on broomstick or in balloon. Following a cat through a window seems pretty boring in comparison too. But crossing a bridge that leads into the sky is pretty awesome. Clearly Iorek and Lyra are cut from the same cloth.
Also, I'm unsure how intelligent cliff ghasts are, but they seem to have a lot of information. I wonder what they will do with it.
HAHAHAHA! YES! Iorek returns, and the flesh of his friend fuels his RAGE!! Why in the world wasn't he in the previous book!? "Oh no, a cop is coming! And some scientist needs grant money!" Well here's Iorek's answer to that: CHOMP! CHOMP! CHOMP!
Honestly. SLAP FIGHTS between children and addled adults is as wild as things got with just Lyra and Will. You kids go ahead and stay in purgatory; ol' Iorek can handle the rest of the story.
I like how Roger points out that when Mrs. Coulter dies we’ll be stuck with her FOREVER. Now I regret wishing she was dead 🙁
Same. I'm not sure if Mark is reading the dream parts before or after the chapter because his so I cut out that part of my initial comment, but I think they're supposed to be read after. I like the contrast between Iorek's rage and quest for revenge with Roger's fear, even though he has even more reason to want to hurt Mrs Coulter. He's still a scared little kid. I feel worse and worse for him as their conversation progresses. 🙁
Believe it or not, I actually never found Iorek eating Lee to be that weird or unnerving, even when I read this book as a much younger person. I think I had a similar reaction to Mark? There was an initial, "Oh. OH. You're going to eat him. Well that's, um. All right, then." But when I thought about it, I understood that this was part of bear culture and, in his own way, this was an honor he was bestowing on an admired comrade — incorporating Lee's flesh into his own so he could carry it with him and continue to live so he might fight another day. Iorek's respect is clear, and I think that's what saved me from being like, "WHAT, NO."
ILU Lee 🙁
Ditto. A body is only meat, and bears eat meat. It's a lovely gesture and also a perfectly natural one. That Iorek finds both strength and purpose in the eating is even better. I want to see a roaring rampage of revenge!
I'm grateful to this blog because I've been wanting to re-read this series for a while but since I lost my paperback trilogy (sobbing forever) I only have a copy of Amber Spyglass. But reading your blog entries on the first two books has given me enough of a refresher course and now I'm excited to join you in re-reading my favorite book in this series!
And as other people have mentioned, you don't even KNOW how real shit is about to get.
I love the passage in the beginning of the chapter describing Serafina weeping as she's flying, and the things she's crying for. Because if you can't cry over shit like what is going down in book world now, when can you cry? It's never presented as weakness (as tears so often are) but instead as just…how she deals with it. As a person who is prone to tears in stressful situations, I so appreciated that little detail. Because let me just tell you, it STINKS being the person who starts tearing up whenever I have to deal with a confrontational situation. I always want to be like, "I'm not crying because I'm upset, I'm crying because I'm MAD AS HELL and not going to take it anymore."
Oh oh oh, I feel your mad-as-hell-but-crying pain!!
I do that too! It doesn't help that I never really got yelled at as a child (Youngest, only girl, and my parents preferred the 'we're disappointed in you' method) so I don't have a defense mechanism against people yelling at me. My primary reaction is to tear up, even though I just want to yell at them and tell them to eff off. And then I tear up more, because I think they'll just assume I'm weak for crying, which just makes the whole thing a vicious circle.
I cry when I'm frustrated and pissed off, too, and there are some really ridiculous things that have brought it on. And when I'm really mad, it's tears and shouting. It's really ugly, and I agree, it feeds back into more tears and frustration because the tears make people more dismissive. I can usually deal with confrontation in a calm, rational way, but once the shakiness enters my voice, it's all downhill from there. I HATE IT.
PREACH.
🙁 It really sucks.
Oh I hear you – I am of the "crying with strong emotion no matter what that emotion is" camp, too.
Me too. I can't help it, and it can be really inconvenient sometimes.
I definitely do this too. The tears really detract from my intimidation factor when I'm super mad…. and then I just want to stomp my feet and yell, but then it looks like I'm a two year old having a temper tantrum. So frustrating!
I LOVE EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD FOREVER AND EVER.
Me too, I feel like I'm not alone. 🙁 I grew up like that, and have only recently been trying to learn to just cry… It's a long arduous process and it's hard to get over that pride against tears. 🙁
I'm glad that Lee got a proper send-off. You have to hand it to Pullman, he's really good at making you see that there are other cultures with different traditions and making you not only respect that but understand it and find it natural. What Iorek did was beautiful and moving and I think that after reading that and Iorek's vow to avenge Lee allowed me to make my peace with his death and move on. I keep saying this, but BRAVO PULLMAN.
ALSO, GET THE GYPTIANS NOW.
That's the edition I'm using, actually. And the other two don't have chapter quotes, as far as I know.
Was anyone else reminded of global warming when they read about the effects of Asriel's machine on Lyra's world? Well, global warming combined with a massive earthquake. But still – the changed weather, the flooding, the melting polar ice caps forcing polar bears to swim for their food…
Definitely. Except for the sun now rising during winter. That made me think that Lord Asriel had somehow thrown the Earth off it's axis.
There are clues in the previous two books to support that theory. Someone–maybe Mary, I'm not sure–makes a comment about research that shows that the Earth's axis was originally someplace else, not where we're used to it being, and then it moved, presumably around the time of the original "battle"/angel rebellion.
Isn't it mentioned somewhere about how someone is feeling the sun/air of another world? I thought perhaps the sun of a different universe was filtering through.
Ooh, that's a possibility I hadn't thought of.
Yes, I was.
Also, Will mentioned global warming at the end of the last book. He said his world is getting warmer because people keep putting chemicals into the atmosphere.
Yup! The bit about Iorek having to work harder to eat is especially relevant. It makes me sad, because our climate change isn't due to fictional war-against-god causes.
And because the Texan aeronaut was one of the very few humans Iorek had ever esteemed, he accepted the man’s last gift to him.
This was SO AWESOME. Like, it was such a brilliant thing because.. who would think to write that? Right? And yet it makes perfect sensee, and furthermore, knowing Lee, you get the feeling that he'd appreciate it too and be honoured by it.
Srsly. It's such a small (in the overall scope of the HDM universe) thing, but it says so much about the characters, their cultures, and their paths! That's why I keep rereading the books: for these significant insignificant moments.
There might be someone in my area who follows along with Mark reads. The Amber Spyglass was at my library last week, but this week it's gone. Also, I had trouble finding The Subtle Knife when we started with that, but the TSK copy was there when we were reading TGC. Very curious.
I believe "The Scavengers" is also a reference to Iorek (what he does by eating Lee's corpse is technically scavenging, since he is eating something already dead rather than hunting his own food) and also the cliff ghast (which I think are scavengers?).