In The Golden Compass, a daemon’s form fixes after a person reaches a certain age. An interesting point made in a class discussion was, that by doing this, Pullman is implying that people cannot change once they reach adulthood. Once we “grow up,” we are left with a static personality—or a fixed daemon.

My question is this: Why did Pullman decide that a fixed daemon was only going to be one form?

In my Sociology class, we recently talked about presentation of self—the idea that instead of a “core-self,” we have multiple selves that we change between according to different situations. The fixing of a daemon is based on the idea that we all possess a “core-self.” Therefore, the sociological argument that there is no “core-self” contradicts the whole idea of a daemon fixing to one form.

If Pullman had written His Dark Materials with a sociological imagination, I’d like to think that the “daemon system” would have worked like this. Children’s daemons would be able to change into any form. Even if they grow older, the daemons wouldn’t fix to one form and instead would be able to change into a number of different forms that reflect the situational selves of each individual.

I understand that this system would have made His Dark Materials a much more complex story than it needed to be. Also, the daemons would have been harder to use as a means of narrative and characterization in the novel. But sometimes it is important to remember that while the author is to the book what God is to Adam and Eve, it doesn’t mean we cannot question his choices.