SPOILERS Carpe Jugulum Discussion *spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
I think it's a fair comment though. Terry has taken all the vampire cliches that we know and put them into this book. We all know that vampires can't stand sunlight, holy water, garlic, holy symbols etc. Terry has actually made vampires ever scarier than the vampires we know from books and films, because these ones are not only breaking with tradition, they are also justifying the horrors that they commit.
As I said, just about any book or film about vampires will have at least some base in vampire mythology. Twilight isn't so much copying ideas from Terry as tapping into the vampire myth, which coincidentally Terry is doing too.
In a way, this book is rather like The Last Continent in that it draws on what everyone knows about vampires or, in the case of TLC, Australia.
As I said, just about any book or film about vampires will have at least some base in vampire mythology. Twilight isn't so much copying ideas from Terry as tapping into the vampire myth, which coincidentally Terry is doing too.
In a way, this book is rather like The Last Continent in that it draws on what everyone knows about vampires or, in the case of TLC, Australia.
Tonyblack said:
...In a way, this book is rather like The Last Continent in that it draws on what everyone knows about vampires or, in the case of TLC, Australia.
Yes, this comment makes an excellent point - I have not read any other vampire books apart from these two, and they both undermine the weaknesses of Vampires, but in different views and methods. Not all vampires can be stabbed in the heart, but we may just end up with another Carrot equivalent - a vampire that has a normal human diet. In fact I am expecting this from terry.
A
Cool Middle Name said:
Hey, just stating what came up in my mind.
I used to love reading Smeyer books.
Then I read Unseen Academicals.
I used to love reading Smeyer books.
Then I read Unseen Academicals.
ad hey, at least soemthig UA is good for *dodges*)
As for the -don't mention stealing-
What I meant is that to some people such simple statements are fuel to the fire Dx
(Luckily none of those folsk are on this board. Which is great
)
Tonyblack said:
That's been done - Count Duckula, the vegetarian vampire.
When we decided to do these discussions we decided to avoid spoilers for other books. If you have read the book we are discussing, that's fine because reading this thread won't spoil any of the plot. But if you are reading this discussion on Carpe Jugulum and haven't read Lords & Ladies, and someone posts a major plot detail for that book, then it is likely to spoil your enjoyment.
Carpe Jugulum play
Just to let you know that Leytonstone based theatre group the Woodhouse Players are presenting Carpe Jugulum in November. 4/5 and 11/12. See www.woodhouseplayers.co.uk for full details. It would be great to see you there.
Just to let you know that Leytonstone based theatre group the Woodhouse Players are presenting Carpe Jugulum in November. 4/5 and 11/12. See www.woodhouseplayers.co.uk for full details. It would be great to see you there.
This was the first Witches book I read, and I remember at the time wishing I'd read the others first, so Magrat being Queen and not third witch etc would have more significance. However, I looove Carpe Jugulum The copy I have was my mother's, who borrowed it from Dave Hodges(arghh), who'd gotten it signed
But a vampire who is fascinated with a girl whose mind he can't read? I wonder if Stephanie Meyers read this at some point!
The copy I have was my mother's, who borrowed it from Dave Hodges(arghh), who'd gotten it signed But a vampire who is fascinated with a girl whose mind he can't read? I wonder if Stephanie Meyers read this at some point!
This is indeed one highly instructive as well as entertaining thread, I've read through the conversations with gusto.
One aspect about the book that I find rather interesting (it has been delineated here) is the conflict between traditionalism and (betimes only ostensible) modernism. There are several fronts where this is germane, albeit with drastically different premises.
King Verence is of course desirous of gingerly modernizing Lancre. He's a crass contrast to the monarchs before him, trying not only to ameliorate the economic situation of his people (by e.g. enhancing the agriculture), he's also been shown to take the popular opinion into account when it comes to administrative decisions (e.g. he didn't enfore a new tax after one of those "spontaneous mobs"). The population of Lancre itself appears to be rather resistant to such measures, it's been stated numerous times that they do appreciate a sovereign at the head of the state for as long as (s)he doesn't intervene in the everyday life in an inordinate way. While Verence tries to be a trustee, a technocrat almost, the people in Lancre much more appreciate the traditional role eo ipso as well as martial prowess (Jason Ogg is quite impressed by the Feegle-supported vim of his king, there are also a few mentions that Verence probably would've been a bit more accepted were he more coarse). Verence's unconditional will to be forthcoming and understanding is also the cause for the entire concatenation of events that transpire in this book since he invited the vampires in the first place.
Mightily Oats struggles between various sets of considerations regarding his religion. He's aware of the sordid history behind the Omnianism and the crimes that were executed in its name, but he also seeks more immediate, personal truths in his faith which are harder to extract the more he reads, thinks and reflects about things. While it does not fit into a civilized world to harass, proselyte or even prosecute dissenters/disbeliefers/members of heterodoxy, the underlying simplicity of such an absolute religion also brings comforting (as shallow as they may be) certainties with them. Count Magpyr even remarks in his disparagement that while the saints/"church fathers" of yore were insane, they at least had an unassailable faith. However, he also adds that he himself was responsible for some of the religious texts that were written many centuries ago, thus also putting Oats to the test (which is naturally in and of itself a typical biblical/religious theme).
Speaking of the Count, he certainly represents the most striking personification of said dichotomy between tradition and progress. He doesn't try to actively alter his nature whatsoever, yet he invests a lot of time and effort to sublime (as he sees it) that proclivity. He despises the vampiric customs of old, the haunted castles, romantic/heroized tryst between the eldritch lord and the eventually unfettered mob, the housekeeping by Igors etc. He does nonetheless still strive for the inherent power that comes along with the natural abilities of vampires, much more so, in fact. Instead of bluntly subjugating townspeople or raiding their houses at night, he contractualizes these matters in order to make them look legal as well as legitimate. He understands that by manipulating people's minds, he can much more efficiently gain power compared to applying sheer strength. Lastly, he tries to immunize his clan and himself against all the threats that ail his species, and rather impressively at that.
It's quite fascinating how all these conflicting priorities are resolved by the end. Oats apparently variegates (allusion intended) his faith into something that resembles pantheism, what with finding something holy everywhere he looks. He doesn't try to find a balance between written concepts, he creates a synthesis for himself. Verence/Lancre more or less continue with the status quo ante. The vampires suffer a crushing defeat on account of what could perhaps be described as narrative overstretch (modified from the theory of imperial overstretch). While classic vampires may not have been as dominant or astute as those influenced by the new school of thought, they did instinctively recognize the immanent balance of the tradition. The old vampires got killed again and again whenever their malfeasance grew too unbearable, but they probably never faced so many losses in such a short period of time.
On that note, I will concede that I'm not entirely content with how well things turned out in the end, though I have to admit that this is almost unresolvable. Carpe Jugulum's antagonists are fairly similar to those in Lords & Ladies: both the elves and the vampires can twist people's minds, turning them into abulic slaves. They likewise are comparable as far as their goals are concerned (the elves are plain sadistic and inflict pain for their pleasure, the vampires try to put up a veneer, but also regard humans as cattle or meat, especially Lacrimosa). The problem I have is that on top of the magic allurement (both antagonists share that trait), the vampires are also much more dangerous. Someone who can resist the glamour of the elves will find that these are rather pathetic creatures, whereas vampires are preternaturally strong, fast and bestowed with several talents (shapeshifting, flying, resistance to sundry pugnacious means; these vampires in particular are also resilient towards some of the tried and true methods of dealing with their kin). Considering that a deus ex machina was necessary to repel the elves in Lords & Ladies, I deem it rather improbable that beating the vampires with comparatively little casualties/effort would happen. There are quite a few convenient things that fall into place: the catastrophic consequences of imbibing Granny's blood (which also take full effect at the most fortunate time), the phoenix, the old Count... Now, Discworld novels were always more about the moral implications than the structure; as such, it is not unduly fraught with complications, but I did find it implausible to some extent. I really would've liked to see this set-up with a dénouement à la Steven Erikson (Malazan Book of the Fallen), i.e. a veritable clash between powerful forces (which would've needed some proper build-up, of course) since power invariably causes ripples and draws even more power (resulting in a convergence), this furthermore would've been an appropriate narrative ending, I think.
I sincerely hope I'm somewhat understandable, the bulkiness and clumsiness of many a sentence is palpable even to a maladroit perpetrator against the English language such as myself.
One aspect about the book that I find rather interesting (it has been delineated here) is the conflict between traditionalism and (betimes only ostensible) modernism. There are several fronts where this is germane, albeit with drastically different premises.
King Verence is of course desirous of gingerly modernizing Lancre. He's a crass contrast to the monarchs before him, trying not only to ameliorate the economic situation of his people (by e.g. enhancing the agriculture), he's also been shown to take the popular opinion into account when it comes to administrative decisions (e.g. he didn't enfore a new tax after one of those "spontaneous mobs"). The population of Lancre itself appears to be rather resistant to such measures, it's been stated numerous times that they do appreciate a sovereign at the head of the state for as long as (s)he doesn't intervene in the everyday life in an inordinate way. While Verence tries to be a trustee, a technocrat almost, the people in Lancre much more appreciate the traditional role eo ipso as well as martial prowess (Jason Ogg is quite impressed by the Feegle-supported vim of his king, there are also a few mentions that Verence probably would've been a bit more accepted were he more coarse). Verence's unconditional will to be forthcoming and understanding is also the cause for the entire concatenation of events that transpire in this book since he invited the vampires in the first place.
Mightily Oats struggles between various sets of considerations regarding his religion. He's aware of the sordid history behind the Omnianism and the crimes that were executed in its name, but he also seeks more immediate, personal truths in his faith which are harder to extract the more he reads, thinks and reflects about things. While it does not fit into a civilized world to harass, proselyte or even prosecute dissenters/disbeliefers/members of heterodoxy, the underlying simplicity of such an absolute religion also brings comforting (as shallow as they may be) certainties with them. Count Magpyr even remarks in his disparagement that while the saints/"church fathers" of yore were insane, they at least had an unassailable faith. However, he also adds that he himself was responsible for some of the religious texts that were written many centuries ago, thus also putting Oats to the test (which is naturally in and of itself a typical biblical/religious theme).
Speaking of the Count, he certainly represents the most striking personification of said dichotomy between tradition and progress. He doesn't try to actively alter his nature whatsoever, yet he invests a lot of time and effort to sublime (as he sees it) that proclivity. He despises the vampiric customs of old, the haunted castles, romantic/heroized tryst between the eldritch lord and the eventually unfettered mob, the housekeeping by Igors etc. He does nonetheless still strive for the inherent power that comes along with the natural abilities of vampires, much more so, in fact. Instead of bluntly subjugating townspeople or raiding their houses at night, he contractualizes these matters in order to make them look legal as well as legitimate. He understands that by manipulating people's minds, he can much more efficiently gain power compared to applying sheer strength. Lastly, he tries to immunize his clan and himself against all the threats that ail his species, and rather impressively at that.
It's quite fascinating how all these conflicting priorities are resolved by the end. Oats apparently variegates (allusion intended) his faith into something that resembles pantheism, what with finding something holy everywhere he looks. He doesn't try to find a balance between written concepts, he creates a synthesis for himself. Verence/Lancre more or less continue with the status quo ante. The vampires suffer a crushing defeat on account of what could perhaps be described as narrative overstretch (modified from the theory of imperial overstretch). While classic vampires may not have been as dominant or astute as those influenced by the new school of thought, they did instinctively recognize the immanent balance of the tradition. The old vampires got killed again and again whenever their malfeasance grew too unbearable, but they probably never faced so many losses in such a short period of time.
On that note, I will concede that I'm not entirely content with how well things turned out in the end, though I have to admit that this is almost unresolvable. Carpe Jugulum's antagonists are fairly similar to those in Lords & Ladies: both the elves and the vampires can twist people's minds, turning them into abulic slaves. They likewise are comparable as far as their goals are concerned (the elves are plain sadistic and inflict pain for their pleasure, the vampires try to put up a veneer, but also regard humans as cattle or meat, especially Lacrimosa). The problem I have is that on top of the magic allurement (both antagonists share that trait), the vampires are also much more dangerous. Someone who can resist the glamour of the elves will find that these are rather pathetic creatures, whereas vampires are preternaturally strong, fast and bestowed with several talents (shapeshifting, flying, resistance to sundry pugnacious means; these vampires in particular are also resilient towards some of the tried and true methods of dealing with their kin). Considering that a deus ex machina was necessary to repel the elves in Lords & Ladies, I deem it rather improbable that beating the vampires with comparatively little casualties/effort would happen. There are quite a few convenient things that fall into place: the catastrophic consequences of imbibing Granny's blood (which also take full effect at the most fortunate time), the phoenix, the old Count... Now, Discworld novels were always more about the moral implications than the structure; as such, it is not unduly fraught with complications, but I did find it implausible to some extent. I really would've liked to see this set-up with a dénouement à la Steven Erikson (Malazan Book of the Fallen), i.e. a veritable clash between powerful forces (which would've needed some proper build-up, of course) since power invariably causes ripples and draws even more power (resulting in a convergence), this furthermore would've been an appropriate narrative ending, I think.
I sincerely hope I'm somewhat understandable, the bulkiness and clumsiness of many a sentence is palpable even to a maladroit perpetrator against the English language such as myself.
Very astute analysis, Perikles.
I agree with just about all of your points. It's interesting how the Magpyrs serve as a kind of narrative transition from the "traditional" light-hating, blood-drinking, conspiracy-spinning, anti-social vampires of lore (perhaps best represented by the heraldry-manipulating vampire ofFeet of Clay) to the sunlight-resistant, socially acceptable, "modern" Black-ribboner vampires of The Fifth Elephant and The Truth.
In CJ I think that much of the Count's efforts at "immunizing" his family from the traditional vampire Achilles' heels is a parody of the self-help movement that became widely popular in the 1990s, its spread hastened by the widened access to all forms of quackery available on the Internet. Countless hucksters provided all kinds of "7 step" and "5 good habits" programs that supposedly would move people out of their self-defeating practices, while most became little more than fads of the day. You continue to see this kind of self-help stuff in DW books where vampires appear, particularly with Otto Kriek, whose personal motto (appropriated from the Black Ribboners) is "Every day we get a little bit better."
I also agree with you on the unsatisfactory endings of both Lords and Ladies and CJ. In the former, it would have been very satisfying to see Magrat definitively destroy (or at least reduce) the Elf Queen and the Lacrans kick elven butt. Instead, we get the Elf King calling the game to a half and essentially restoring the status quo (leaving it to Tiffany Aching to ultimately best her).
Likewise, I really disliked the resurrection of the Old Count at the end of CJ. All of the vampires deserved to be "staked" even if this was just a temporary solutions. Bring the old Count back to save the younger vampires from a grisly fate was very unsatisfying.
I think both of these endings stemmed from Pterry's resistant to using violence to resolve major standoffs between opposing parties. He was okay with one-on-one battles in actions preceding the final confrontation (i.e., Magrat killing several elves; Nanny and Igor "holy watering" a few vampires along the way), but he seemed to balk at having mobs carry out the kind of "mob justice" the "enemies" deserved. Note that Pterry's attitude began to change starting with TFE, where the killing of bandits and werevolves became a form of "justifiable actions."
I agree with just about all of your points. It's interesting how the Magpyrs serve as a kind of narrative transition from the "traditional" light-hating, blood-drinking, conspiracy-spinning, anti-social vampires of lore (perhaps best represented by the heraldry-manipulating vampire ofFeet of Clay) to the sunlight-resistant, socially acceptable, "modern" Black-ribboner vampires of The Fifth Elephant and The Truth.
In CJ I think that much of the Count's efforts at "immunizing" his family from the traditional vampire Achilles' heels is a parody of the self-help movement that became widely popular in the 1990s, its spread hastened by the widened access to all forms of quackery available on the Internet. Countless hucksters provided all kinds of "7 step" and "5 good habits" programs that supposedly would move people out of their self-defeating practices, while most became little more than fads of the day. You continue to see this kind of self-help stuff in DW books where vampires appear, particularly with Otto Kriek, whose personal motto (appropriated from the Black Ribboners) is "Every day we get a little bit better."
I also agree with you on the unsatisfactory endings of both Lords and Ladies and CJ. In the former, it would have been very satisfying to see Magrat definitively destroy (or at least reduce) the Elf Queen and the Lacrans kick elven butt. Instead, we get the Elf King calling the game to a half and essentially restoring the status quo (leaving it to Tiffany Aching to ultimately best her).
Likewise, I really disliked the resurrection of the Old Count at the end of CJ. All of the vampires deserved to be "staked" even if this was just a temporary solutions. Bring the old Count back to save the younger vampires from a grisly fate was very unsatisfying.
I think both of these endings stemmed from Pterry's resistant to using violence to resolve major standoffs between opposing parties. He was okay with one-on-one battles in actions preceding the final confrontation (i.e., Magrat killing several elves; Nanny and Igor "holy watering" a few vampires along the way), but he seemed to balk at having mobs carry out the kind of "mob justice" the "enemies" deserved. Note that Pterry's attitude began to change starting with TFE, where the killing of bandits and werevolves became a form of "justifiable actions."
Terry generally did not allow mobs to operate freely. In TFE the bandits and werewolves were not killed by mobs, they were killed by individuals.
In a Tiffany book he allowed a mob to form in order to indicate that the local culture did have a limit regarding parental behavior, beyond which they would object in person, but Tiffany prevented them from doing more than be noisy. In CJ the standing mob of Oggs is also allowed to express community disapproval but not do much that is effective. By contrast, the Uberwald villagers had a real reason to fight to the death against the vampires that had enslaved them, and they did stake most of the modern vampires. Only the two "teenager" vampires were allowed to live, on the principle that there has to be a survivor to tell the story, and because, after that speech by Granny about how what doesn't live, doesn't learn, Terry seems to have wanted to have a younger vampire be required to learn. In fact, the younger ones would cheerfully have been traditional vampires (and rather nasty ones) if their father hadn't raised them to be "modern". The ironic result of his training is that they are now more vulnerable than any ordinary vampire, because they now know hundreds of shapes that are holy.
In a Tiffany book he allowed a mob to form in order to indicate that the local culture did have a limit regarding parental behavior, beyond which they would object in person, but Tiffany prevented them from doing more than be noisy. In CJ the standing mob of Oggs is also allowed to express community disapproval but not do much that is effective. By contrast, the Uberwald villagers had a real reason to fight to the death against the vampires that had enslaved them, and they did stake most of the modern vampires. Only the two "teenager" vampires were allowed to live, on the principle that there has to be a survivor to tell the story, and because, after that speech by Granny about how what doesn't live, doesn't learn, Terry seems to have wanted to have a younger vampire be required to learn. In fact, the younger ones would cheerfully have been traditional vampires (and rather nasty ones) if their father hadn't raised them to be "modern". The ironic result of his training is that they are now more vulnerable than any ordinary vampire, because they now know hundreds of shapes that are holy.
The townspeople only managed to take out a couple of them:
"'I see you got one, then,' she [Agnes] said, trying not to be sick.
'Got two," said the man with the hammer. 'Set fire to the other one. [...]"
Most of them are killed by the phoenix and the various traps/ambushes by Igor & Nanny, neither the mob from Überwald nor the one from Lancre does much of importance. Which is not quite congruent to what Granny originally had in mind:
"She [Agnes] stopped and looked at the worried faces, and for a moment she found herself thinking in the way Granny Weatherwax thought.
'Yes,' she said, more slowly, 'I reckon ... I mean, I think we ought to get there right away. People have to kill their own vampires.'"
The ultimate downfall of the vampires was their hubris to let Granny alive, trying to turn her into a vampire (which is appropriate per se, arrogance is indeed a fitting characteristic for the Count) as well as some rather fortuitous occurences (such as the phoenix), it was not their transgression of "narrative boundaries", leading to a hitherto unseen action/alliance/procedure from the irate townspeople.
It is doubtlessly heavily implied that the new modus operandi caused the near extinction of this clan of vampires, yet it's not implemented all that convincingly, I'd say.
I would've appreciated that particular facet a lot more had it been introduced, explained & executed organically. It makes perfect sense that if you extensively teach individuals to recognize (and resist, in this case) specific shapes, they will start applying these pattern recognitions elsewhere, thus paradoxically increasing their endangerment. This is doubly true for vampires who are described as pedantic to the point of being anal-retentive, thus probably susceptible to make out several forms wherever they look.
As it is, however, this only starts being a problem after the vampires ingest Granny's blood - not only does it have massive psychological repercussions, it also alters their genotypic structure as well as their trained immunologies. We never find out how (or if) this persists, it would seem as though all the people in Lancre who have been bitten and turned into mindless vessels and/or minor vampires are reverted back to their original state, if I recall correctly. We can't say for certain whether the influences from Granny remain or subside after a while, the Magpyrs certainly were more resistive than their regular counterparts before the blood transfusion. We also don't know where the Countess washed up, could be that she got out of her predicament almost immediately - or not at all.
"'I see you got one, then,' she [Agnes] said, trying not to be sick.
'Got two," said the man with the hammer. 'Set fire to the other one. [...]"
Most of them are killed by the phoenix and the various traps/ambushes by Igor & Nanny, neither the mob from Überwald nor the one from Lancre does much of importance. Which is not quite congruent to what Granny originally had in mind:
"She [Agnes] stopped and looked at the worried faces, and for a moment she found herself thinking in the way Granny Weatherwax thought.
'Yes,' she said, more slowly, 'I reckon ... I mean, I think we ought to get there right away. People have to kill their own vampires.'"
The ultimate downfall of the vampires was their hubris to let Granny alive, trying to turn her into a vampire (which is appropriate per se, arrogance is indeed a fitting characteristic for the Count) as well as some rather fortuitous occurences (such as the phoenix), it was not their transgression of "narrative boundaries", leading to a hitherto unseen action/alliance/procedure from the irate townspeople.
It is doubtlessly heavily implied that the new modus operandi caused the near extinction of this clan of vampires, yet it's not implemented all that convincingly, I'd say.
I would've appreciated that particular facet a lot more had it been introduced, explained & executed organically. It makes perfect sense that if you extensively teach individuals to recognize (and resist, in this case) specific shapes, they will start applying these pattern recognitions elsewhere, thus paradoxically increasing their endangerment. This is doubly true for vampires who are described as pedantic to the point of being anal-retentive, thus probably susceptible to make out several forms wherever they look.
As it is, however, this only starts being a problem after the vampires ingest Granny's blood - not only does it have massive psychological repercussions, it also alters their genotypic structure as well as their trained immunologies. We never find out how (or if) this persists, it would seem as though all the people in Lancre who have been bitten and turned into mindless vessels and/or minor vampires are reverted back to their original state, if I recall correctly. We can't say for certain whether the influences from Granny remain or subside after a while, the Magpyrs certainly were more resistive than their regular counterparts before the blood transfusion. We also don't know where the Countess washed up, could be that she got out of her predicament almost immediately - or not at all.
It's been awhile since I read it, but I thought that in the final scene Granny might have indicated that the effects of her blood would wear off after awhile, but not before the Magpyrs' ultimate fate was decided. Also, I don't quite remember any regular Lanceans being bitten and turned into vampires. The Count seemed to be against "indiscriminate biting" in principle, considering it uncivilized, and preferred to use telepathic mind control and trickery (such as hiding Granny's invitation to the baby naming) to keep the Lancreans docile. It was my impression that all of the vampires who took over Lancre Castle were residents of the Magpyr's castle, not locals transformed into vampires.
