We definitely know that Mrs Scorbic (the cook) has been bitten ("Today she was wearing [...] a white bandage around her throat.") and we can probably infer from some of the dialogues between the vampires that she's not an exception (for example, when the Count sees Vlad together with Agnes after the occupation of the castle, he greets his son as such: "Oh dear, Vlad... Playing with your food?" - I would imagine this is only partially facetious; Vlad even remarks himself that he turned two human girls/womans into obedient slaves before (by biting them) and that they now serve the court as maidens). After Granny is unconscious and laid out on a table as a "meal", Agnes is aghast: "'You're going to ... after all this talk, you're going to ... suck her blood?' 'We are vampires, Miss Nitt. It's a vampire thing. A little ... sacrament, shall we say.'" Considering all this (as well as the fact that the Count makes a specific point not to bite Verence, Magrat and the baby), I would imagine that some of the other castle staff/people from Lancre weren't spared, too. It's never lucidly expounded upon what turns one victim into a vampire and another one into a drone/lesser vampire (?), it may have something to do with the willpower of the affected, so we don't know what happens to them in the long run, either. I also don't think that any (or more than a handful) members of the Count's entourage at the end of the book was from Lancre, but it is not too far-fetched that they left the blood donors in Lancre, they never intended to leave the place permanently, after all.
SPOILERS Carpe Jugulum Discussion *spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
One of the now standard modern ideas is that as soon as the 'parent' vampire is killed, all the still-living but enslaved victims are released. The Count was killed, and so was the Countess. That was enough to release everyone who was enslaved by them, and possibly everyone enslaved by their vampiric 'offspring'. There is also the testimony of the villagers, that they got a nip occasionally but they got over it in time. It seems that the Discworld version of classic movie-vampirism is weaker than on Roundworld.
The Countess is not necessarily dead, she is in an interesting state of Schrödinger's Vampire to be sure, though. Magrat contained her in a jar whilst she (the Countess) was in mist form and then threw the receptacle into a well which is likely connected to underground rivers. The Count later enunciates his assurance that she will eventually get out of her imprisonment, although we don't know whether he's sincere or just in a state of denial in face of all the cataclysmic events. If we postulate that every victim of the Count was released after his demise, she'd probably suffer quite a cruel fate since she was turned into a vampire by him. I'm doubtful if that theory applies to full-fledged vampires, but we do have no evidence to support either outcome as far as I know.
Obviously, for all intents and purposes of the novel the Countess was taken care of. As he was wont to, Terry showed us a clever as well as cinematic way of dealing with a vampire (which also neatly ties in with the contrast between the old and modern vampires; the jar was put there by the old Count for the sake of fairness - if we go further down that route it appears logical that there's some way out of this predicament since the old Count only provided temporary solutions for the villagers to take him out) at the small cost of not imperatively thinking through all the potential consequences this may have. It's rather astounding it comes to this chain of events in the first place if one is willing to be skeptical, in fact: the vampires were angry, nervous and tense at this point. It is explicitly mentioned they could not fly anymore because they were too weakened to do so. Yet still the Countess is able to transform into mist (one would assume that if you haven't got the strength to fly, you wouldn't be able to do this, either). Furthermore, the remaining Magpyrs try to trick Magrat even after they know what has befallen the Countess. Only after failing at that do they resort to the most sensible approach and destroy the door via brute force.
Obviously, for all intents and purposes of the novel the Countess was taken care of. As he was wont to, Terry showed us a clever as well as cinematic way of dealing with a vampire (which also neatly ties in with the contrast between the old and modern vampires; the jar was put there by the old Count for the sake of fairness - if we go further down that route it appears logical that there's some way out of this predicament since the old Count only provided temporary solutions for the villagers to take him out) at the small cost of not imperatively thinking through all the potential consequences this may have. It's rather astounding it comes to this chain of events in the first place if one is willing to be skeptical, in fact: the vampires were angry, nervous and tense at this point. It is explicitly mentioned they could not fly anymore because they were too weakened to do so. Yet still the Countess is able to transform into mist (one would assume that if you haven't got the strength to fly, you wouldn't be able to do this, either). Furthermore, the remaining Magpyrs try to trick Magrat even after they know what has befallen the Countess. Only after failing at that do they resort to the most sensible approach and destroy the door via brute force.
Okay, I concede that some of the vampires "bit" Lancreans. But that doesn't mean they were automatically turned into vampires. They were just turned into human blood slaves (the cook with a bandage wouldn't need said bandage if she had been turned into a vampire). Also, it's seems pretty clear that when the Magpyrs went "harvesting" in the village, they were looking for blood volunteers, not vampire converts. Also it seems pretty evident that when a comely lass visited the Old Count she was used as a blood whore, not as someone to be added to vampire ranks. Vampires can choose whether a human victim will become a cow or turned into a vampire--this is part of the way they're able to maintain terror. It's much easier to maintain control over prisoners if you falsely instill hope that some of them will not be killed or tortured than to flat out tell them that all will die.
The other reason why very few human victims become vampires is because this decreases the overall blood supply. And it increases competition.
After all, the Magpyrs make it very clear that even in family units vampires are competitive and anti-social, all vying to be the "alpha-bat" (har har). They don't want to indiscriminately add more vampires to their ranks, because that creates more competition for the blood and it also increases the likelihood of the humans victims to band together to finish all the vampires off once and for all.
The other reason why very few human victims become vampires is because this decreases the overall blood supply. And it increases competition.
After all, the Magpyrs make it very clear that even in family units vampires are competitive and anti-social, all vying to be the "alpha-bat" (har har). They don't want to indiscriminately add more vampires to their ranks, because that creates more competition for the blood and it also increases the likelihood of the humans victims to band together to finish all the vampires off once and for all.
I should hasten to preface this post with the avowal that I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, raisindot. It seems clear that - for relevant story purposes, at least - the victims in Lancre and Escrow were not admitted into the rank of vampires. I am merely interested in some of the details, is all. We are talking about obsessive creatures, it's only adequate to approach the subject in a similar manner.
There is an informative conversation between Agnes and Vlad on that topic:
"'Why are you doing this?' she said. 'If you're going to bite me, then get it over with!'
'Oh, but I couldn't be having with that!'
'You did it to Granny!' said Agnes.
'Yes, but when it's against someone's will ... well, they end up so ... compliant. Little more than thinking food. But someone who embraces the night of their own volition ... ah, that's another thing entirely, my dear Agnes. And you're far too interesting to be a slave.'"
Let's assume for a moment that Vlad is telling the truth as he knows his (which is not the same as being factually correct) and not trying to impress/seduce/toy with Agnes. According to him, the willingness of the victim plays a substantial role in what will become of them, as well. He also doesn't explicate whether there's a clear "taxonomical" distinction between those that are turned into vampires against their own will and those that welcome this change. He certainly doesn't seem to mind treating other real vampires as inferior to him, so I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that - in a purely technical sense - every single victim of a vampire changes into a vampire, too, although there are vast differences in terms of abilities, self-awareness and independence.
If we go another step further and suppose that Vlad was also right in his idea of the vampiric concept, the proponents of the "Granny planned everything out in advance" thesis might have another tessella in their hands. Since you cannot wield power if you're turned into a vampire against your own will and Granny was everything but compliant to the cause of the vampires, she did indeed embrace the transformation. The problem with that conclusion is, of course, that she did struggle afterwards - might be that she didn't resist the initial process, but the subsequent call of her new nature. Might be that Vlad was altogether wrong and particularly adamant individuals can be potent vampires even if they are turned into one against their own volition.
In any case, I do get the impression that there are lasting effects after being bitten by a vampire regardless of the outcome. =Tamar's argument regarding the collapse of vampiric influence after the main vampire has been killed is reasonable and would also neatly fit into this sort of "softer fantasy" setting in general even though it might raise a few questions of its own.
There is an informative conversation between Agnes and Vlad on that topic:
"'Why are you doing this?' she said. 'If you're going to bite me, then get it over with!'
'Oh, but I couldn't be having with that!'
'You did it to Granny!' said Agnes.
'Yes, but when it's against someone's will ... well, they end up so ... compliant. Little more than thinking food. But someone who embraces the night of their own volition ... ah, that's another thing entirely, my dear Agnes. And you're far too interesting to be a slave.'"
Let's assume for a moment that Vlad is telling the truth as he knows his (which is not the same as being factually correct) and not trying to impress/seduce/toy with Agnes. According to him, the willingness of the victim plays a substantial role in what will become of them, as well. He also doesn't explicate whether there's a clear "taxonomical" distinction between those that are turned into vampires against their own will and those that welcome this change. He certainly doesn't seem to mind treating other real vampires as inferior to him, so I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that - in a purely technical sense - every single victim of a vampire changes into a vampire, too, although there are vast differences in terms of abilities, self-awareness and independence.
If we go another step further and suppose that Vlad was also right in his idea of the vampiric concept, the proponents of the "Granny planned everything out in advance" thesis might have another tessella in their hands. Since you cannot wield power if you're turned into a vampire against your own will and Granny was everything but compliant to the cause of the vampires, she did indeed embrace the transformation. The problem with that conclusion is, of course, that she did struggle afterwards - might be that she didn't resist the initial process, but the subsequent call of her new nature. Might be that Vlad was altogether wrong and particularly adamant individuals can be potent vampires even if they are turned into one against their own volition.
In any case, I do get the impression that there are lasting effects after being bitten by a vampire regardless of the outcome. =Tamar's argument regarding the collapse of vampiric influence after the main vampire has been killed is reasonable and would also neatly fit into this sort of "softer fantasy" setting in general even though it might raise a few questions of its own.
Note Vlad's response to Agnes's plea to "get it over with already": 'Oh, but I couldn't be having with that!'
This is one of Granny's signature phrases. It's a sign that Granny's influence is already working and subverting the vampires (or, at least, Vlad).
Isn't that a sign that Granny planned the whole thing in advance?
This is one of Granny's signature phrases. It's a sign that Granny's influence is already working and subverting the vampires (or, at least, Vlad).
Isn't that a sign that Granny planned the whole thing in advance?Vlad wasn't saying that those who resisted becoming vampires after being bitten didn't become vampires. He was saying that the best vampires --the most fun kind--were those who were willing to be turned into them. One would imagine that turning a resistant human into the kind of "thinking food" vampire required a lot more effort--i.e., more "vampire blood" and mind control--than transforming one who wanted to be one. Think of the non-compliant victim as someone as the equivalent of a chronic heroin addict--mindless, will-less, etc., versus a "compliant" victim as maybe a willing speed taker--stoned, yes, but still capable of being fun at times.
Yes, this makes more sense. All the vampires needed to bite Granny--the most non-compliant victim of all--to even create the possibility of her becoming a vampire. But she knew from the start that her usual headology would be useless against the Magpyrs. That's why she came back from her self-imposed exile. She knew perfectly well that the only way she would be able to beat them was in a battle of "blood." She knew this wasn't just a test of vampire vs. witch, but also the ultimate test of her own nature. Throughout the first part of the book she was worried that she would "go bad" like some of the other witches in her family line did. The "battle of blood" created the scenario where she finally would find out whether she truly was able to descend into darkness and emerge in the light.
Rath said:
Note Vlad's response to Agnes's plea to "get it over with already": 'Oh, but I couldn't be having with that!'
This is one of Granny's signature phrases. It's a sign that Granny's influence is already working and subverting the vampires (or, at least, Vlad). Isn't that a sign that Granny planned the whole thing in advance?
This is one of Granny's signature phrases. It's a sign that Granny's influence is already working and subverting the vampires (or, at least, Vlad).
Isn't that a sign that Granny planned the whole thing in advance?
I don't think Granny "accepted vampirism". The way I read it, she allowed the vampires to bite her solely in order to invade their blood and infect them with grannyism. She controlled her own inner darkness by accepting that it existed and yet still facing the light. Then she fought the alien vampire taint in herself, helped in part by Mightily Oats's prayers (the glowing words of which led her back to the living world) and in part by the phoenix, which burned some of it out of her when she first touched it. I think the last of the taint was gone when she inhabited the phoenix fire.
That's an interesting take. I always thought that Granny "got the vampire out of her" solely on her own and that Oaks was really mainly helping her physically. Never really thought that his prayers had any effect on her. I never really thought that phoenix did anything for her. I kind of thought the opposite--that Granny somehow was "borrowing" the phoenix to make it fight the magpyrs, since phoenixes didn't always consider vampires to be their mortal enemies (remember how the old count said that he used to like seeing the phoenixes light up the night).
The way I've always seen this is that Granny was using magic to get rid of the water that had come through the roof. It may well have been some sort of "backwards" spell just on the water, rather than her going back in time. I have to add that, of all the many, many times I have read this book, I can't recall this section - so kudos for spotting it.
Let the debate continue lol
Let the debate continue lol
Thanks Tony for your reasonable explanation... because of that ending I re-read the whole book, thinking I'd missed something; which of course made me enjoy it even more...I thoroughly recommend rereading any Discworld novel, so much comes out that was easily missed the first time....but this rippling rising water still bamboozled me the second time, for, as far as I remember, no reference was made to her dripping ceiling in the novel, but I could be wrong... please let me know anyone ...thanks again.
Found it!
After Nanny and Agnes figure out that Granny was thinking in threes, then Nanny says Granny is moral because "she's got Granny Weatherwax glaring over her shoulder" - -- right after that, "Agnes took another look around the spartan cottage. _Now the rain was leaking steadily through the ceiling_." (top of page 114 in the American paperback. with the cover showing a blue moon and a vampire's coach crossing it in midair.)
After Nanny and Agnes figure out that Granny was thinking in threes, then Nanny says Granny is moral because "she's got Granny Weatherwax glaring over her shoulder" - -- right after that, "Agnes took another look around the spartan cottage. _Now the rain was leaking steadily through the ceiling_." (top of page 114 in the American paperback. with the cover showing a blue moon and a vampire's coach crossing it in midair.)
Cheers Tamar!!Good job finding that passage! I guess, though, that we still have to intuit Tonyblack's idea that Granny W used magic on the water....
Wow, Tonyblack, 5 times... I can totally understand why. I took notes the second time I read the Colour of Magic many years ago.. these books are jewels to be read & re-read
Wow, Tonyblack, 5 times... I can totally understand why. I took notes the second time I read the Colour of Magic many years ago.. these books are jewels to be read & re-read
Since the water went back up, drop by drop as it had fallen, I at first assumed that Granny used a time-reversal spell. If she had just used magic to remove it, it would have been gone all at once. But it seems odd that she would have used magic at all, given that Granny prefers to use ordinary methods even for much harder work than cleaning up a spill.
So maybe it wasn't that Granny used magic. Maybe it was that the cottage itself has a degree of magic that is somehow charged up by being the residence of a witch, and when the witch is gone, the cottage runs down, like the clock. [Or, in a different story, like the staff of a wizard, which is a reservoir for magic that the wizard can use but must recharge.] When a witch returns, the cottage begins to regain its magical protection, or is charged, and the damage is reversed.
So maybe it wasn't that Granny used magic. Maybe it was that the cottage itself has a degree of magic that is somehow charged up by being the residence of a witch, and when the witch is gone, the cottage runs down, like the clock. [Or, in a different story, like the staff of a wizard, which is a reservoir for magic that the wizard can use but must recharge.] When a witch returns, the cottage begins to regain its magical protection, or is charged, and the damage is reversed.
Yes, yes that works too. Thanks for that, Tamar.
Other thoughts of mine on this were the fact that the Magpyes have an ability to change the weather....that would explain the presence of rain.. and the rain slowly beginning to stop after their defeat..however I still couldn't see the connection with there being a hole in the roof; yes; GW's cottage having magic properties works. Cheers
Other thoughts of mine on this were the fact that the Magpyes have an ability to change the weather....that would explain the presence of rain.. and the rain slowly beginning to stop after their defeat..however I still couldn't see the connection with there being a hole in the roof; yes; GW's cottage having magic properties works. Cheers
I'm not sure how you can do that - or even if you can. The best I could do was to change it to
Philips
Yerffoeg as you can see. You might be able to change it through your profile, or you can message
ThinkingFox our administrator.
Philips
Yerffoeg as you can see. You might be able to change it through your profile, or you can message
ThinkingFox our administrator.
