SPOILERS Disturbing Trend in UA and Snuff: **Major Spoilers**
- Thread starter windscion
- Start date
Yes he does - because he knows what an evil [expletive deleted] Andy Shank is. He has grown up amongst people like that. He knows that the only (and I mean only) language Shank understands is violence. The only thing that will make him even begin to learn his lesson is a good kicking - or in this case, slashing.
A
Honestly now:
The whole scene, whatever one may think about it, is actually useless.
the book could have done without it.
All it achieved to me is making me wonder what landsldie of violence pepe brought loose with that (I dare say Andy will take out his anger on the gay-community, if AM actually has one, if he can't get back at pepe directly)
Or at least andy is OUGHT to do just that.
But as pathetic a villain he is...
The whole scene, whatever one may think about it, is actually useless.
the book could have done without it.
All it achieved to me is making me wonder what landsldie of violence pepe brought loose with that (I dare say Andy will take out his anger on the gay-community, if AM actually has one, if he can't get back at pepe directly)
Or at least andy is OUGHT to do just that.
But as pathetic a villain he is...
A
Like? No.
Wanted to reach into the book and tell him at the end of the game that she shall frigging forget about 'magic' and that the wizards outright cheated? Yep.
As for the scene, if it'd been the next day and we'd learn that Pepe got word that Andy did not learn his lesson from what happened after the game, the actions ould be ok.
But like that? Look at the text. Andy is furious at Pepe and the only thing stopping him from chasing after his attacker is that lemon.
He is not scared, he's likely even more furious now.
And if he can't find pepe he'll take it out at people who either are close to pepe or who are just there...(latter is even more likely)
You say you've been on the receiving end?
Never been the target cause that f'cktard got in trouble with his parents for damaging the car?
Wanted to reach into the book and tell him at the end of the game that she shall frigging forget about 'magic' and that the wizards outright cheated? Yep.
As for the scene, if it'd been the next day and we'd learn that Pepe got word that Andy did not learn his lesson from what happened after the game, the actions ould be ok.
But like that? Look at the text. Andy is furious at Pepe and the only thing stopping him from chasing after his attacker is that lemon.
He is not scared, he's likely even more furious now.
And if he can't find pepe he'll take it out at people who either are close to pepe or who are just there...(latter is even more likely)
You say you've been on the receiving end?
Never been the target cause that f'cktard got in trouble with his parents for damaging the car?
A few comments:
Terry is not writing about a perfect world where law and justice run smoothly together but a world as imperfect as ours therefore the law is not necessarily the highest good and sometimes "good" people need to bend it.
As readers we know that Andy hasn't changed so many of us approve of Pepe's treatment of him, its viscerally satisfying in a way fiction allows us to explore.
If you see Terry's later books as fables (as in there is point to them about humanity or how the world works) then it is important for our sense of justice within the book that Stratford dies because he viciously murdered the goblin girl, the law couldn't have executed him for that even if he'd made it to court.
Terry is not writing about a perfect world where law and justice run smoothly together but a world as imperfect as ours therefore the law is not necessarily the highest good and sometimes "good" people need to bend it.
As readers we know that Andy hasn't changed so many of us approve of Pepe's treatment of him, its viscerally satisfying in a way fiction allows us to explore.
If you see Terry's later books as fables (as in there is point to them about humanity or how the world works) then it is important for our sense of justice within the book that Stratford dies because he viciously murdered the goblin girl, the law couldn't have executed him for that even if he'd made it to court.
The law doesn't execute people. People execute people. If Stratford were tried under AM laws, he would be guilty of killing a sentient species. It would have been easy to prove the goblins' sentience--after all, Sybil made sure the entire world was aware of it.
So, Stratford would have been brought to justice, since Vetinari, for all his faults, is one who is extremely sensitive to species-related intolerance (and someone who would have seen the value of earning the trust of a population of obedient, nonviolent, highly skilled artisans who would be willing to work for cheap). Had he not brought Stratford for justice, he would have been villified by everyone who had seen the goblin girl play the harp in AM. He, of all people, knows where the political winds blow.
And even if Stratford could not be brought to justice in a trial, Vetinari would have found a way to make sure Stratford chose to choose the door to nowhere.
So, Stratford would have been brought to justice, since Vetinari, for all his faults, is one who is extremely sensitive to species-related intolerance (and someone who would have seen the value of earning the trust of a population of obedient, nonviolent, highly skilled artisans who would be willing to work for cheap). Had he not brought Stratford for justice, he would have been villified by everyone who had seen the goblin girl play the harp in AM. He, of all people, knows where the political winds blow.
And even if Stratford could not be brought to justice in a trial, Vetinari would have found a way to make sure Stratford chose to choose the door to nowhere.
Jean and I have been working on a book of our own. It is finished now, and we are looking for a publisher. The book is about Greek Gods who live in human form these days and have become capitalists. Hermes, for example, owns a telecommunication company, Zeus owns a power company, Hephaistos produces weapons of mass destruction, Poseidon owns a shipping company and so on. There is a lesbian couple who just met, and they don't know they are Goddesses too, Hecate and Persephone; in fact the other Gods did everything to keep them apart because they are known to be allies of Gaia, and they fear Gaia would return if they meet.. But they happened to meet, and now something has to be done, so Hermes comes up with a complicated scheme. Next morning one of the lesbians will find one of the little folk inside her breakfast egg who claims he is gay, and he and his lover were banned onto eggs by the other gnomes because they are homophobic. This little guy only survived because one of the lesbians drinks a raw egg for breakfast, else he would have been cooked. Now the girls set out to find his lover. And that is only the beginning...
Good question, actually.
In MaA, Headbanger slew Cruces while he was resisting arrest and pointing the gonne at Vimes. Clear case of defense of a fellow officer.
Fifth Elephant, however, is very much like Snuff, except that Vimes did his own dirty work. Unlike Stratford, however, the mad dog that Vimes put down was untouchable.Technically some law applied in town, but it would never be applied to Wolfgang. Death penalty? The accommodation currently in effect disallowed it. Under the Lore which Wolfgang was abusing, there was no redress. Sam did the only thing he could, much like Stoneface Vimes, who put down the animal Lorenzo the Kind. (The one who was fond of children.) No law would bless his actions, either.
More importantly, all of these actions were done in front of witnesses. Those in UA and Snuff occur at night and in secret. Even in the absence of a well defined set of laws, people who slay others publicly will be judged by others as to the suitability of their actions. Those who the law cannot touch (Gravid Rust) can be damaged by scandal. Obviously, that's not as good as a public trial, etc. But it's still a difference.
In MaA, Headbanger slew Cruces while he was resisting arrest and pointing the gonne at Vimes. Clear case of defense of a fellow officer.
Fifth Elephant, however, is very much like Snuff, except that Vimes did his own dirty work. Unlike Stratford, however, the mad dog that Vimes put down was untouchable.Technically some law applied in town, but it would never be applied to Wolfgang. Death penalty? The accommodation currently in effect disallowed it. Under the Lore which Wolfgang was abusing, there was no redress. Sam did the only thing he could, much like Stoneface Vimes, who put down the animal Lorenzo the Kind. (The one who was fond of children.) No law would bless his actions, either.
More importantly, all of these actions were done in front of witnesses. Those in UA and Snuff occur at night and in secret. Even in the absence of a well defined set of laws, people who slay others publicly will be judged by others as to the suitability of their actions. Those who the law cannot touch (Gravid Rust) can be damaged by scandal. Obviously, that's not as good as a public trial, etc. But it's still a difference.
SPOILERS SPILLERS
Except for the fact it wasn't a vigilante killing. Vimes was applying the rule of Hot Pursuit, based on the legal concept that an Ankh Morpork lawman had the right to arrest a criminal who had committed a crime on Ankh Morpork soil (the embassy, where Wolfgang killed Igor).
Although he knew that an actual arrest would be impossible, he went by the book throughout his attempt to apprehend Wolfgang. He told the Bjonk captain what he was doing. He gave Wolfgang several chances to surrender. Only when Wolfgang clearer stated that he would not submit to the Law did Vimes kill him. And, technically, Wolfgang killed himself--he had the choice not to leap for the firework.
Even after he did it Vimes knew that what he had done might have been technically legally correct but, morally, it was murder.
Willikens has no such moral problem in Snuff, and Vimes chooses his loyalty to his butler/sidekick over seeking justice for Stratford's killer. It's just one of the many moral ambiguities that makes the Vimes of Snuff a far more problemmatic characer than the Vimes of previous books.
Except for the fact it wasn't a vigilante killing. Vimes was applying the rule of Hot Pursuit, based on the legal concept that an Ankh Morpork lawman had the right to arrest a criminal who had committed a crime on Ankh Morpork soil (the embassy, where Wolfgang killed Igor).
Although he knew that an actual arrest would be impossible, he went by the book throughout his attempt to apprehend Wolfgang. He told the Bjonk captain what he was doing. He gave Wolfgang several chances to surrender. Only when Wolfgang clearer stated that he would not submit to the Law did Vimes kill him. And, technically, Wolfgang killed himself--he had the choice not to leap for the firework.
Even after he did it Vimes knew that what he had done might have been technically legally correct but, morally, it was murder.
Willikens has no such moral problem in Snuff, and Vimes chooses his loyalty to his butler/sidekick over seeking justice for Stratford's killer. It's just one of the many moral ambiguities that makes the Vimes of Snuff a far more problemmatic characer than the Vimes of previous books.
raisindot,
An embassy is not foreign soil. In the book, I'll grant that Vimes believed that it was AM soil, but in actual law this is not the case. Besides, I'm not concerned with whether a lawyer could find a justification for Vimes action. I want to discuss whether or not his actions were right. When the actions are public, people can so judge. When secret, no.
An embassy is not foreign soil. In the book, I'll grant that Vimes believed that it was AM soil, but in actual law this is not the case. Besides, I'm not concerned with whether a lawyer could find a justification for Vimes action. I want to discuss whether or not his actions were right. When the actions are public, people can so judge. When secret, no.
