SPOILERS Feet of Clay Discussion **Spoilers**
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
Ohhh.... I'm looking forward to that one.
@Tony:
The wallpaper thing in FoC is a double reference (or at least I think so and the Annotated Pratchett File agrees on that).
One is to "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, which I have never read (but my girlfriend had to and she told me the plot.)
The other reference is to the GREEN colour on the wall:
@Tony:
The wallpaper thing in FoC is a double reference (or at least I think so and the Annotated Pratchett File agrees on that).
One is to "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, which I have never read (but my girlfriend had to and she told me the plot.)
The other reference is to the GREEN colour on the wall:
Did anyone find the 'gotcha' moment when Vimes claimed to prove that Dragon had poisoned the candles to be a little bit lame?
After all, Vimes had been accusing him of poisoning the candles all along, and Dragon had been providing a rather strong alibi to prove he had nothing do with it.
Then, when Dragon starts weakening, he looks at the candles in his study and accuses Vimes of poisoning them. Vimes says that Dragon's glance proves his guilt. How does it, though? If Vimes hadn't mentioned the poisoned candles at all during their conversation and Dragon had glanced at the holy water candles, there might have a been a case to make (the old "I never told you how Colonel Mustard was murdered. How did you know that someone bludgeoned him with a candlestick in the library?" gambit.) But Vimes had already told him how the poisoning occurred.
I also found it quite a bit stretching that Dragon wouldn't have immediately known that Vimes was in his study when he returned. Or that he didn't immediately turn into a swarm of bats when Dorfl grabbed him. (How the Watch would have been able to even keep him inside a cell is a challenge in itself).
After all, Vimes had been accusing him of poisoning the candles all along, and Dragon had been providing a rather strong alibi to prove he had nothing do with it.
Then, when Dragon starts weakening, he looks at the candles in his study and accuses Vimes of poisoning them. Vimes says that Dragon's glance proves his guilt. How does it, though? If Vimes hadn't mentioned the poisoned candles at all during their conversation and Dragon had glanced at the holy water candles, there might have a been a case to make (the old "I never told you how Colonel Mustard was murdered. How did you know that someone bludgeoned him with a candlestick in the library?" gambit.) But Vimes had already told him how the poisoning occurred.
I also found it quite a bit stretching that Dragon wouldn't have immediately known that Vimes was in his study when he returned. Or that he didn't immediately turn into a swarm of bats when Dorfl grabbed him. (How the Watch would have been able to even keep him inside a cell is a challenge in itself).
Can't remember the scene exactly, since I'm not that far, yet. But if it is like you say, then it is really a bit lame.
On the other hand Dragon DID come up with the motto Art brought forth the candle/ Ars enixa est candelam - that nearly is a confession in itself.
A bit off topic: Pterry often uses Latin-ish phrases and most of the time they're not correct (for humourous reasons or for the readers the better to understand them.) But I always wondered about Ars enixa est candelam. Who thought this one up for Pterry (who, if I remember correctly, does not know Latin)? Not only is it correct latin, "eniti" is also quite an uncommon word (I had never before seen it and I studied Latin).
I really marvelled at that motto.
On the other hand Dragon DID come up with the motto Art brought forth the candle/ Ars enixa est candelam - that nearly is a confession in itself.
A bit off topic: Pterry often uses Latin-ish phrases and most of the time they're not correct (for humourous reasons or for the readers the better to understand them.) But I always wondered about Ars enixa est candelam. Who thought this one up for Pterry (who, if I remember correctly, does not know Latin)? Not only is it correct latin, "eniti" is also quite an uncommon word (I had never before seen it and I studied Latin).
I really marvelled at that motto.
As The Mad Collector said.
Here in more detail:
Ars, artis feminine = Art (as in a work of art)
eniti, enitor, enixus sum = to bring forth (enixa because ars is feminine, est because it's thrid person singular); enixus sum/ enixa est is (roughly) present perfect.
candela, ae, f.`= candle (candelam because it is accusative case and eniti is a transitive verb)
Here in more detail:
Ars, artis feminine = Art (as in a work of art)
eniti, enitor, enixus sum = to bring forth (enixa because ars is feminine, est because it's thrid person singular); enixus sum/ enixa est is (roughly) present perfect.
candela, ae, f.`= candle (candelam because it is accusative case and eniti is a transitive verb)
I think the point Vimes is making is that it was quite nasty of Dragon to put the solution to to the riddle how the patrician was poisoned right there in front of him in the first place. But it was so well hidden (in a way) that he didn't spot it.
Arsenix(a) est candel(am) - The arsenic is the candle. Add to that the poisonous lamp (lamp au poisson) on top of the crest.
Arsenix(a) est candel(am) - The arsenic is the candle. Add to that the poisonous lamp (lamp au poisson) on top of the crest.
JIB, I think you missed the point Terry was making here--the Dragon has been taunting Vimes with his link to the poisoned candles since the beginning because he believes Vimes is too dumb to see what he has put out for all to see. And Dragon as much as admits that his glance at the candles plus his "sudden weakness" means he knows about the candles. He denies their effect and also, and perhaps more importantly says "But who else saw me?" (i.e. - my word against yours)
As to your question about smell and swarms of bats, the obvious answer is that Terry needed that to be true. But vampires are not, I think, known for their sense of smell--rather for hearing. And the Dragon needed to be one big bat in order to attack Vimes (not a swarm).
As to your question about smell and swarms of bats, the obvious answer is that Terry needed that to be true. But vampires are not, I think, known for their sense of smell--rather for hearing. And the Dragon needed to be one big bat in order to attack Vimes (not a swarm).
I didn't miss the point, SW. While it was quite evident that Vimes saw all of these things, at best they would have added up to circumstantial evidence in a real court of law. The point I'm making is that Dragon's glance at the candles occurs AFTER Vimes accuses Dragon of creating the poisoned candles and poisoning Vetinari with them. In other words, had a trial occurred, Dragon could have said, "Vimes accused me of poisoning candles, which I did not do. I only glanced at the candles on the hall because I thought Vimes was doing to me what he falsely accused me of doing to Vetinari. Vimes planted the idea in my head. It never would have occurred to me to poison candles. All the symbols in the candlemaker's coat of arms were specifically requested by the candlemaker himself; I had nothing to do with creating them, and there's no way to prove it."
1. Vimes talks to Dragon about other things without mentioning the candles or the candlemaker
2. Dragon starts getting weaker
3. Vimes notices this weakness, and says that there's holy water somewhere in the room
4. Dragon looks at the candles, demonstrating that he knows about this poisoning method before Vimes has even spoken of it
5. Vimes calls him out on this as a final means of "proving" Dragon's complicity in combination with the other circumstantial evidence he's already gathered (the coat of arms, etc.)
From a procedural point of view, it's the equivalent of the last scene in a cop show when the suspect, who has effectively hidden his tracks to this time and looks like he can never be arrested, is about to be let go and then is tricked into admitting something about the murder that hasn't been released to the public and that only the murderer would have known.
A small point in the larger story, but since this is a literary discussion, it's fair game to bring up.
1. Vimes talks to Dragon about other things without mentioning the candles or the candlemaker
2. Dragon starts getting weaker
3. Vimes notices this weakness, and says that there's holy water somewhere in the room
4. Dragon looks at the candles, demonstrating that he knows about this poisoning method before Vimes has even spoken of it
5. Vimes calls him out on this as a final means of "proving" Dragon's complicity in combination with the other circumstantial evidence he's already gathered (the coat of arms, etc.)
From a procedural point of view, it's the equivalent of the last scene in a cop show when the suspect, who has effectively hidden his tracks to this time and looks like he can never be arrested, is about to be let go and then is tricked into admitting something about the murder that hasn't been released to the public and that only the murderer would have known.
A small point in the larger story, but since this is a literary discussion, it's fair game to bring up.
