SPOILERS Going Postal Discussion *Spoilers*

[poohbcarrot]

(Wow! Unlucky Danny B. I thought you'd put some good points across, but you got "Trished!" )

Janny honey-pie

You said that I had said the following;

"but you're wrong about Vetinari being a block of wood emotionally and/or intellectually."

I never said or implied that.
That would be making Vetinari out to be like a golem!

I loved your blue highlights, but you spectacularly failed to highlight the bit I was referring to when you implied Vetinari was like a golem!

Vetinari in that respect is 'Golemic' because he never loses control of his emotions

When you say I argue like a Jesuit (PMSL ), which dictionary definition of the word "Jesuit" do you mean? There are two definitions. 8)

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

The nasty non-Christian one of course - would I insult you that much? :twisted:

There you go AGAIN! You can prove any bloody thing by quoting out of context...

Vetinari in that respect is 'Golemic' because he never loses control of his emotions BUT he does knows how that feels even if he doesn't act on those impulses

Did I say he was a Golem as in noun there? I think not I said Golemic meaning golem-like as you very well know, which is not the same is it? He is a human being who can think like a golem but NOT let his feeling/emotions rule him. He therefore is not a golem, but is someone who knows a lot about control and uses all his 'faculties' and knowlege of human nature guide his choices and decisions.

Where to next then you bloody-minded, pernickety messianic heretic? *Does the Morpheus 'bring it on' thingie'*

 

[poohbcarrot]

 

[poohbcarrot]

There you go AGAIN! misquoting me

Did I say he was a Golem as in noun there?

No, you didn't.

Did I say you said he was a golem?

you implied Vetinari was like a golem!

No, I didn't.

So who said he was a golem?

"Golemic" = like a golem

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

well at least we're agreed on the grammar and have a new adjective

Hmm? Needs leather :twisted:

 

[Tonyblack]

Now, now guys, morphing Morph is going too far. Let's try and keep on topic shall we?

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

*does a Tina* :twisted:

mumblemumblemumbledon'twannatoomuchfunmumblemumblemumble

Sorry chief - at least we've established that Vetinari isn't a Golem - much

 

[Trish]

I'd also like to chip in with the discussion on whether or not Moist can have any moral authority in the story, due to his despicable and reprehensible actions in the past.

As someone with a less than perfect moral record myself, I like to believe he can.

Moral authority /ethical authority.

Ok, who does have a perfect moral record?
What is a perfect moral record?


Moist said the difference between him and Gilt was the same as between a golem and a hammer.

Free golems can defend themselves. Owned golems can't.
Employed frees may have their chem altered --see Mr Pump, who is permitted to harm humans in the course of his work.
Owned golems cannot have their chem altered by their owner /employer.
Does this mean that the hammer --the owned golem-- is incapable if making decisions?

No. Look to Dorfl in Feet of Clay. Broken, he did what he knew was "right."


Morals are man made constructs. Agreements as to what is important and how we're supposed to behave toward /about whatever a bunch of people (loose definition of civilization) decide is important.

Ethics have no such societal burden. It's the right thing or the wrong thing, period.
You know, your conscience /gut knows. Ethics apply whether people are watching or not.

 

[poohbcarrot]

Loved Morph!

Getting back on topic, I have never said, and don't believe for one second, that Vetinari is in any way, even remotely like a golem.

Sorry chief - at least we've established that Vetinari isn't a Golem - much

 

[poohbcarrot]

Me! Me! Me! My turn! I wanna be "Trished"

(A) Employed frees may have their chem altered --see Mr Pump, who is permitted to harm humans in the course of his work.

(B) Owned golems cannot have their chem altered by their owner /employer.

(B) In FoC Carrot buys Dorfll for a penny. Therefore Carrot is the owner of Dorfl. Carrot then changes the chem in his head by switching the chem for the receipt.

To me this is proof that golems CAN have their chems altered by their owners. Possibly Carrot was the first person ever to try?

(A) I assumed that the following was how golems became free;

The golem is bought by other golems.
The golem's chem is replaced with the receipt.
After initial period of "cold turkey, the golems get accustomed to their freedom.
The receipt then becomes irrelevant, because the words are now engraved on the heart.

So surely free golems have either a receipt or nothing in their heads.

In the case of Mr Pump, he willingly has a chem put in his head because it's his job, but it's not a case of altering his chem.

 

[Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit]

"He wandered through the crowd, heading toward the Post Office. No one gave him a second glance. Most didn't bother with a first glance. In a way he'd never realized until now, he was alone. He'd always been alone. It was the only way to be safe. The trouble was, he missed the golden suit. Everything was an act, really. But the Man in the Golden Suit was a good act. He didn't want to be a person you forgot, someone who was one step above a shedow. Underneathe the wing'ed hat, he could perform miracles or, at least, make it appear that miracles had been performed, which is nearly as good."

Moist Von Lipwig WAS actually beginning to show some glimmers of a conscience toward the end of the book.

He ruined Gilt by using the truth. No lies, simply telling everyone in the UU's Great Hall, through Devious Collarbone, what the trunk's scheme did after going through the Dearheart information seeing how they were scammed.

At the very end he had to remind himself that he could stop being a good guy anytime, he just had to walk away, ...but for now, he chose to stay.

 

[poohbcarrot]

Can't we have a poll Tony?

1. Love Moist
2. Like Moist
3. He's so-so
4. Don't like Moist
5. Hate Moist

Bet more people like or love him than don't like him or hate him.

 

[Tonyblack]

Can't we have a poll Tony?

1. Love Moist
2. Like Moist
3. He's so-so
4. Don't like Moist
5. Hate Moist

Bet more people like or love him than don't like him or hate him.

Not on this thread, but I'll start a new one.

 

[Trish]

He ruined Gilt by using the truth.

No. He stopped Gilt using an emotional plea + a bit of clacks mythology.

Not that wasn't the right thing or the best way to get the desired result, but it wasn't "true."
Dead people don't talk. Except wizards.

No lies, simply telling everyone in the UU's Great Hall ... what the trunk's scheme did after going through the Dearheart information seeing how they were scammed.

Moist could see the "how" of Gilt's manoeuverings to get the Trunk, but not the actual shape of his con.
Figuring out the "shape" of the swindle was left to the clerks who took weeks putting together numbers --and Horsefry's red ledger.


There's a bit relating to the men who assured Cheeseborough his bank would re-open that is relevant. Pratchett speaks of something "too big to fail" and given last fall's AIG, GS et al financial messes, those 3 little paragraphs pretty much relate the "whys" of Moist's and Gilt's successes.

 

[Tonyblack]

Part of the reason that Moist uses the ruse about the ghosts is that he's changed significantly during the book to see the consequences of using the Woodpecker. The old Moist wouldn't have hesitated in using something that would have knocked all the towers out and destroyed most of them. He's have even enjoyed it - BUT - he realises that people might get hurt or lose their jobs and that although he'd have won, it would be much harder to get the system running again.

The ghost idea works and no one but the guilty suffer because of it.

And, like him or hate him, he does learn and that makes one somewhat more sympathetic to his character.

One of the best bits for me is where he realises that very soon he'll have to stop showing off and actually get down to the every day job of running a business. This is part of the reason for his boredom in Making Money.

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

The devil makes work for idle brains... :twisted:

 

[kakaze]

Moist is very ethical, from his point of view.

:arrow: He doesn't carry a weapon.
:arrow: He never uses violence or the threat of violence.
:arrow: He only steals from banks (against whom he feels justified because he feels that the bankers cheat their customers) and people who are trying to steal from him.
:arrow: In exchange for the money he gives people a show, and a chance to hope that they will come out ahead.
:arrow: He treats his victims with respect, looking them right in the eye as he swindles them.

Ethics are a social construct and are entirely dependent on your point of view. I'm sure that the assassins and licensed thieves feel that they are ethical because they follow their code of honor and rules. The people like Lord de Word and Lord Rust feel that they are ethical because their actions, although cruel, are considered acceptable behavior for people of their class by their society's standards.

 

[Bouncy Castle]

Blimey.

And there was me thinking the books were just a rollicking good read!

 

[Tonyblack]

Blimey.

And there was me thinking the books were just a rollicking good read!

They are. But there's more to them than that.

 

[Bouncy Castle]

I know, sweetie. But when it comes down to my brain, it's just a great story, with laffs, and the occasional bad hotdog!

My memory is shot (alcohol), so half the things I read on this forum are a case of "..... oh... yeah. i remember that...".