SPOILERS Guards! Guards! Discussion Group *Spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
"Insisting"? No I don't think I ever insisted that was the case and no I don't have any interview qutes to support the idea that it might have been a one-off. I'll agree that G!G! left some questions that people would want to know the answer to - but they didn't have to be answered. In the same way, people are always asking Terry what happened to Esk and Simon after Equal Rites - well he didn't feel obliged or motivated to write another book about them and he could have left G!G! as it was.
Could have, but didn't and in some ways I think it was a mistake to take it the way he did because he changed Carrot to fit the next book and in my opinion he changed him too much and set himself too rigid character development for Carrot.
But that's for later book discussions.
And incidentally we do not know that it was Magrat who appraised the sword. Magrat is mentioned in connection with letter writing in the book. The book says (page 31 UK paperback): Now given the various witches in that area, you might take a letter to Magrat to find out how to stop spelling recommendation, but would you take a possibly magical sword to her? When there are other more experienced witches living nearby?
Could have, but didn't and in some ways I think it was a mistake to take it the way he did because he changed Carrot to fit the next book and in my opinion he changed him too much and set himself too rigid character development for Carrot.
But that's for later book discussions.
And incidentally we do not know that it was Magrat who appraised the sword. Magrat is mentioned in connection with letter writing in the book. The book says (page 31 UK paperback): Now given the various witches in that area, you might take a letter to Magrat to find out how to stop spelling recommendation, but would you take a possibly magical sword to her? When there are other more experienced witches living nearby?
The sword of the King is a symbolic and legendary device in many cultures but the only attribute that it has to have for a plausible functionality in A-M's pseudo-medieval environment is to be used as a sword and not as a theatrical prop. It has to be very, very sharp.
What Carrot's sword is on Discworld is an anti-Excalibur to match his own status as the anti-King or King-who-doesn't-want-to-be-one if that suits better. It has to be/was a conqueror's sword and in a very real sense as Terry uses it - a King Maker. But now it's history (not legend that's the Wonse sword) and it's true and original significance is lost on everyone except Carrot, Vimes and Vetinari - and, in the later books, the rest of the Watch in greater or lesser degrees.
Back to the anti-Excalibur thing. When you think about that - taking aside the stone (which may even have been another sword come to think about it as the legend veers about so much) and alternatively the getting it from the Lake thing and Bedivere chucking it back in when Arthur died - what was actually 'magical' about it in Arthur's hand. Nothing. It was a weapon pure and simple and he used it as such.
It's origins and disposal are romanticised and the sword in the stone part (if Excalibur) is simple physics as Arthur takes it out in the dawn when the metal blade hasn't expanded, whilst everyone else was trying to get it out in the heat of the day... the rest is the embroidery of myth and fits into more legends than the Arthurian one. The sword itself belongs to the King as warrior aspect. Like Carrot's.
What Carrot's sword is on Discworld is an anti-Excalibur to match his own status as the anti-King or King-who-doesn't-want-to-be-one if that suits better. It has to be/was a conqueror's sword and in a very real sense as Terry uses it - a King Maker. But now it's history (not legend that's the Wonse sword) and it's true and original significance is lost on everyone except Carrot, Vimes and Vetinari - and, in the later books, the rest of the Watch in greater or lesser degrees.
Back to the anti-Excalibur thing. When you think about that - taking aside the stone (which may even have been another sword come to think about it as the legend veers about so much) and alternatively the getting it from the Lake thing and Bedivere chucking it back in when Arthur died - what was actually 'magical' about it in Arthur's hand. Nothing. It was a weapon pure and simple and he used it as such.
It's origins and disposal are romanticised and the sword in the stone part (if Excalibur) is simple physics as Arthur takes it out in the dawn when the metal blade hasn't expanded, whilst everyone else was trying to get it out in the heat of the day... the rest is the embroidery of myth and fits into more legends than the Arthurian one. The sword itself belongs to the King as warrior aspect. Like Carrot's.
mspanners said:
Trish ..... YOU HAVE NOT GOT ALL THE WATCH BOOKS !!!!!!
I am assuming you have not read them yet?
I am assuming you have not read them yet?
Getting close...
Finding Pratchett books in the US isn't easy and even harder in the depleted Rust Belt.
I've found a few online (eBay, craigslist) and have my friend Jan from Nova Scotia to thanks for the rest.
Hey, she started me on these, keeping my fix handy is the least she could do. ;0)
YES.
Carrot's sword is simply as swreader describes and for those very reasons.
If I was trying to explain this sword-metaphor to an 9th or 10th grade English class, I would tell them that Wonse's sword was pretty but useless, ergo as false as his king and as impure as his motives.
That Carrot's sword is true and pure; it is never flourished, but used and never used in haste or hate.
Thr thing is with terry He borrows quite heavily for mythology and folk lore so sometimes it is easy to see where His ideas come from, King Arthur, Norse Gods and so on........
now we try to read into His stories something deep and meaningful and to quite honest I think He uses these ideas because they are already well established in the social conciseness and makes it easier to write a book, no need to explain everything.....
We all know about Kings and Swords..........
BUT He has a way of putting a twists in these Legends that are funny and keep us interested, this is what sets Terry apart from all the other Dungeon and Dragon gender writers I think.
now we try to read into His stories something deep and meaningful and to quite honest I think He uses these ideas because they are already well established in the social conciseness and makes it easier to write a book, no need to explain everything.....
We all know about Kings and Swords..........
BUT He has a way of putting a twists in these Legends that are funny and keep us interested, this is what sets Terry apart from all the other Dungeon and Dragon gender writers I think.
As we are nearing the end of the official time for discussing G!G!, I thought there were a couple of points to throw out (having re-read what is really quite a fascinating discussion).
It seems to me that in some respects, Vimes and Vetinari are (in spite of the apparent difference in the characters at the beginning) really very much alike. Vimes, when we first meet him is lying in the gutter in front of the Watch house talking to himself about his love of the city. And it is the city (not the much later in the series mentioned woman) that he is in love with. Straightening out his ramblings, what he says is
The city is a woman who has strung you along and let you fall in love with her, then kicked you in the teeth! She's a bitch! And just as you begin to hate her and get her out of your heart/mind, she opens her great rotten heart to you. And you never know where you are with her. Only thing you were sure of, you couldn't let her go. Because she was yours, all you had.
Vimes and Vetinari both live for the city, and at this point are only dimly aware of each other. Vimes has seen (we know from later books) the horrors of prior Patricians, and I think we can fairly infer that he dreamed of making a difference, of making Anh-Morpork a great, wonderful city. But meanwhile, Vetinari has also decided to make AM a great wonderful city and his method of doing that has all but destroyed Vimes's occupation.
But neither man can function to save the city without the other. Vetinari seems to have been totally oblivious to Wonse's jealous plans to overthrow him. And that is one of Vetinari's failings. He has chosen to make himself so disconnected from humanity, for which he has little use, that in order to make the city work, he leaves himself open to someone like Wonse. And while it is true that Vetinari could have gotten out of the dungeon, he doesn't leave his safe post until the last minute.
Thus, in a peculiar way, it is the Watch (assisted by Lady Sybil and Errol) who save the city. In their own inept way, they attempt to protect and serve. And had Wonse survived, Ank-Morpork could not have continued to exist.
Vimes embraces humanity--he sees within himself the darkness that he sees in society, and that he keeps under control partially by drunkenness. But he also sees the things that are wrong in the city, but is powerless to do anything about them, and so he drinks to ease his pain--the pain of being all too human.
Vetinari doesn't want to be king any more than Vimes does--or even than Carrot does. And that peculiar moment where Vimes thinks about the trousers of time is the point when Vetinari (who recognizes the sword, and the implications of it) gives it back to Carrot without any formal recognition.
Vimes's preferred weapon (that he uses to save Lady Sybil) is not the sword of a king, but the cleaver. He doesn't like horses or all the trappings of (or most of the) nobility. But at the end Vimes recognizes the similarity between his view of the city and his view of Sybil who in some senses represents the city. Vetinari keeps the trappings of royalty (as have prior Patricians) but he acts using the power of his status as a member of the nobility to institute the kinds of reforms that have made the city a safer, more prosperous place. He makes the city run--but he does not want to be King.
At the end of the book, Pratchett neatly ties things off. And, as Tony mentioned-- perhaps he leaves things open. I think he knew he was going on with the series, but perhaps not. "Perhaps the magic would last. Perhaps it wouldn't. But then what does?"
It seems to me that in some respects, Vimes and Vetinari are (in spite of the apparent difference in the characters at the beginning) really very much alike. Vimes, when we first meet him is lying in the gutter in front of the Watch house talking to himself about his love of the city. And it is the city (not the much later in the series mentioned woman) that he is in love with. Straightening out his ramblings, what he says is
The city is a woman who has strung you along and let you fall in love with her, then kicked you in the teeth! She's a bitch! And just as you begin to hate her and get her out of your heart/mind, she opens her great rotten heart to you. And you never know where you are with her. Only thing you were sure of, you couldn't let her go. Because she was yours, all you had.
Vimes and Vetinari both live for the city, and at this point are only dimly aware of each other. Vimes has seen (we know from later books) the horrors of prior Patricians, and I think we can fairly infer that he dreamed of making a difference, of making Anh-Morpork a great, wonderful city. But meanwhile, Vetinari has also decided to make AM a great wonderful city and his method of doing that has all but destroyed Vimes's occupation.
But neither man can function to save the city without the other. Vetinari seems to have been totally oblivious to Wonse's jealous plans to overthrow him. And that is one of Vetinari's failings. He has chosen to make himself so disconnected from humanity, for which he has little use, that in order to make the city work, he leaves himself open to someone like Wonse. And while it is true that Vetinari could have gotten out of the dungeon, he doesn't leave his safe post until the last minute.
Thus, in a peculiar way, it is the Watch (assisted by Lady Sybil and Errol) who save the city. In their own inept way, they attempt to protect and serve. And had Wonse survived, Ank-Morpork could not have continued to exist.
Vimes embraces humanity--he sees within himself the darkness that he sees in society, and that he keeps under control partially by drunkenness. But he also sees the things that are wrong in the city, but is powerless to do anything about them, and so he drinks to ease his pain--the pain of being all too human.
Vetinari doesn't want to be king any more than Vimes does--or even than Carrot does. And that peculiar moment where Vimes thinks about the trousers of time is the point when Vetinari (who recognizes the sword, and the implications of it) gives it back to Carrot without any formal recognition.
Vimes's preferred weapon (that he uses to save Lady Sybil) is not the sword of a king, but the cleaver. He doesn't like horses or all the trappings of (or most of the) nobility. But at the end Vimes recognizes the similarity between his view of the city and his view of Sybil who in some senses represents the city. Vetinari keeps the trappings of royalty (as have prior Patricians) but he acts using the power of his status as a member of the nobility to institute the kinds of reforms that have made the city a safer, more prosperous place. He makes the city run--but he does not want to be King.
At the end of the book, Pratchett neatly ties things off. And, as Tony mentioned-- perhaps he leaves things open. I think he knew he was going on with the series, but perhaps not. "Perhaps the magic would last. Perhaps it wouldn't. But then what does?"
First off - there isn't an 'official' end to these discussions as far as I'm concerned. People can go on posting as long as they have something to say.
I agree that there are similarities between Vimes and Vetinari in that they both care deeply about the city and, in their own way, will do whatever they can to protect it.
It's not easy to see what Vetinari gets out of this. He doesn't appear to be fabulously wealthy and he certainly doesn't live the high life. He seems to be despised by most of the people in the city and he actually seems to relish that. And as you point out, Sharlene; he's not perfect. He seems to treat the city like his own personal chess game where he's the Grand Master and he's planned his moves far in advance - but sometimes he gets it wrong. He doesn't seem to have seen what Wonse was planning and although he's prepared himself if he gets locked up, his preparations aren't perfect. Ok he's trained the rats to help him, but they don't do a very good job.
And why does Vimes love the city so much? It's not done him many favours over the years. As Captain of the Night Watch he's also a despised character by the people. He seems to drink because of what has become of him without doing anything about it until the events of this book. Unlike Vetinari, he's more of a loose cannon. He acts instinctively without the careful planning of Vetinari and it sometimes goes wrong. But, as I said they both act for the good of the city.
Now I'll shut up and give someone else a chance to comment.
I agree that there are similarities between Vimes and Vetinari in that they both care deeply about the city and, in their own way, will do whatever they can to protect it.
It's not easy to see what Vetinari gets out of this. He doesn't appear to be fabulously wealthy and he certainly doesn't live the high life. He seems to be despised by most of the people in the city and he actually seems to relish that. And as you point out, Sharlene; he's not perfect. He seems to treat the city like his own personal chess game where he's the Grand Master and he's planned his moves far in advance - but sometimes he gets it wrong. He doesn't seem to have seen what Wonse was planning and although he's prepared himself if he gets locked up, his preparations aren't perfect. Ok he's trained the rats to help him, but they don't do a very good job.
And why does Vimes love the city so much? It's not done him many favours over the years. As Captain of the Night Watch he's also a despised character by the people. He seems to drink because of what has become of him without doing anything about it until the events of this book. Unlike Vetinari, he's more of a loose cannon. He acts instinctively without the careful planning of Vetinari and it sometimes goes wrong. But, as I said they both act for the good of the city.
Now I'll shut up and give someone else a chance to comment.
"And why does Vimes love the city so much? It's not done him many favours over the years"
I think the answer to that, is that the Watch and the city is all he has.
The Watch is his 'family' and the city his home. Every single cobblestone and every single street and alleyway is familiar to him and is what makes him feel like that he belongs there.
I love the characters of Vimes and Vetinari, and how they react and interact with each other.
Can you imagine how Vimes would react if Vetinari ever saved his life and he had to live with the fact that he owed the Patrician something?
Vimes has saved Vetinari's life because he had to - it is his job to save lives, but Vetinari doesn't need to lift a finger if he doesn't want to.
I would love Terry to write a storyline along those lines to see where it leads to.
I think the answer to that, is that the Watch and the city is all he has.
The Watch is his 'family' and the city his home. Every single cobblestone and every single street and alleyway is familiar to him and is what makes him feel like that he belongs there.
I love the characters of Vimes and Vetinari, and how they react and interact with each other.
Can you imagine how Vimes would react if Vetinari ever saved his life and he had to live with the fact that he owed the Patrician something?
Vimes has saved Vetinari's life because he had to - it is his job to save lives, but Vetinari doesn't need to lift a finger if he doesn't want to.
I would love Terry to write a storyline along those lines to see where it leads to.
No, if it's the book that I think you mean, then he doesn't! He saves 'Keel'.
At the time that he does so, neither Vimes nor Vetinari really know each other and the situation in AM has not developed to the point that they are playing mental chess games.
I think for Vetinari to save Vimes in the present time, would lead to an angry and resentful Sir Samuel and a highly amused Patrician.
If you mean another time, then can you please refresh my memory?
At the time that he does so, neither Vimes nor Vetinari really know each other and the situation in AM has not developed to the point that they are playing mental chess games.
I think for Vetinari to save Vimes in the present time, would lead to an angry and resentful Sir Samuel and a highly amused Patrician.
If you mean another time, then can you please refresh my memory?
Sharlene nailed it.
Simply, Vimes sees the "little people" as people.
Vetinari sees them as inhabitants of his beloved city.
Love? Why does love have to make sense? When has love ever made sense?
Who says "love" must be romantic? Why can't you love /cherish an ideal or a philosophy?
Vimes is loyal to the place where he grew up and even though he sees its pimples, he loves AM for what it could be while accepting what it is. Railing and drunkenly, yes, but accepting.
Vetinari is loyal to AM, yet squeezes those pimples. Vetinari puts up with the what-is while planning for the what-it-will-be.
Simply, Vimes sees the "little people" as people.
Vetinari sees them as inhabitants of his beloved city.
Love? Why does love have to make sense? When has love ever made sense?
Who says "love" must be romantic? Why can't you love /cherish an ideal or a philosophy?
Vimes is loyal to the place where he grew up and even though he sees its pimples, he loves AM for what it could be while accepting what it is. Railing and drunkenly, yes, but accepting.
Vetinari is loyal to AM, yet squeezes those pimples. Vetinari puts up with the what-is while planning for the what-it-will-be.
Batty, Vetinari does save Vimes's life--over and over again, starting with this book, and continuing. We see ithe first indication of the relationship or partnership of the two at the end of this book. Vetinari was apparently powerless to stop Wonse and the dragon--so he sits in the dungeon until Vimes joins him, is pulled out and set on the course that results in saving Sybil and the City. And much as it embarrasses Vimes the Patrician insists that they be formally recognized as "heroes" by the City. And this is the beginning of saving Vimes's life.
Without getting too specific, Vetinari continues to save Vimes's life and sanity by giving him more and more responsibility for the city in the subsequent Watch books. Vetinari still underestimates Vimes, but then Vimes underestimates him. But both of them (polis and politician) are Men of the City.
And Trish nailed it--love (almost by definition) doesn't make sense--but it is perhaps the strongest force in the world. And love is not simply romantic (as she says) . English is poverty-stricken when it comes to defining types or differences in love. But philosophically the three most common definitions of love are:
Eros is the desire that makes every being long for other beings and for the true, essential being in order to overcome loneliness, seclusion, anxiety, and error. This is generally what we mean by "romantic love.
Philia is friendship in the largest sense, the personal love which chooses and selects on the basis of personal affinity, a kind of love that cannot be commanded; it either exists or it doesn't.
Caritas, on the other hand, is a love than can be commanded. It is love for the ultimate meaning and destiny of the other being or ideas or countries ... charity, helping, saving, fulfilling love; it is a caring for the creative forces of life as they express themselves in other beings, ideas or groups of people (such as one's country or city).
I would suggest that Caritas is what both men feel for the City, and that over time, the relationship of the two develops into Philia.
Without getting too specific, Vetinari continues to save Vimes's life and sanity by giving him more and more responsibility for the city in the subsequent Watch books. Vetinari still underestimates Vimes, but then Vimes underestimates him. But both of them (polis and politician) are Men of the City.
And Trish nailed it--love (almost by definition) doesn't make sense--but it is perhaps the strongest force in the world. And love is not simply romantic (as she says) . English is poverty-stricken when it comes to defining types or differences in love. But philosophically the three most common definitions of love are:
Eros is the desire that makes every being long for other beings and for the true, essential being in order to overcome loneliness, seclusion, anxiety, and error. This is generally what we mean by "romantic love.
Philia is friendship in the largest sense, the personal love which chooses and selects on the basis of personal affinity, a kind of love that cannot be commanded; it either exists or it doesn't.
Caritas, on the other hand, is a love than can be commanded. It is love for the ultimate meaning and destiny of the other being or ideas or countries ... charity, helping, saving, fulfilling love; it is a caring for the creative forces of life as they express themselves in other beings, ideas or groups of people (such as one's country or city).
I would suggest that Caritas is what both men feel for the City, and that over time, the relationship of the two develops into Philia.
swreader, thank you for your input but I disagree with you.
Vetinari may well have given Vimes more purpose to live, but he hasn't saved Vimes from physical danger. Therefore he hasn't saved Vimes life in the sense that I was talking about.
This is the beauty of TP's books. It allows people to debate different perspectives!
Vetinari may well have given Vimes more purpose to live, but he hasn't saved Vimes from physical danger. Therefore he hasn't saved Vimes life in the sense that I was talking about.
This is the beauty of TP's books. It allows people to debate different perspectives!
