Monstrous Regiment --why don't I love it?

[poohbcarrot]

I agree that MR is my least favourite Discworld book. It depresses me coz everytime I think about it I think of grey skies and rain. It's just not a "sunny" book.

 

[kakaze]

I agree that MR is my least favourite Discworld book. It depresses me coz everytime I think about it I think of grey skies and rain. It's just not a "sunny" book.

Unlike Feet of Clay, where the fog's so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Come to think of it, I can't remember a case of pleasant weather in any of the discworld books.

I guess you could count the beginning of Interesting Times:

This is a story that starts somewhere else, where a man is lying on a raft in a blue lagoon under a sunny sky. His head is resting on his arms. He is happy - in his case, a mental state so rare as to be almost unprecedented. He is whistling an amiable little tune, and dangling his feet in the crystal clear water.

But I don't feel that it really counts, it only lasts for a few paragraphs.

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

The weather?

Well does Small Gods count? Or Jingo!? Nearly always sunny out in the Desert

Or the Last Continent? The price of having a Fourecks?

 

[poohbcarrot]

...or Witches Abroad? Or Pyramids? Or Eric? Or Moving Pictures?

Anyhows, I actually meant it's dark and depressing like a rainy day.

 

[mspanners]

I have this book on audio and I must admit it has grown on me.

The first time I listened to it I was not overly impressed as I twigged on to the fact they were women quite early on ( it was obvious what was going on after the first revelation ).... but it has its merits, the point of view that the book was following the war mongers/bad guys was a twist I enjoyed.

They were portrayed has Human ( well mostly Human, if you understand my meaning ! ) and not as rampaging mass murders......

 

[poohbcarrot]

I wasn't that impressed with Nightwatch and Thud on first reading, but on subsequent readings they grew massively on me. I've read MR 3 or 4 times and it still hasn't grown on me.

 

[swreader]

I think MR has far fewer "funny" bits than Jingo, Pratchett's other major "stupidity-of-war" book. So it's a harder book to go back to in many respects. But the feminist element (though perhaps a bit overdone) is important--and suggests that perhaps there would be fewer wars if women (not women pretending to be men) were in charge.

 

[poohbcarrot]

--and suggests that perhaps there would be fewer wars if women (not women pretending to be men) were in charge.

Not being awkward or anything, but could you give me a few quotes from the book to back up your suggestion?

As far as I remember, the women ARE in charge, Polly WANTS to join the army to fight and she STAYS in the army at the end of the book.

If anything, the book suggests that women are just as bloodthirsty and good at fighting as men, if not better.

 

[swreader]

The problem with Borogravia (as far as I can tell from the book) is that (I can't give you a cite at the moment--and it's late) the country had no real ruler since the death of the husband of the Duchess years ago. Like Queen Victoria, she has gone into seclusion and left things in the hands of the men of Borogravia. It is not at all clear that even had she not chosen to do so, her word would have carried any weight in terms of the management of the country.

The women in Borogravia are in a terribly subservient position -- they have no right of inheritance. If they misbehave they can be sent to institutions like that where Wazzer, Lofty and Tonker were held. They must wear head coverings, they have no real say in the way things are done.

So the Women of this group, with the aid of socks, go off for their own various reason, as soldiers pretending to be men. But they (like the commanding officers at the fort) find that they are in great danger of beginning to think like men--all full of testosterone, which appears to inhibit brain function.

When Polly goes back into the army (when her country needs to defend itself later) she goes back as a woman, not as a man.

It's quite late, and I'm tired, but this gives you some idea of what I'm talking about. And think about some of the women who have been Presidents or Prime Ministers of various countries (Israel, India, for example). They have, on the whole, shown a great deal of intelligence and capability in dealing with the problems of their countries.

 

[poohbcarrot]

And think about some of the women who have been Presidents or Prime Ministers of various countries (Israel, India, for example). They have, on the whole, shown a great deal of intelligence and capability in dealing with the problems of their countries.

I notice you tactfully stayed clear of Thatcher (spit!)

I will ponder your comments and possibly get back to you at a later time.

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

Erm - wasn't Indira Ghandi in charge during one of the many heights of the many and varied hostilities between India and Pakistan (that's not really fair as that's always there and always will be I expect)? Ditto Golda Meir - PM during the Yom Kippur war and the Munich Olympics tragedy? Thatcher? Yeah well - she was a bitch troll from hell in some respects and made a huge mistake under advisement - plenty of politicians including and especially Churchill did the same and more rationally for less reason and worse ethics. Gender has nothing to do with the waging of wars.

I think there's something to be said about women perhaps being more averse to starting wars in the 1st place. They are after all completely pointless and ultimately never sort anything out - even if you're completely 'victorious' and have no one (or nowhere) left to fight. And lots of spouses, parents and children die for what is often no reason at all... Nobody in their right minds, male or female would ever go to war again for that reason alone. But we do - over and over, no matter what our religious teaching say or our society abhors.

Fact is humans are aggressive and retaliatory and vengeful and the cycle of war when it's fuelled by greed, anger and fear becomes self-fulfilling so it's often a question of fighting to protect your own or defending what's yours - doesn't matter the reason. Females are genetically programmed to nurture and protect their young - but that's gradually been eroded by medical progress and social movements in the last century. Women do fight and will, same as men, if there's no alternative and violence is inevitable. Maybe less willingly or for different reasons to men - all 3 of those intelligent and committed women did no better or worse that a man would have in those circs. They may have had a different perspective and motivations, but then so did Neville Chamberlain when he signed the Munich Agreement along with Hitler and others European politicians... confidently promising peace in our time?

I won't go on but here's a another quote from Chamberlain (found on Wiki)

"How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul".

 

[poohbcarrot]

I think there's something to be said about women perhaps being more averse to starting wars in the 1st place. They are after all completely pointless and ultimately never sort anything out

Jan, that is probably the funniest thing you've ever posted.

I never knew you were a closet male chauvanist pig.

BTW I assume the subject "they" in the second sentence refers to the subject "women" in the first sentence.

Policemen drive cars. They are all big.
"They" surely refers to policemen, doesn't it? 8)

 

[poohbcarrot]

The problem with Borogravia (as far as I can tell from the book) is that (I can't give you a cite at the moment--and it's late) the country had no real ruler since the death of the husband of the Duchess years ago. Like Queen Victoria, she has gone into seclusion and left things in the hands of the men of Borogravia. It is not at all clear that even had she not chosen to do so, her word would have carried any weight in terms of the management of the country.

The women in Borogravia are in a terribly subservient position -- they have no right of inheritance. If they misbehave they can be sent to institutions like that where Wazzer, Lofty and Tonker were held. They must wear head coverings, they have no real say in the way things are done.

So the Women of this group, with the aid of socks, go off for their own various reason, as soldiers pretending to be men. But they (like the commanding officers at the fort) find that they are in great danger of beginning to think like men--all full of testosterone, which appears to inhibit brain function.

When Polly goes back into the army (when her country needs to defend itself later) she goes back as a woman, not as a man.

It's quite late, and I'm tired, but this gives you some idea of what I'm talking about. And think about some of the women who have been Presidents or Prime Ministers of various countries (Israel, India, for example). They have, on the whole, shown a great deal of intelligence and capability in dealing with the problems of their countries.

I've pondered.

I agree with your first 4 paragraphs, because that's the story of the book.

However, I don't see how those four paragraphs lead to the suggestion that "there would be fewer wars if women are in control." (BTW I think that the concept of what you say is correct, but I didn't see it in the book, so look forward to some quotes to back up your "suggestion")

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

I think there's something to be said about women perhaps being more averse to starting wars in the 1st place. They are after all completely pointless and ultimately never sort anything out

Jan, that is probably the funniest thing you've ever posted.

I never knew you were a closet male chauvanist pig.

BTW I assume the subject "they" in the second sentence refers to the subject "women" in the first sentence.

Policemen drive cars. They are all big.
"They" surely refers to policemen, doesn't it? 8)

*Tops up testosterone levels and wonders whether to go down the pub or watch the grand prix...* :twisted:

OK give you that one smartycarrot I'll never post 'seriously' whilst I'm trying to concentrate on something else again - should of course have read...

(Wars) are after all completely pointless and ultimately never sort anything out

... and to be exact, now we've got that aberration straight, I will certainly admit to being a 'species-ist' in that I think the world would be a far better place all around if the human race had descended from the gorilla branch of the family tree. For starters the females outnumber the sexually active males and thus are assured of getting a decent bloke with superior genes who will actually enjoy running around looking after us, making sure we have enough banananas and helping with the child-care instead of charging off every five minutes to fight with the adolescents...

And if that makes me a female chauvanist pig (or even guerilla :twisted: ) then YAY!

 

[poohbcarrot]

However, I don't see how those four paragraphs lead to the suggestion that "there would be fewer wars if women are in control." (BTW I think that the concept of what you say is correct, but I didn't see it in the book, so look forward to some quotes to back up your "suggestion")

I ain't disagreeing!

However;

"the females outnumber the sexually active males and thus are assured of getting a decent bloke"

No they're not The males are guarenteed of getting a decent "bird" coz there are less males to go round!

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

That's the whole point MCPcarrot - everyone wins!

The Alpha Male gets all the totty going - a harem in effect and the totty get the biggest toughest sexiest guy around... :twisted:

 

[poohbcarrot]

You aren't a mormon by any chance, are you?

You're advocating polygamy!

And I've never said anything even remotely MCP-ish!

 

[FatRat]

re

...or Witches Abroad? Or Pyramids? Or Eric? Or Moving Pictures?

Anyhows, I actually meant it's dark and depressing like a rainy day.

ah you mean dark in tone well personaly i think "Night Watch" is darker so is "Carpe Juglum" (SP) and "Small Gods"

 

[poohbcarrot]

Somewhere in a Rwandan rainforest.

Oook ook OOK ook? (How about it, big boy?)

OOOk oook OOOK (fart) OOOK! (Give it a rest will you? I'm knackered!)

Oook OOK OOK OOK? (How come you manage to shag Donna, Trudy and Becky, but not me?)

OOK (fart) OOK OOK ook (fart) (I'm saving my energy because that nice David Attenborough's coming tomorrow)

OOK OOK OOK OOK? (Well what am I meant to do then?)

OOK (fart) ook ook OOK (Why do you think I give you all those bananas? Improvise!)

(Hi and welcome Fat Rat - Different people have different preferences. It's just my opinion. Post your 5 best TP books on the other thread and I bet they're not the same as anyone else's)

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

PMSL And here was me steering clear of bananana inuendo :twisted:

However;

"the females outnumber the sexually active males and thus are assured of getting a decent bloke"

No they're not The males are guarenteed of getting a decent "bird" coz there are less males to go round!

Hmm that's not sexist? PC just isn't the same these days

As for polygamy and harems - you always know who the old man's with and where; have back-up if you have a headache/have to wash your hair/need a bloody good gossip and at least a couple of nights off a week... plus you always have someone to go shopping for shoes with and/or talk to instead of having to listen to non-stop drivel about football (any sort) or how great the new car is?

What's not to like?