SPOILERS Snuff *Warning Spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
I'm rereading Snuff at the moment and think I have discovered something. I don't think this has been mentioned before, but the scene aboard the paddle boat where Vimes gives a crossbow to Stratford after apparently mistaking him for someone else - this reminds me of the scene in Die Hard where Hans Gruber pretends to be one of the hostages and McClain hands him a pistol. When Gruber reveals who he really is and tries to shoot McClain, he finds that the pistol is empty. The same thing happens when Stratford tries to shoot Vimes and discovers that Sam has disabled the crossbow. In both cases the hero appeared to have mistaken the bad guy for some scared person and in both cases the hero has given them the means to unmask themselves. Just a thought. 
Apologies. It's probably bad etiquette to respond to a post years after the original point of contention appeared, but I did want to clarify one or two things.
I meant in terms of narrative impact. The problem with having a nebulous villain off-screen is that there's no real chemistry between them and the protagonist. Take, for instance, Wonse from Guards! Guards!, or Dragon King of Arms from Feet of Clay. They're actual characters in and of themselves, which alone puts them ahead of the magistrate. You get to see them for yourselves instead of purely being told indirectly about them.
Vimes knows them ahead of time, has an established attitude towards their quirks and personalities, and confronts them at critical times in the narrative to emphasize how much of a foil they are to him. Sparks fly. You get to see Vimes vent his anger at both of them, and you appreciate that, in their own ways, they're dangerous to him.
Not once reading Snuff did I experience anything like the same connection, except for the obvious (Vimes hates the arrogant presumption of the magistrate and their depravity), which in any case has been done before with more adroitness.
Oh, he does some stuff off-screen, but as soon as he gets anywhere near Vimes, he's instantly on a losing streak. It's not as interesting to read.
Compare him with Carcer, who repeatedly gains or exploits advantages over Vimes, has his crazy psychopathic moments emphasized strongly, and feels like a deadly and persistent threat from the get-go even when he's merely talking to Vimes. Impressive, considering he's not even the main problem in Night Watch.
Stratford never struck me as anything but a far less interesting clone of him.
I meant in terms of narrative impact. The problem with having a nebulous villain off-screen is that there's no real chemistry between them and the protagonist. Take, for instance, Wonse from Guards! Guards!, or Dragon King of Arms from Feet of Clay. They're actual characters in and of themselves, which alone puts them ahead of the magistrate. You get to see them for yourselves instead of purely being told indirectly about them.
Vimes knows them ahead of time, has an established attitude towards their quirks and personalities, and confronts them at critical times in the narrative to emphasize how much of a foil they are to him. Sparks fly. You get to see Vimes vent his anger at both of them, and you appreciate that, in their own ways, they're dangerous to him.
Not once reading Snuff did I experience anything like the same connection, except for the obvious (Vimes hates the arrogant presumption of the magistrate and their depravity), which in any case has been done before with more adroitness.
Oh, he does some stuff off-screen, but as soon as he gets anywhere near Vimes, he's instantly on a losing streak. It's not as interesting to read.
Compare him with Carcer, who repeatedly gains or exploits advantages over Vimes, has his crazy psychopathic moments emphasized strongly, and feels like a deadly and persistent threat from the get-go even when he's merely talking to Vimes. Impressive, considering he's not even the main problem in Night Watch.
Stratford never struck me as anything but a far less interesting clone of him.
The interactions on the river were onscreen. Primarily, I think we are still discussing at cross purposes. I think from what you posted that you were hoping for another hero-fights-villain scene where the hero wins by physically beating up the villain. I think that was not what Sir Terry was writing. He already did that, with Carcer. He didn't need to do it again.
I see the real villains in Snuff as the nearly-faceless, the ones that are almost impossible to get at. Stratford was physically present enough for Vimes to chase and fight him on the boat, but in his off-screen activities he was much more dangerous to Vimes and everything Vimes held dear. As such, Stratford represented the tip of the iceberg, the part you can see, but the hidden part is larger and more dangerous because you can't see it and it is harder to avoid. Stratford is the _lesser_ villain. Vimes and Sybil were fighting the greater villain, the society that created Stratford and his opinions and all the abuses that were shown. I think that may be why Stratford is written that way: he is not intended to be the sort of flashy villain that impresses the people who always like the villains. He is _intended_ to be merely dangerous but not fun to identify with. I think Sir Terry was trying to avoid the James Bond problem, where a character who was originally intended to be exposed as disgusting became lionized into a hero. I think it worked, too.
I see the real villains in Snuff as the nearly-faceless, the ones that are almost impossible to get at. Stratford was physically present enough for Vimes to chase and fight him on the boat, but in his off-screen activities he was much more dangerous to Vimes and everything Vimes held dear. As such, Stratford represented the tip of the iceberg, the part you can see, but the hidden part is larger and more dangerous because you can't see it and it is harder to avoid. Stratford is the _lesser_ villain. Vimes and Sybil were fighting the greater villain, the society that created Stratford and his opinions and all the abuses that were shown. I think that may be why Stratford is written that way: he is not intended to be the sort of flashy villain that impresses the people who always like the villains. He is _intended_ to be merely dangerous but not fun to identify with. I think Sir Terry was trying to avoid the James Bond problem, where a character who was originally intended to be exposed as disgusting became lionized into a hero. I think it worked, too.
I agree with Aquamarine. Stratford wasn't a compelling villain. At best he was a minor league Carcer variant.
Yes, he might symbolized all of the "rural evil" going on in the countryside, but there was never a time where he posted a challenge to Vimes along the lines of Carcer or Wolfgang in TFE. Vimes has become such a supercop by Snuff that no villain can possibly threaten. After all, Vimes can count on the Beast and the Summoning Dark for help when need be--who can possibly win against that?
Before Snuff, Vimes was constantly facing life or death situations where he to outsmart (or outfight) his opponents. And his victories had huge world-changing reverberations.
In Snuff, Vimes acts like the whole investigation is just a game to alleviate his boredom. He doesn't have to answer to anyone, he's never seriously threatened, and, in the end, Sybil ends up changing the world (by presenting the goblin's concert) more than Vimes.
Yes, he might symbolized all of the "rural evil" going on in the countryside, but there was never a time where he posted a challenge to Vimes along the lines of Carcer or Wolfgang in TFE. Vimes has become such a supercop by Snuff that no villain can possibly threaten. After all, Vimes can count on the Beast and the Summoning Dark for help when need be--who can possibly win against that?
Before Snuff, Vimes was constantly facing life or death situations where he to outsmart (or outfight) his opponents. And his victories had huge world-changing reverberations.
In Snuff, Vimes acts like the whole investigation is just a game to alleviate his boredom. He doesn't have to answer to anyone, he's never seriously threatened, and, in the end, Sybil ends up changing the world (by presenting the goblin's concert) more than Vimes.
This is actually one reason that I liked "Snuff". Sure, it's nice to see Vimes as the super-cop winning the day because he's such a good lad etc., but it's nice to see Sybil getting her moment in the sun, too. We can see in "The Fifth Elephant" (and earlier in "Guards! Guards!") that Sybil is hardly the stay-at-home-and-darn-socks-for-the-boys that she is portrayed as in "Jingo". She can do just as well as any of "the boys" when it comes to prodding buttock, and she's more cultured than them too.
We can see in "The Fifth Elephant" (and earlier in "Guards! Guards!") that Sybil is hardly the stay-at-home-and-darn-socks-for-the-boys that she is portrayed as in "Jingo". She can do just as well as any of "the boys" when it comes to prodding buttock, and she's more cultured than them too.
First of all - it isn't "bad etiquette to respond to an old post. These discussions are ongoing, so feel free to comment anything previously posted.
Now - in terms of villains, I feel that, at this stage of the books, the villains are becoming somewhat similar. They are nearly all extreme sociopaths or even psychopaths. This even spills over into non-DW books such as Nation. The bad guy always ends up receiving some form of justice, but they are often cartoonishly evil. That is not to say that they are not well written. We feel that they are evil when we read the books. We are looking forward to them being defeated, and they always are . . . which is somewhat satisfying. There's no real redemption for these characters and very little hope for it.
Now - in terms of villains, I feel that, at this stage of the books, the villains are becoming somewhat similar. They are nearly all extreme sociopaths or even psychopaths. This even spills over into non-DW books such as Nation. The bad guy always ends up receiving some form of justice, but they are often cartoonishly evil. That is not to say that they are not well written. We feel that they are evil when we read the books. We are looking forward to them being defeated, and they always are . . . which is somewhat satisfying. There's no real redemption for these characters and very little hope for it.
Spoilers ahead
I agree, Tony. Toward the end Pterry was repeating villain types and even plots,, and not just with Stratford being a B-grade clone of Carcer. In Making Money, Cosmo Lavish is a junior-grade version of Reacher Gilt, although not even close to being as resourceful or smart. That he is pretty much insane doesn't make him better for it. In Unseen Academicals, the bad guy psycho gang member (forgot his name already) is really little more than Carcer with followers. In Raising Steam, it's Ardent as villain once again. And in The Shepherd's Crown, the last third of the book is essentially basically repeats the climaxes of Wee Free Men and Lords and Ladies, in far inferior fashion.
I agree, Tony. Toward the end Pterry was repeating villain types and even plots,, and not just with Stratford being a B-grade clone of Carcer. In Making Money, Cosmo Lavish is a junior-grade version of Reacher Gilt, although not even close to being as resourceful or smart. That he is pretty much insane doesn't make him better for it. In Unseen Academicals, the bad guy psycho gang member (forgot his name already) is really little more than Carcer with followers. In Raising Steam, it's Ardent as villain once again. And in The Shepherd's Crown, the last third of the book is essentially basically repeats the climaxes of Wee Free Men and Lords and Ladies, in far inferior fashion.
Spoilers ahoy!
Hmm. I was prepared to cut Pterry some slack for Unseen Academicals, because the major protagonist is obviously a teenage bully who never grew up. He's not as sociopathic as Carcer, and that's a good thing. Hopefully he never will be.
I actually thought that Ardent in RS was an effective villain - he's very subtle in the way that he uses rumours. The real villains in RS are the grags, who are almost never seen (because they're always sitting in the dark). I got the feeling that Ardent was just the fingertip of a very large claw.
I also agree that Cosmo Lavish is nowhere near as resourceful or smart as Reacher Gilt. I felt that the real villain here, though, was Cribbins (Moist's former "associate" with the badly-fitting false teeth). He really gave me the creeps. Still, MM offers lots of comic inventiveness, originality of thought, and plenty of fun - aaaaaand quite a bit of food for thought about money ...
Hmm. I was prepared to cut Pterry some slack for Unseen Academicals, because the major protagonist is obviously a teenage bully who never grew up. He's not as sociopathic as Carcer, and that's a good thing. Hopefully he never will be.
I actually thought that Ardent in RS was an effective villain - he's very subtle in the way that he uses rumours. The real villains in RS are the grags, who are almost never seen (because they're always sitting in the dark). I got the feeling that Ardent was just the fingertip of a very large claw.
I also agree that Cosmo Lavish is nowhere near as resourceful or smart as Reacher Gilt. I felt that the real villain here, though, was Cribbins (Moist's former "associate" with the badly-fitting false teeth). He really gave me the creeps.
Still, MM offers lots of comic inventiveness, originality of thought, and plenty of fun - aaaaaand quite a bit of food for thought about money ... This being the Snuff section, MM is slightly off topic, but okay. I feel that Cosmo Lavish was never intended to be the "real" villain of MM. He's bad, and he can dominate some of his relatives temporarily, but he is a wannabe. He wants to be a villain. He wants to be the top villain in Ankh-Morpork: Lord Vetinari. The plot of MM is how Moist manages to get out from under Vetinari's thumb. Cribbins is similar to Vetinari in that he also holds the secret of Moist's past. Both of them are disarmed when Moist tells the truth to the public, and manages to use his own kind of charisma to get away with it.
I was just thinking last night, and this is pure speculation on my part, that the roles of Cosmo Lavish in MM and Stratford in Snuff were not the actual villains of the books but rather the concept of 'Privilege' was. In Cosmo's case, because he owned the bank he thought his position allowed him to do what he liked with the investor's money. In the case of Snuff, it was the magistrates and landowners who thought they were above the law (and common decency). Both were facets of the same thing but showed how positions power could be corrupted in different ways.
Disclaimer: I'm writing this before having my first coffee of the day so I'm taking a wild punt on my making sense.
Disclaimer: I'm writing this before having my first coffee of the day so I'm taking a wild punt on my making sense.
Stratford was the thuggish face of the rich people who were the real criminals. He did their dirty work, but it was them that ordered it. It's arguable whether Stratford would escape justice if it hadn't been for Wilikins taking care of it. Wilikins wasn't interested in Stratford's part in the scheme as much as the fact that he had personally threatened Vimes and his family.
Spoilee spoilee spoilers and tangents on the horizon
Well, you can argue that the "true" villains of a DW book are the higher-up forces that oppress all that's good and healthy, but in a strictly traditional narrative sense, the villain is typically the person who represents the greatest threat to the physical or mental well-being of the main character and his sidekicks.
In Snuff, Stratford plays that role even if he's doing the bidding of the corrupt aristocracy, since they can't threaten Vimes in any way. In Making Money, Cosmo Lavish is the villain, because he, rather than Cribbins, represents the biggest threat to Moist's life and position and tried to kill Bent as well. If Bent hadn't dropped in during the inquiry to spill the real beans on the stolen gold, Cosmo would have won the battle and Moist would iikely be doing a final hemp fandago (which is one my biggest problems with MM, that Moist needs someone else to bail him out of a problem he, for once, can't solve himself). While the grags and other reactionaries may be the nefarious forces of evil in Raising Steam, it's Ardent who is the villainous mastermind behind the coup that temporary removes Rhys from power.
Well, you can argue that the "true" villains of a DW book are the higher-up forces that oppress all that's good and healthy, but in a strictly traditional narrative sense, the villain is typically the person who represents the greatest threat to the physical or mental well-being of the main character and his sidekicks.
In Snuff, Stratford plays that role even if he's doing the bidding of the corrupt aristocracy, since they can't threaten Vimes in any way. In Making Money, Cosmo Lavish is the villain, because he, rather than Cribbins, represents the biggest threat to Moist's life and position and tried to kill Bent as well. If Bent hadn't dropped in during the inquiry to spill the real beans on the stolen gold, Cosmo would have won the battle and Moist would iikely be doing a final hemp fandago (which is one my biggest problems with MM, that Moist needs someone else to bail him out of a problem he, for once, can't solve himself). While the grags and other reactionaries may be the nefarious forces of evil in Raising Steam, it's Ardent who is the villainous mastermind behind the coup that temporary removes Rhys from power.
Last edited:
Um, just a tiny point of order - Carcer plays no part in Snuff. He does, however, play a huge part in "Night Watch".
Spoiler spoiler spoilers away!
=============================
I'm not so sure that Moist couldn't have talked his way out of the trial, given time. But I agree, raisin: Mr Bent's appearance does solve many problems, and his timing is very convenient - maybe even suspiciously so. It's almost as if he'd been waiting in the wings for his cue. (And perhaps he had; after all, he is
He does, however, play a huge part in "Night Watch".Spoiler spoiler spoilers away!
=============================
I'm not so sure that Moist couldn't have talked his way out of the trial, given time. But I agree, raisin: Mr Bent's appearance does solve many problems, and his timing is very convenient - maybe even suspiciously so. It's almost as if he'd been waiting in the wings for his cue. (And perhaps he had; after all, he is
a performer).
It seems to me that Bent "appears" as a direct result of the actions of the Lavish family. They knew it was going to happen, they sent Assassins, but he was already into his response and took them out. He was already going to go after the Lavishes, but the fact that they sent Assassins may have made his response even stronger.
Last edited by a moderator:
