Going Postal Discussion *Spoilers*

[DaveC]

I agree, I expected to love it as others do but I prefer Hogfather and CoM + the animated two.

[Quatermass]

Key thing here? Vadim Jean didn't adapt Going Postal, from what I can tell, someone else did.

And why not use the stageplay version as a basis to doing it pragmatically?

[alicenanjing]

yeah it is. Also Groats rank is postbezorger. Instead of being junior postman which is off course funnier .

Since Anghammarad is collected by Death when he died he much have a soul so Golems are alive and more than just tools just like they believe. Or maybe he was alive because he believed he was

I read some of what was posted on this thread and I totally agree with the idea that golems are based on robots and the laws of robotics. But here's the rub, in the words of Vetinari: "Why should Mr. Pump be any different because he is made of clay? Ultimately, so are we all." These words tell me that the distinction natural/artificial life, or intelligence, is not important here. So what if the golems are magical beings? So are the undead and the pictsies. To me, the golem is a symbol for the human struggle to conquer responsible freedom, to graduate from "Thou shalt not"to "I will not", also a phrase from Feet of Clay. But that's just me.

[alicenanjing]

I agree - Moist is not a particularly sympathetic character to start with, but he grows during the book and discovers a side of himself that he didn't realise he had. He realises that he can use his 'talents' for good purposes instead of just taking advantage of people.

In Going Postal, Moist NEVER stops taking advantage of people. Instead of simply grifting their money and leaving them with nothing of value, he simply grifts their money and leaves them with something of dubious value. After all, do people really need to pay a hard-earned dollar to send a letter to Genua? Not really, but he convinces them that if they don't do it, they'll be left out of something 'big.'

By the end of the story, he may have become a respectable businessesman, but, from a moral point of view, his only major change is that instead of grifting on a small scale for petty self-satisfaction, he grifts on a large scale not because he really cares about the Grand Trunk, but because he wants to pull the ultimate gift on the penultimate grifter, Reacher Gilt. Moist's grift is a personal vendetta, not a righteous crusade, and he's the first to admit it.

J-I-B

Yes he is the first to admit it - and that's his saving grace. But revenge is not his motive. He starts his offensive against Gilt after he learns that he has been responsible for Adora Belle being sacked. Also - and that's one of the main reasons - because Gilt has already started a war against him, and he has to win or die, more or less - and with the added burden of being responsible for the savings of all his employees, who wagered all they had on him. His main motive is guilt, and the need to make restitution, so as to prove to everyone, but most of all to himself, that "he is not Reacher Gilt." And I think that's why the little old ladies, who see right through him (in Making Money), and recognize him for the scallywag that he is, have a soft spot for him nevertheless.

[alicenanjing]

Just watched the second part of Going Postal's adaptation. I enjoyed both Hogfather and The Colour of Magic, despite the changes (and the changes to the latter helped improve matters, IMO), but whoever they got to do Going Postal...well, they f***ed up the characters and some parts of the story. Badly. The only good changes was to have Adora being one of the Smoking GNU, and her brother being a spy for Vetinari (as they removed the plot about the rival clacks). But what was that bulls**t about Adora trying to make the golems go on strike? And they didn't portray Angua very well. Got the actress right but the writing wrong.

The casting, however, was extremely good for the most part. Richard Coyle, Claire Foy, and Charles Dance were spot on. And Steve Pemberton and David Suchet, even if the latter's role had been changed too much.

Sorry to barge in so much, it's just that I saw the film recently and walked about fuming for a few days. For my money, the only character accurately portrayed was Stanley. All others were simplistic, crude - for example, the scene between Vetinari and Ridcully, when the Patrician orders - orders! - the Archchancellor to referee the race between the Grand Trunk and the Post Office. Now, is that what Vetinari would have done? Where is the delicate balance of power, based on the fact that the University agrees that it will pay taxes, provided that the City promises never to ask for any? Where is the subtle relationship between civil and thaumic power, in which the Patrician never summons the Archchancellor to his palace, so as not to offend him, and therefore invites him to cocktails if he has something to discuss? And the Archchancellor then goes to the Palace, because it would be bad manners to refuse. Vetinari would never order Ridcully to do anything. He would, perhaps, insist that the Archchancellor undertake some task, but only if it was something that Ridcully really, really wanted to do ( see Unseen Academicals). And in the film, Moist ends up not as a redeemed sinner, but as a succesful swindler who has managed to get away with the prize and is now all set up to marry into money (Adora Belle having gotten back the family business). I call that shameful.

[InfernoOrangeSS]

I just finished the book this week and soon after watched the adaptation.
I have to say GP is one of my all time favorite books. I didn't think I was going to like it as much as I did, but it really took hold of me. Great writing, and great characters. I have to put Moist up there with Rincewind as my favorite characters to read now. (Can't wait to get to Making Money...I am reading his books in the order they were published, so I am presently on THUD!) I can only hope that TP writes more with Moist as the main character, though I can see that being a little tough since his moral redemption has occurred.

About the movie/adaptation...Maybe it's because anytime I see a movie based on a book I have read, I approach it with a severe amount of skepticism. I have seen too many just end up as trash. I really liked the movie. Yes there were several changes from the book, but I felt it had to do with keeping the movie moving and within a time constraint. All of the characters were very close to how I read them. I will say that whoever cast the actress to play Angua must have been reading my mind. She was exactly how I picture her anytime I read a book with her in it. I can only hope that she makes another appearance in the future in a Watch movie. All in all, the movie was entertaining, and better than I was expecting.

[Tonyblack]

It'll be interesting to see who they cast as Angua in the Watch TV series.

[InfernoOrangeSS]

It'll be interesting to see who they cast as Angua in the Watch TV series.

I am dreadfully out of touch...I had not heard there would be one.

[Tonyblack]

You can find out more by going HERE. We still don't know too much except that it seems that it may happen.

[Nomad]

Going Postal is one of my favorite books in Discworld series.

I think that Going Postal also parodises Lord of the Rings a bit. I read (re-read) the book and I discovered that there was something that really reminded me of Tolkiens books. Reading forward I froze. They were talking about something (don't know how's it in English (omniscope?)) that didn't work. Ridcully shouted (trying to translate ) "It still doesn't work, Mr Stibbons, here's this damned gigantic glowing eye again.

I can't be sure its what the author thought, but it is very amusing to think about things like this.
Sorry for any/many mistakes I made in this text!

[Tonyblack]

Hi Nomad and welcome!

I also read that bit as a reference to the devices that various people use to see distances in Lord of the Rings - I can't think what they are called, but I'm sure someone will know.

[raisindot]

I think that Going Postal also parodises Lord of the Rings a bit. I read (re-read) the book and I discovered that there was something that really reminded me of Tolkiens books. Reading forward I froze. They were talking about something (don't know how's it in English (omniscope?)) that didn't work. Ridcully shouted (trying to translate ) "It still doesn't work, Mr Stibbons, here's this damned gigantic glowing eye again.

Welcome, Nomad. You're spot on about that reference. I think though that it may actually refer to the big glowing red eye of Suaron that appeared in the magical thingamabub in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies rather than the books. I can't be sure, because it's been years since I read them, but I think Tolkien's text wasn't so specific about which aspects of Sauron appeared in the thingamabob.

[Penfold]

Hi Nomad and welcome!

I also read that bit as a reference to the devices that various people use to see distances in Lord of the Rings - I can't think what they are called, but I'm sure someone will know.

They were called 'Palantír' (not sure of spelling), although I think it was also a reference to when Frodo saw the Eye in the Mirror of Galadriel. I'm now expecting Jan to appear at any moment to correct me.

Oh, and hellooo and welcome from me as well Nomad.

[Who's Wee Dug]

Hi Nomad welcome to the forum.

[Tonyblack]

Hi Nomad and welcome!

I also read that bit as a reference to the devices that various people use to see distances in Lord of the Rings - I can't think what they are called, but I'm sure someone will know.

They were called 'Palantír' (not sure of spelling), although I think it was also a reference to when Frodo saw the Eye in the Mirror of Galadriel. I'm now expecting Jan to appear at any moment to correct me.

Oh, and hellooo and welcome from me as well Nomad.

That's the chappie!
Palantir