Carpe Jugulum Discussion *spoilers*

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Postby poohcarrot » Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:45 pm

:roll: It was the second bit of the quote, the bit of the quote that you didn't quote I quoted, that was the major quote part of my quote. :lol:
"Disliking Carrot would be like kicking a puppy."
"You kicked a puppy," Lobsang said accusingly.
User avatar
poohcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 10425
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:11 pm
Location: NOT The land of the risen Son!!

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:33 pm

I don't think it was Terry who introduced the concept of non-predatory vampires, because Carpe Jugulam was written around the time that Interview with the Vampire was filmed, which is amongst the first serious mainstream explorations of vampires not following their natural instincts - Count Duckula cannot be included in this debate regrettably (1988 for the record... :P ). In the film Louis (Pitt) is originally human and turned by Lestat (Cruise) after losing his family to a plague (in the book it's his brother, the film naturally his wife and child for the sake of PC, although why this was done is beyond me given the overwhelming homosexual tone of the film from start to finish).

Louis doesn't like being a classic vampire and almost from the start feeds on animals (I think he kills them first as they're mostly rodents because he's more of a city dweller after he's turned). Despite the film being contemporaneous with CJ virtually, the actual concept of course goes to when the book was written by Anne Rice in 1973, although it may of course go back even farther. It's just the earliest one I know about.

smartypants wrote: :roll: It was the second bit of the quote, the bit of the quote that you didn't quote I quoted, that was the major quote part of my quote. :lol:

WOT?!!! :lol:
Actually I think that book quote is pretty much a good definition of everyone most of the time. It's the wolf and sheep thingie again and for all our intellectual and high reasoning powers when push comes to shove we're herd animals. When a mob forms the easiest way to avoid getting hurt is, regrettably, to become part of it - if you can... :shock: :cry:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby raisindot » Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:25 pm

poohcarrot wrote::roll: It was the second bit of the quote, the bit of the quote that you didn't quote I quoted, that was the major quote part of my quote. :lol:


Don't know WHAT you're talking about. Look at my message again. The second part of that quote is CLEARLY there...............

......now.

:lol:

In any case, this doesn't explain why genocide occurs...it only explains why victims often don't flee from it or resist it. :cry:

J-I-B
raisindot
Member
 
Posts: 3200
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:28 pm
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby raisindot » Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:30 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:Actually I think that book quote is pretty much a good definition of everyone most of the time. It's the wolf and sheep thingie again and for all our intellectual and high reasoning powers when push comes to shove we're herd animals. When a mob forms the easiest way to avoid getting hurt is, regrettably, to become part of it - if you can... :shock: :cry:


Absolutely! We humans may think we're all so evolved and intelligent and superior and all that, but when the predator is on the prowl, our atavistic evolutionary instincts for personal survial often make us no different than a herd of antelope...or a school of herring. The only difference is that humans use words to rationalize our survival instincts. Generally, just about the only thing that can make people not act like sheep is 1) being as heavily armed and violent as the opponent; 2) being in a situation where inaction will absolutely result in death (i.e., Flight 93), or, more commonly, 3) falling under the mind control of fanaticism, religious or otherwise.

The Warsaw Ghetto uprising fit category #2.

J-I-B
raisindot
Member
 
Posts: 3200
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:28 pm
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby Ponder Stibbons » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:28 pm

It is actually a bit similar to Monstrous Regiment, after you get past the different coatings.
Smilies are friends, not food. Image
..............Now You See It, Now You Don't..............Image
Proud Copper Widow
User avatar
Ponder Stibbons
Member
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Location: Indonesia, and a small space in my head.

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:16 pm

Not really Ponder - nobody's pretending to be anything they're not in Carpe Jugulam. In a way this is about Witch Pride; Vampire Pride and Omnism Pride (although Oats is pretty conflicted at first, but his faith holds to what he believes) - even Igor Pride. Everyone in this are being true to what they are and proud of it, even if they're an arrogant, egotistic, photophobic, predatory bloodsucker:wink:
Last edited by Jan Van Quirm on Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Ponder Stibbons » Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:46 pm

Actually, i meant the bit where borogrovia thinks its the best, and the other countries all think they're the best.
"I mean, they're liars, but they're our liars!"
Smilies are friends, not food. Image
..............Now You See It, Now You Don't..............Image
Proud Copper Widow
User avatar
Ponder Stibbons
Member
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Location: Indonesia, and a small space in my head.

Postby swreader » Sat Apr 24, 2010 10:59 pm

Ponder Stibbons wrote:Actually, i meant the bit where borogrovia thinks its the best, and the other countries all think they're the best.
"I mean, they're liars, but they're our liars!"


Again, not really--without major distortions of both books. In CJ, it's true that the Vampyrs think that they are superior to all the other races (human or otherwise). But that's not at all the kind of superiority claim that is a minor theme in Monstrous Regiment. The key to the use of the vampires in this book is (as Granny says of sin--that it all starts from thinking of people as things) is that they are a personification of evil--even though Terry has a good deal of fun with his "evolved vampires" who have learned, apparently, to be immune to most of the traditional means of killing vampires. Instead they start off as a kind of parody of the traditional vampire--but with the vampires' justification of the need for blood and the warped mind-set that justifies their actions as the Nazis and many others justified the genocide they committed--by making the victims "things", less than human.
User avatar
swreader
Member
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.

Postby Ponder Stibbons » Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:17 am

Oh, ok. I see.
So they're looking at the vampires' attitude like they're keeping humans as slaves. It doesnt matter that they're different species(insofar as that goes), they're still sentient beings.
They already know its bad, but they still do it, which is worse than not knowing.
Smilies are friends, not food. Image
..............Now You See It, Now You Don't..............Image
Proud Copper Widow
User avatar
Ponder Stibbons
Member
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Location: Indonesia, and a small space in my head.

Postby raisindot » Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:39 pm

swreader wrote:
The key to the use of the vampires in this book is (as Granny says of sin--that it all starts from thinking of people as things) is that they are a personification of evil...but with the vampires' justification of the need for blood and the warped mind-set that justifies their actions as the Nazis and many others justified the genocide they committed--by making the victims "things", less than human.


It's more than that, though. The Magpyrs truly view the "old school" vampires as monsters, and themselves as civilized and 'modern.' Genocide of humans is not part of their strategy--they know it means no sense to slaughter all of your good at once. While they seek power, they also believe their way of getting blood--through a systematic, well-ordered approach built on convincing the people they rule that it's worth if for humans to sacrifice a few people at a time to save the majority of the population--is a much more "humane" way of ruling than the Old Count's way of "flying into bedrooms at night." It's really only when people start resisting them that their civilized veneer begins to go away and their true greed for power shows itself. I think that's really the "big joke" PTerry is making here--that the most evil monsters aren't the barbarians and banshees who just kill in deadly improvised spasms--the true evil people are those who institutionalize and systemize their evil acts.

J-I-B
raisindot
Member
 
Posts: 3200
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:28 pm
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby raisindot » Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:52 pm

Okay, to open up another thread here.

In at CJ, Lord and Ladies, and Witches Abroad at least, Nanny seems to be most ineffectual of all the witches. Magrat takes down an elf or two and a vampire. Perdita is able to resist the Magpyrs. But Nanny is completely powerless against the 'mind assault' of the elves and vampires. She doesn't physically 'kill' any of the enemies in these books. She doesn't exhibit any real magic or strong headology (other than marshalling Lancrean mobs). She does watch Granny's back, and is her counsel, but she isn't necessary for the defeat of these enemies, and, in the case of LL, her actions cause a deus ex machina that prevents what would have been a total vanquishing of the enemy.

Thoughts? Contrary comments? Poohisms?

:)

J-I-B
raisindot
Member
 
Posts: 3200
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:28 pm
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby Tonyblack » Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:46 am

You now have just one week to read or reread Wintersmith for the discussion starting on Monday 3rd May. :D
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 28898
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:23 pm

Not much time just now but I think Nanny has more of a fulcrum role in the coven dynamics and is there to balance Granny with Magrat and/or Agnes-Perdita.

It's to do with the Maiden, Mother and Hag configuration and on the Carrot syndrome basis once again Granny is too good because she is or could be all three at once. So in the original coven, the Mother (Nanny of course) and the Maid have to be really strong in their role. So Nanny's a kind of super witch mum so much so that you could never in a million years see her as a Maid, though she is at the age where she'd make a pretty good crone... :twisted:

Her problem in this is that Esme's the archetypal crone and, because Nanny's far too good herself at being the Mother, she's got an identity crisis and it's only when she knows Esme's back in the configuration again that she really pulls herself back together and starts to behave like a Mother again - gets Magrat and baby Esme out of the Castle, has Shawn and Jason rally the populace and storm the Castle really badly, but enough to make the vampires panic (and did she also get the Feegles to fetch Verence out too?). There's more, but no time. Back later to chew it over some more! :D
Last edited by Jan Van Quirm on Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Ponder Stibbons » Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:23 pm

Nanny role as Mother is kind of like this(i think. Correct me if im wrong): The mother is like a mother(duh!) to everyone, so everyone does what she says(except Shawn) but still love her as a mother. So she has quite a lot of power over people she knows, which comes in useful with friendly creatures perceived as monstes(ie. the feegles, king of fairies, luggage) which are still nevertheless quite scary when they want to be and come in useful. Unfortunately, her openness is also a drawback to mind kiboshes.
Smilies are friends, not food. Image
..............Now You See It, Now You Don't..............Image
Proud Copper Widow
User avatar
Ponder Stibbons
Member
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Location: Indonesia, and a small space in my head.

Postby swreader » Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:23 am

raisindot wrote:Okay, to open up another thread here.

In at CJ, Lord and Ladies, and Witches Abroad at least, Nanny seems to be most ineffectual of all the witches. Magrat takes down an elf or two and a vampire. Perdita is able to resist the Magpyrs. But Nanny is completely powerless against the 'mind assault' of the elves and vampires. She doesn't physically 'kill' any of the enemies in these books. She doesn't exhibit any real magic or strong headology (other than marshalling Lancrean mobs). She does watch Granny's back, and is her counsel, but she isn't necessary for the defeat of these enemies, and, in the case of LL, her actions cause a deus ex machina that prevents what would have been a total vanquishing of the enemy.


While Nanny isn't one of my favorite characters, Jeff, I think you are quite mistaken in calling her "the most ineffectual of all the witches." Just in this novel, for example, she takes charge immediately when they discover Granny is "missing" and promptly gets Magrat and the baby out of the castle and organizes Verence's rescue.

She knows she's not good at Granny's headology--but she's very good with people. and she's absolutely ruthless and clear-sighted about what's necessary to save the kingdom. She suggests, quite seriously, to Agnes that one way to save the kingdom might be marrying Vlad and killing him. As she says, This is Lancre we're talkin' about. If we was men, we'd be talking about layin' down our lives for the country. As women, we can talk about laying down." She quite deliberately gets herself and Magrat (and baby) out of the castle because they are vulnerable in a way that Agnes isn't.

Once they get to the castle, she takes charge with Igor as her right hand. "Now we'll try things my way," she said. I'm not good at thinkin' like Granny but I'm bloody good at actin' like me. Headology's for them as can handle it. Let's kick some bat."

She and Igor dispose of a raft of "bats", starting with Cryptopher and including those lesser Vampires killed by lemons, stakes, holy water until they run out of supplies. At the final confrontation, the only survivors of the vampire pack are the original family, minus the Countess that Magrat disposed of and the one apparently disposed of by Greebo. Nanny knows that Granny needs time to get to the castle and do whatever is necessary and it's her job to give Granny that time--and if Granny can't save them, she'll have done all that's possible.

Granny and Nanny are a team--in this and all the other books. Granny would presumably have died in L&L if Nanny hadn't figured out that she wasn't dead but in the bee swarm.

Nanny is a people person, and at that she is much better than Granny (as Granny notes in Masquerade. And because she is, she and Granny are absolutely necessary to each other.
User avatar
swreader
Member
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.

PreviousNext

Return to Discworld novels

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests