Making Money Discussion *Spoilers*

[raisindot]

I was more disturbed with Terry's use of Gladys in this book. The golems have been recognized as a kind of people in the forgoing books. They have stature and worth. To turn Gladys into a ludicrous but not funny character who is "in love" with Moist and who reads books just is embarrassing.

I didn't particularly find Gladys that entertaining, but I do see the point of his subplot with her. Like Dorfl, Gladys is trying to be human, or more independently sentient, at least. Unlike Dorfl, who explore his faux humanity through the words of the prophets of religions, Gladys explores her faux humanity by reading books about women's behavior. Since Golems are literally influenced by words more than anything else, a golem's behavior is either intellignet or foolish depending on which words he or she reads. Glady's behavior is Pterry's commentary on the ways that golems (as an allegory for people) often accept the words they read (or what they seen on TV) as gospel truth, without appropriate deliberation. In the end, the "thinking" golems of AM are only more sophisticated versions of the "golden" golems. It's all about responding to the right words spoken by the right people at the right time.

J-I-B

[poohcarrot]

Unlike Dorfl, who explore his faux humanity through the words of the prophets of religions, Gladys explores her faux humanity by reading books about women's behavior.

J-I-B

There's nowt so queer as faux.

[Verns]

But I do think the central debate of whether Pterry has created a "new" socioeconomic history of AM and which books might be part of this series is a valid one, since MM is probably the ultimate example of this, even if it's not a great book. Maybe some of the bizarre turns into prehistoric socioeconomic history take it off the chart a bit, but , heck, it's at least a bit more content-heavy than the usual load of Jan and Pooh and me zinging one-liner insults at each other.



J-I-B

John, that's a really good point. I'm sure Tony was right to brandish his moderator's cane, but I've really enjoyed reading that particular debate. At the risk of earning a one-liner from Jan I agree with your analysis. PTerry holds up a fairground distorted mirror to Roundworld and writes about the image produced, and that's the case whether it's a simple parody of Phantom of the Opera, or a more profound look at religion or civilisation as a whole.

I still think I dislike MM because it feels like a lazy plot in that it borrows so heavily from other DW books and says nothing terribly new about Moist, but it has to be said that I find economics and the banking system about as boring a subject as could be found*, so maybe that's why I just couldn't face reading it a second time.



* Although PTerry may surpass himself in that department if he writes about taxation.

[poohcarrot]

At the risk of earning a one-liner from Jan .

She's a bugger with those one-liners, isn't she?
Some of them are nearly 2,000 words long!

[Jan Van Quirm]

But I do think the central debate of whether Pterry has created a "new" socioeconomic history of AM and which books might be part of this series is a valid one, since MM is probably the ultimate example of this, even if it's not a great book. Maybe some of the bizarre turns into prehistoric socioeconomic history take it off the chart a bit, but , heck, it's at least a bit more content-heavy than the usual load of Jan and Pooh and me zinging one-liner insults at each other.



J-I-B

John, that's a really good point. I'm sure Tony was right to brandish his moderator's cane, but I've really enjoyed reading that particular debate. At the risk of earning a one-liner from Jan I agree with your analysis. PTerry holds up a fairground distorted mirror to Roundworld and writes about the image produced, and that's the case whether it's a simple parody of Phantom of the Opera, or a more profound look at religion or civilisation as a whole...

What!

I do NOT do one-liners! Especially when I'm deconstructing twaddle!

OK last word (from me) on a socio-economic serial - it begins with GP and will end when Moist becomes a walk on. In the other books the semantics of daily markets and currency exchanges are at best a sub-plot In Roundworld they're far too important - in Discworld they're just part of the general scenery or structure that Terry scrutinises when he hasn't got anything more interesting to look at. Moist I grant is there and dominates, but only to give a tiresome subject some shoddy glitter and pizazz...

Pooh darling - you know me so well even if you can't/won't argue at length

[poohcarrot]

Pooh darling - you know me so well even if you can't/won't argue at length

The longer the post, the less likely people will read, or remember it.

[Jan Van Quirm]

In chat thread yeah smartypants - This is a discussion thread and has to lead somewhere

[poohcarrot]

True.

[Tonyblack]

Guys, I'm overjoyed that this discussion is now on three pages, but can we try and keep the discussion to the book? Apart from anything else, this discussion is for those who have read Making Money. Anyone who hasn't read it won't be (presumably) reading this and so your points about the development of A-M are somewhat wasted.

Wow....this is about as close to hard-nosed moderating as we've ever seen from you, Tony! I feel properly chastened.



But I do think the central debate of whether Pterry has created a "new" socioeconomic history of AM and which books might be part of this series is a valid one, since MM is probably the ultimate example of this, even if it's not a great book. Maybe some of the bizarre turns into prehistoric socioeconomic history take it off the chart a bit, but , heck, it's at least a bit more content-heavy than the usual load of Jan and Pooh and me zinging one-liner insults at each other.



J-I-B

You're right, it is an interesting debate. It's just that it probably deserves a thread of its own.

These discussions are out of sequence and not everyone here will have read all the previous books (or subsequent ones for that matter), so if you are referencing other books you may cause spoilers for those members.

When we decided to do these discussions, I asked if people would rather do them in sequence or randomly - the consensus was for random. While that's fine, it does make it difficult to reference previous books in the series that we haven't got to yet.

[Tonyblack]

I have a question that I'd like your opinions on.

Are the golem horses simply golems shaped like horses, or are they something different?

[pandasthumb]

I have just re-read Making Money after re reading Interesting Times and I have to say that in my head they look like the terracotta warrior horses.

I haven't read all this thread and after reading this page I'm a bit scared ... but I love Making Money, it just seems right some how. Particularly when the proto economists says 'I don't know sir. I didn't know I had to find solutions as well.' It just demonstrates my long held belief that economists are not part of the real world.

I also enjoyed the discussion about not being able to have female Golems - I had certainly made the assumption that they were all condsidered male but why should I? They do not have a gender in a physical sense at all.

[raisindot]

I have a question that I'd like your opinions on.

Are the golem horses simply golems shaped like horses, or are they something different?

Oh, you're not going all philsophical on us, are you?

At first definition, they are horse-shaped golems. There's no rule that golems have to be man-shaped; golem described the state of being, of being baked generally out of clay and then having something resembling life added to them by their creator. By all rights, the human-shaped golems SHOULD be called 'golem men" or 'golem humans,' but since no one had ever seen a golem in the shape of anything other than a human it made no sense to use the term as ad adjective. And not all golems necessarily look very human like; some of the golems in Feet of Clay seemed to be described as something more akin to big lumps of clay with arms and eyeholes, since some were created by other golems, rather than humans.

But at a deeper glance, the real question is: Are the 'golden golems' that march into AM really golems at all since they have no replaceable chem, no discernable intelligence, are incapable of developing the capability of thinking on their own, and are essentially little more than robots?

J-I-B

[poohcarrot]

some of the golems in Feet of Clay seemed to be described as something more akin to big lumps of clay with arms and eyeholes, since some were created by other golems, rather than humans.

J-I-B

Some? Surely there was only one, wasn't there?

[poohcarrot]

But at a deeper glance, the real question is: Are the 'golden golems' that march into AM really golems at all since they have no replaceable chem, no discernable intelligence, are incapable of developing the capability of thinking on their own, and are essentially little more than robots?

J-I-B

Surely the very first page of the book disproves this twaddle, doesn't it?

[Verns]

In chat thread yeah smartypants - This is a discussion thread and has to lead somewhere

I'm with you on this one, Jan (see what a diplomat I am? ). I never use one word where seven will do (have always been crap at précis) and I, for one, have enjoyed reading the dissertations, erm, posts on these threads. They've given me an insight into DW that I didn't have before joining this forum so, for that, I thank you.