Making Money Discussion *Spoilers*

[Jan Van Quirm]

A golem wedding yeah - bride golem and groom golem. I not saying they're emotionless, just that they're not going to have emotions like a human would.

[Dotsie]

But they've already shown that they do So why can't they fall in love?

[Jan Van Quirm]

They can fall in love I expect - but why would it be like it is for humans? Same as sex - perfectly possible too, but not how humans do it as they're mostly missing the parts

This could lead to all kinds of fun naturally - perhaps something like THIS? And imagine making little golems - all the mess but none of the pain...! PMSL I wish I was a golem momma!

PS - for those who were expecting Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore. Sorry to disappoint but that's far too trite since they're far too wooden to properly portray ceramic lurve

[BaldFriede]

Just imagine pregnant golems! Would they have the munchies? Probably not; food is not a golem concept.

[raisindot]

Jan, it doesn't matter that Glady would never have friscaseed Mr. Fusspot. What's important here is that both Spike and Moist knew of the golem's jealous feelings and, because anything that can happen on the Discworld usually does, wrongfully assumed, after seeing Mr. Fusspot's collar on the ground, that her jealousy might manifest itself in poochcide. There's precedence for golems becoming killers when they don't understand the words in their heads--that's a central theme of Feet of Clay.



When they see Gladys in the kitchen staring at an overflowing pot their worst instincts kick in and they think it's possible, just possible, that Glady might have committed this foul deed. Spike tells her to give her the ladle. Gladys at first refuses--A GOLEM REFUSES A PERFECLY REASONABLE ORDER! Not because Gladys feels that Spike is questioning the quality of her work, but because she is still harboring resentments against Spike for stealing 'her man.' In the end Spike has to use her Golem Voice to get Gladys to obey her. And even though the doggie is safe, it's still clear that Gladys was still distracted and upset by Moist's rejection because she either forgot or failed to follow Peggy's order to remove the sheep's head from the pot once it thickened. (yes, intentional pune here)

It doesn't matter where Gladys's 'feelings' came from or what the golem is made of or what her job is. She is acting just like a spurned suitor. And if you think that she's nothing more than a matronly housekeeper, how do you explain her offer to give Moist a backrub? No housekeeper would ever do this, but is there a single woman who hasn't been grossed out by the offer of a backrub by some sleazy coworker she barely knows? If you tried this sort of thing in an American company, you'd risk getting your arse tossed out on a sling.



J-I-B

[Jan Van Quirm]

How about Mummy/homemaker rubbing her croupy baby's back? You don't need to be in the first flush of romance to play masseuse.

It's all happening in the humans guilty imaginations. Yes it's possible for golems to misinterpret their chems, but Gladys is not half-baked like Meshugah who I agree was off his trolley because his chem was overloaded as well as imperfectly made. Gladys is perhaps confused and trying to realign her chem to cope and as a result having the odd loony aberration.

You say unrequited love/thwarted sweetheart - I say overzealous nursery nanny/domestic goddess. Result is the same but to put a totally wrong connotation on the situation requires human ingenuity - Golems just get the hump and sulk like mad because they're not being allowed to do their job properly

[raisindot]

You say unrequited love/thwarted sweetheart - I say overzealous nursery nanny/domestic goddess.

Unrequited love!

Overzealous nursery nanny!

Thwarted Sweetheart!

Domestic goddess!

Let's call the whole thing offfff.....



J-I-B

[Jan Van Quirm]

No - lets discontinue this line of debate

Whadya wanna argue about next? We're well over the 80 mark by now I should think

[raisindot]

Whadya wanna argue about next? We're well over the 80 mark by now I should think

Not an argument, but a question. What was the whole bit about the cook who went bonkers? Don't have the book here at the moment, but it was either that something someone said or showed him made him go crazy, and then he never shows up again. Was he supposed to be a vampire? I never quite got the point of all that.

J-I-B

[Tonyblack]

I don't think he was supposed to be a vampire - he didn't actually have any problem with garlic, it was just the word 'garlic'. A real problem for a chef, but luckily, dogs don't generally need the stuff.

As with so many other parts of the book - it didn't make a lot of sense and wasn't particularly funny. The only real thing that came out of it was the point that people are squeamish about eating certain parts of a dead animal, whereas they aren't with others. It's all flesh of one sort or another after all.

[Tonyblack]

You now have two weeks to read or reread Small Gods for the discussion starting Monday 6th December.

[Jan Van Quirm]

Already started it last night

[Tonyblack]

You now have just one week to read or reread Small Gods for the discussion starting Monday 6th December.

[DaveC]

Am over half way through the book, and so far have not read any posts apart from the general consensus everywhere that this book is very well favoured, I can see why, it just seems like a re-hash of Postal...anyway that isn't what I wanted to say. Yay! The return of Dibbler! A 7 cool absence (excluding Where's My Cow). Didn't want to forget that joyous moment when it comes to my full report in a few days time, once I have read all the other posts. Its not like if is my favourite character but it felt like something was missing from the AM-set stories.

[Tonyblack]

"Well favoured"? Not by me it isn't.