SPOILERS Feet of Clay Discussion **Spoilers**

[raisindot]

Dorfl and golems aside, what I really like about FOC is that, for me, it's the first Guards book that presents Sam Vimes as the 'genuine' copper we see in every Guards book from this point forward. In Guards! Guards! he's a comical drunk who only becomes brave at the end. In Met at Arms he's barely in the story--Carrot is the main driver. Here, all of the elements that make Vimes what he is: His hatred of the aristocracy, his affinity for the working classes, his rage, his simultaneous pride and embarrassment with his ancestry, his uneasy relationship with Vetinari, and his super street instincts--jell. It seems that by this point PTerry might have realized that in the series he either needed to build it around Carrot (who had dominated the first two books) or around Vimes. Smartly, he choose Vimes, who has so much more to work with.

I also like FOC because it really is the first book that starts to build a whole economic and cultural history around AM. You get bits of it in earlier books, but here Pterry dives into the lives of the dirt poor, the craftsmen, the aristocrats and the guild members. He's really striving for something more than a funny story here, and it works well.

It's very interesting to compare FOC to The Truth. The latter is in some ways very similar, in that it's also dealing with a plot to remove Vetinari and also examines the lives of the "people" of AM.

I also like that here PTerry sets up the Angua/Carrot situation that will be resolved in The Fifth Elephant. Notice that when Angua is thinking about leaving Carrot, she believes that Carrot will never try to get her back because of his belief that 'personal is not the same as important.' In TFE, we end up seeing how wrong she was.

 

[poohcarrot]

Yo J-I*b, I assume you know what all the golem names mean?

I thought you were going to start with that.

 

[raisindot]

Yo J-I*b, I assume you know what all the golem names mean?

I thought you were going to start with that.

Why would I know what the golem names mean? Anyway, which ones besides Dorfl were named (I forgot this already)?

 

[Willem]

From L-space annotations:
The names of the golems, again, are Yiddish. "Klutz" -- a clumsy clod or bungler (from German); "Bobkes" -- beans, but only metaphorically; something worthless or nonsensical (from Russian); "Shmata" -- a rag, or piece of cloth; used both literally and to describe a person of weak character (from Polish).

Also named:
Dibbuk. A dybbuk, in Jewish mythology, is a demonic spirit that possess the body of someone living
Zhlob, Yiddish for "boorish glutton"

Then there's the Golem king Meshuga, which means 'crazy'.

 

[poohcarrot]

Why would I know what the golem names mean? Anyway, which ones besides Dorfl were named (I forgot this already)?

[p. 95] "NOW THREE HUNDRED DAYS ALREADY. [...] WHAT WOULD I DO WITH TIME OFF?"

Ending sentences with "already" is a common mannerism among Yiddish-speaking Jews in Anglophone countries. Rhetorical questions are another mainstay of Yiddish conversational style.

If you did that on purpose J-I*b, that was incredible.

 

[raisindot]

If you did that on purpose J-I*b, that was incredible.

What, you think it was done by accident, maybe?

 

[raisindot]

*Sigh* I guess as the token Jew here, I'm supposed to be an expert on golems, is that it? Huh? Huh?

Well, lucky that I am.*

In Jewish science fiction tradition, golems were never meant to be used as "slaves." They were created solely for the purpose of kicking the asses of the various Poles, Slovaks, Germans, Slavs, Cossacks or whoever else were in charge of this week's pogrom parade. In essence, they were kind of the first superheroes and probably were partly an inspiration for Shelly's Frankenstein.

Once they had achieved their purpose (killing all the attackers) the golems were supposed to be deactivated until the next time.

They were wishful thinking for a people who were basically defenseless against a world that wanted them dead, converted, or evicted.

 

[poohcarrot]

So, exactly like the Red Army in Interesting Times which are also golems.

 

[Tonyblack]

So, exactly like the Red Army in Interesting Times which are also golems.

I don't want to get into too much of a discussion about Interesting Times as that discussion is due in August, but I wouldn't say they were golems as they have to be remote controlled by a human. They don't seem to have anything resembling life at all.

 

[Anonymous]

A note here to all those from Germany and all those that can speak german (hope I didn't miss anyone else saying it ) :

Recently a new, uncut (!) audiobook of 'Hohle Köpfe' (FoC, obviously) has been published by (i think it was) Schallwelten
6 CDs, read by Rufus Beck.

Hope it's okay that I threw this in here.

 

[poohcarrot]

So, exactly like the Red Army in Interesting Times which are also golems.

I don't want to get into too much of a discussion about Interesting Times as that discussion is due in August, but I wouldn't say they were golems as they have to be remote controlled by a human. They don't seem to have anything resembling life at all.

But without the human control (ie chem), all golems were merely statues.

Can someone explain to me why the golems wanted to make a king in the first place?

Kings are masters of their subjects. Golems must have a master. Were the golems making a king so that this king could become their master, thus starting a rebellion without breaking their chem?

 

[raisindot]

Can someone explain to me why the golems wanted to make a king in the first place?

Kings are masters of their subjects. Golems must have a master. Were the golems making a king so that this king could become their master, thus starting a rebellion without breaking their chem?

I think PTerry was using this device to parallel the ongoing attempts of the guilds and aristocracy to replace Vetinari with a figurehead king.

What purpose a golem-king would serve is a bit of a mystery, but given all the different 'commands' the golems included in its chem it may be that that they were looking for a wise and highly moral leader who would provide them with some kind of spiritual guidance that would add more meaning to their 'lives.' That they were working on their own to create a king suggests even before Dorfl's 'chemless' transformation that they did have their own innate intelligence and free will of some sort, since it's doubtful that any golem master wrote "create a king" on any golem's chem.

Thus, one might argue that their yearning for a king was their expression of desire for a new kind of 'master' that would complement, but not necessarily 'replace,' their 'owner-masters.' Slaves seek meaning in their lives, even if they accept the idea they are 'property, and will designate leaders in their society to provide as much spiritual and moral guidance as their taskmasters allowed. This happened in the American south during the antebellum period, when many slaves organized into informal churches and elected lay leaders, while others turned to voodoo priests for such guidance.

Contrast the golems' concept of a 'moral' king with the guildmasters' concept of what they wanted AM's king to be--a dimwitted, powerless figurehead who could easily be pushed around--in short, everything that Vetinari isn't. I think that's the point PTerry is making here. The golems wanted a king for a good reason, but in their quest to create a good king, it went terribly bad. Whereas, Dragon and the guild conspirators wanted a bad king for bad reasons.

 

[Tonyblack]

I think I agree with that. They actually reject the idea of Carrot as the king because he is too honest and likely to look after the ordinary people - which would not be in the interests of the guilds. They want a king in name only. A figurehead that they can control.

I think it's no accident that Vimes's ancestor is rather like Cromwell. In our own history, Cromwell tends to be remembered in a negative way and we couldn't wait to get kings again. Although I think it's significant that the kings after Charles 1 never really had the power and were controlled by Parliament.

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

I always think of Old Stoneface Vimes, the regicide, as a Cromwellian figure (Old Ironsides ) and certainly Sam's much the same in the way he takes a very robust, soldierly view of people being allowed to be self-determining (meaning that this has to be done in a disciplined manner, so still needing to have a 'guiding' principle in place, in this case the law, rather than a principal/leader, or figurehead... ).

I don't think that the golems wanted a king as we see one, as it was more that they wanted the clay of their clay to be free as well as better than them, which was the idea behind them putting all the goody two shoes stuff into it's chem under the spiritual/moral guidance of a holy man and the practical supervision of the bread museum curator - did they not try to find a master for Meshuga after he started to go insane? Not sure of the timing of that so much? Certainly Dorfl regarded the priest very highly in the way he tried to make things 'right' for him as he died so that makes some sense but I find the choice of using a battle bread oven to actually make Mehshuga quite disturbing aside from the fact it was totally unsuitable - perhaps they were sub-consciously also trying to make a weapon or a warrior?

 

[swreader]

Haven't had a chance to post this week as I'm up to my ears in doctor's appointments. It seems that the blood pressure medication I've been on for about 10 years I've developed an allergy to. Just how long is any one's guess. But it's taking a long time to recover from the damage it's done. Don't have time to do anything right now with the Golem King of Prague (J.I.B--see photo-- it's amazingly like the King golem in this book).

Has anyone else noticed that it seems very likely Pratchett has made the cabal of wealthy nobility the hidden villains in Feet of Clay. When they fail to de-throne Vetinari this time , they try again in The Truth. In this book, the Dragon King at Arms is their tool, just as Slant is in The Truth. The point of view of these "unseen" movers and shakers is remarkably similar, and rather frighteningly close to the attitudes displayed by some of the monied "nobility" of our time. The head of the IMF who clearly believed he was above the law, as well as all too numerous lecherous and/or corrupt politicians in this country provide current examples.

They see everyone except themselves as a different (perhaps non-human) breed who can be treated as they choose. The scene in which Vimes almost throttles the sewing factory owner who treats both golems and human workers as things gives us Vimes's view (and Pratchett's) of the evil, filthy nature of this type -- Sam says to him:

I mix with crooks and thieves and thugs all day and that doesn't worry me at all but after two minutes with you I need a bath. And if I find that damn golem I'll shake its damn hand, you hear me?

I find it interesting that Granny's view of evil is treating people as things--it's apparently Pratchett's also.

 

[Dotsie]

I find it interesting that Granny's view of evil is treating people as things--it's apparently Pratchett's also.

Good spot on that - it sums up why Terry chose golems for this book.

 

[raisindot]

Has anyone else noticed that it seems very likely Pratchett has made the cabal of wealthy nobility the hidden villains in Feet of Clay. When they fail to de-throne Vetinari this time , they try again in The Truth. In this book, the Dragon King at Arms is their tool, just as Slant is in The Truth.

This isn't the first time. Arguably, the first three Watch books plus The Truth incorporated plots to remove the Patrician and replace him with a new ruler of some sort. In Guards, Guards! the man who summons the dragon (with help from his circle of conspirators, who one assumes are probably well to do) is of the aristocratic class. In Men at Arms! the impoverished aristocrat D'eath tries to rally the usual gang of aristocrats and guildbangers to support Carrot as king, and then takes matters into his own hands. Even in Jingo, Lord Rust uses the threat of war with Klatch to take military control of the city and remove Vetinari from power. (You can even argue that what doesn't happen in these novels actually does happen in Night Watch, although not in the "contemporary" timeline).

My guess is that by the time he finished The Truth Pterry realized that he had pretty much mined the "getting rid of Vetinari and replacing him with a king' theme as far it could go. In future books, Vetinari's position is threatened less by active coups from withiin than by whether his 'employees' succeed in their jobs. If Vimes had failed to solve the mystery of Koom Valley; if Moist had failed to stop the pie hitting Vetinari in the face; if the UA team had lost its football match the political ramifications might shake Vetinari from power.

 

[Dotsie]

In Guards, Guards! the man who summons the dragon (with help from his circle of conspirators, who one assumes are probably well to do) is of the aristocratic class.

Not really - Wonse is Vetinari's secretary, who grew up on the same street as Vimes (he remembers his hopping skipping run, from trying to keep up with the bigger boys). The conspirators are decidedly not well-to-do, being as they are a thief, grocer, and toilet emptier (the ones I can remember).

So while there does frequently seem to be a plot to get rid of Vetinari, this one is mostly about a little man wanting power for himself alone.

 

[Tonyblack]

Yes indeed, but the fact remains that Wonse's plan is to put a controllable king on the throne. The thing these books have in common seems to be crafty people trying to legitimise their plans by hiding behind someone they can control.

This is why the idea of Carrot as a king is rejected in Feet of Clay - they realise that he would be too difficult to control.

 

[poohcarrot]

Just for the record;

The Laws of Robotics

1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2.A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law

Dorfl tried to hit Carrot, but couldn't because of the first law.
However, when Dorfl lied and said it was him wot done it, this broke the first law because robots can't lie.

The fact that Dorfl was prepared to take the rap for the two killings also broke the first law. His inaction of not telling about the Golem king, leaving it free to go on a killing spree, would have caused an Asimov robot to switch off.

And by killing themselves the golems were breaking the third law. 8)