SPOILERS Going Postal Discussion *Spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
I finished GP a few months ago. 
I know this is a fan-favorite and such, but to be honest... I was disappointed.
Let me be clear: I loved the character of Moist. He is fresh, entertaining, can keep the story afloat and has enough of depth to make it interesting. But his awesomeness can get the book only so far.
The plot was weak and incoherent. The whole post-office/letters idea was largely abandoned after the fire (such an obvious plot device... ergh). I didn't find the post-office engaging at all: Terry just might have skipped all that crap and focused on Moist being the fantastic bastard he is instead... wouldve been a great deal more fun (at least).
I also failed to get the book's central idea. What did Terry want to say with this one? The good ol' post office vs the big bad companies, who take advantage of the poor honest citizens? Isn't that one dimensional? Where's the conflict of ideas, usually present in Pratchett's books? And I'm not talking about Moist here: his development as a character was far more interesting than anything else here.
Don't get me wrong: GP is a great read. Very enjoyable, fantastic new character and the last 100 pages were a blast. It has a lot going on and most of it works. But for Pratchett standarts... lacking.
Give me the witches or Death! MUCH better.
I know this is a fan-favorite and such, but to be honest... I was disappointed.Let me be clear: I loved the character of Moist. He is fresh, entertaining, can keep the story afloat and has enough of depth to make it interesting. But his awesomeness can get the book only so far.
The plot was weak and incoherent. The whole post-office/letters idea was largely abandoned after the fire (such an obvious plot device... ergh). I didn't find the post-office engaging at all: Terry just might have skipped all that crap and focused on Moist being the fantastic bastard he is instead... wouldve been a great deal more fun (at least).
I also failed to get the book's central idea. What did Terry want to say with this one? The good ol' post office vs the big bad companies, who take advantage of the poor honest citizens? Isn't that one dimensional? Where's the conflict of ideas, usually present in Pratchett's books? And I'm not talking about Moist here: his development as a character was far more interesting than anything else here.
Don't get me wrong: GP is a great read. Very enjoyable, fantastic new character and the last 100 pages were a blast. It has a lot going on and most of it works. But for Pratchett standarts... lacking.
Give me the witches or Death! MUCH better.
I really loved GP. Moist's character developed very well, and I think Vetinari was right to pick him for the job. The Post Office was being...tended by two people who had been doing things the same way for a long time; Moist, however, was completely objective since he didn't really care that much at first, which worked to his advantage. It also helped that he understood Gilt's mind. They were similar, definitely, but in the end Gilt and Moist made very different choices.
Moist did eventually see that his actions had affected others' lives negatively, especially after meeting Adora Belle. I like that he walks that line between giving in to his criminal instincts and what he knows is the good thing to do; I'm just a sucker for some slightly cliched inner conflict. Terry provides excellent commentary on corporations and technology here as well. Maybe Moist is only the lesser of two evils. I can certainly see why someone might not like him, but I couldn't help it after seeing the story through such an interesting prism.
Moist did eventually see that his actions had affected others' lives negatively, especially after meeting Adora Belle. I like that he walks that line between giving in to his criminal instincts and what he knows is the good thing to do; I'm just a sucker for some slightly cliched inner conflict. Terry provides excellent commentary on corporations and technology here as well. Maybe Moist is only the lesser of two evils. I can certainly see why someone might not like him, but I couldn't help it after seeing the story through such an interesting prism.
Welcome, SpyViolette.
I agree with you on Going Postal. I think Moist is a polarizing character; you either love him or you hate him. He may be as much of a conniving bastard as Reacher Gilt, but, in the end, he plays his shell game for the right reasons and as a form of atonement. That Adora Belle is his conscious is certainly a huge part of it; he needs her to see how the effect of his 'former life' on the futures of others.
I agree with you on Going Postal. I think Moist is a polarizing character; you either love him or you hate him. He may be as much of a conniving bastard as Reacher Gilt, but, in the end, he plays his shell game for the right reasons and as a form of atonement. That Adora Belle is his conscious is certainly a huge part of it; he needs her to see how the effect of his 'former life' on the futures of others.
I liked GP very much. I found it hilariously funny and not at all one dimensional.
I think Terry wanted to make several points:
a) If you're not careful in the business world, you end up with having sold your business before you even noticed it (bright people with not so much grasp of financial matters falling for Gilt, ending up without the trunk)
b) Free market is an illusion once a quasi monopole (in this case the grand trunk) has been established, since there is enough money there to buy up any competitor before they can become a real competitor and because you can also covertly do things to get rid of competition in other ways.
c) Terry criticizes unsustainable capitalism aimed at short term profit: Since it has been taken over, the Grand Trunk has become less reliable and there's actually no maintenance happening, but patching if something breaks due to lack of maintenance. Because of b) the Trunk doesn't have to fear losing customers, because they've become so dependent on a fast flux of information. This leads to the Trunk demanding high fees for little service and and not caring if the network fails from time to time. In the end the Grand Trunk Company isn't planning on keeping the trunk forever, but to make as much money on it as possible, run it down, sell it to someone else when it becomes unprofitable and perhaps buy it back when it seems it will become profitable again.
d) Certain vital parts of infrastructure shouldn't be privatized because of b) and c), even if they seem to be unprofitable: There's a great quote in GP that is, in my opinion, spot on. I'm quoting from memory, so it might not be verbatim: "Perhaps something like the post office couldn't be run at a profit. Perhaps the profit turned up distributed over the whole populace." Now, a state owned company can afford to run at a loss, because it is financed by the state, which in turn earns more when the people are wealthier. A corporation, however, can not run at a loss for a longer time because shareholders would soon sell all their stocks bankrupting the corporation. That is why, for example, in Germany energy companies sued the state when our politicians decided that all nuclear power plants have to be shut down until 2025 (or sometime near that) - these nuclear power plants are money printing machines and shutting them down costs the companies a lot of money. So the CEO has to do all he can to avoid these losses lest he be held responsible for the losses.
I think Terry wanted to make several points:
a) If you're not careful in the business world, you end up with having sold your business before you even noticed it (bright people with not so much grasp of financial matters falling for Gilt, ending up without the trunk)
b) Free market is an illusion once a quasi monopole (in this case the grand trunk) has been established, since there is enough money there to buy up any competitor before they can become a real competitor and because you can also covertly do things to get rid of competition in other ways.
c) Terry criticizes unsustainable capitalism aimed at short term profit: Since it has been taken over, the Grand Trunk has become less reliable and there's actually no maintenance happening, but patching if something breaks due to lack of maintenance. Because of b) the Trunk doesn't have to fear losing customers, because they've become so dependent on a fast flux of information. This leads to the Trunk demanding high fees for little service and and not caring if the network fails from time to time. In the end the Grand Trunk Company isn't planning on keeping the trunk forever, but to make as much money on it as possible, run it down, sell it to someone else when it becomes unprofitable and perhaps buy it back when it seems it will become profitable again.
d) Certain vital parts of infrastructure shouldn't be privatized because of b) and c), even if they seem to be unprofitable: There's a great quote in GP that is, in my opinion, spot on. I'm quoting from memory, so it might not be verbatim: "Perhaps something like the post office couldn't be run at a profit. Perhaps the profit turned up distributed over the whole populace." Now, a state owned company can afford to run at a loss, because it is financed by the state, which in turn earns more when the people are wealthier. A corporation, however, can not run at a loss for a longer time because shareholders would soon sell all their stocks bankrupting the corporation. That is why, for example, in Germany energy companies sued the state when our politicians decided that all nuclear power plants have to be shut down until 2025 (or sometime near that) - these nuclear power plants are money printing machines and shutting them down costs the companies a lot of money. So the CEO has to do all he can to avoid these losses lest he be held responsible for the losses.
Not too shabby eh? Definitely the best of the DW movies. I'm not good at critiquing but here a couple of things I've thought so far.
Ankh Morpork looks good, in particular the Post Office, how Amazing are all the letters!? I read somewhere they're the real thing with DW addresses included. The book to movie translation has been well written.
There's always a thousand opinions on what actor would fit a role but I think the casting is well done.
Reacher is more a caricature than the nasty bastard he should be, I don't get why they've done that. Maybe less on the eyeliner and wig and a bit more on the menace.
Mr Gryll looked good but what the hell is he saying?? I'm really glad the Golems aren't CG.
Do The Smoking Gnu make an appearance? Don't answer that!
Pt 2 is showing Christmas Eve , can't wait.
Ankh Morpork looks good, in particular the Post Office, how Amazing are all the letters!? I read somewhere they're the real thing with DW addresses included. The book to movie translation has been well written.
There's always a thousand opinions on what actor would fit a role but I think the casting is well done.
Reacher is more a caricature than the nasty bastard he should be, I don't get why they've done that. Maybe less on the eyeliner and wig and a bit more on the menace.
Mr Gryll looked good but what the hell is he saying?? I'm really glad the Golems aren't CG.
Do The Smoking Gnu make an appearance? Don't answer that!
Pt 2 is showing Christmas Eve , can't wait.
We've got it on disk so I have seen it a couple of times before, but I'm enjoying watching it on telly. It's also nice to see the ABC airing it now - it might be the 'off' season, but still in prime viewing time, so hopefully a few more ABC watchers will pick up the books as a result and we'll have a few more converts out there 
Tend to agree about My Gryll. Took a few goes to work out what he was saying :think: But I do love the overall look and feel of the film and casting. Going Postal was always a story I enjoyed and I do like the way both Stanley and Groat have been brought to life. Particularly Stanley. I'm unfamiliar with the actor, but he just captures him so well.
Won't let any cats out of proverbials for next weeks episode
Tend to agree about My Gryll. Took a few goes to work out what he was saying :think: But I do love the overall look and feel of the film and casting. Going Postal was always a story I enjoyed and I do like the way both Stanley and Groat have been brought to life. Particularly Stanley. I'm unfamiliar with the actor, but he just captures him so well.
Won't let any cats out of proverbials for next weeks episode
Actually, I thought that the adaptation was a bit anaemic, made a mockery of the timeline, and forced Moist's character development too much compared to the more sedate (and realistic?) pace of the book. Can't fault most of the casting, though. Richard Coyle is an excellent Moist, Claire Foy is a great Adore Belle Dearheart (though I think that her being hardened was a lifelong process, and that what happened to her father was the coup de grace, but it's jarring, albeit pleasantly, after seeing Foy play Amy Dorrit in Little Dorrit), and Charles Dance IS Lord Vetinari. And Steve Pemberton as Drumknott...now there's some good casting.
But they should have kept the stylish piratical nature of Gilt. David Suchet is a good actor in the role, but the adaptation did him wrong. In fact, I would think that Julian Glover would make a better version of the book Gilt (if he weren't so old). And I expected Mr Pump to be a more boisterous type than this sort of sad type.
But they should have kept the stylish piratical nature of Gilt. David Suchet is a good actor in the role, but the adaptation did him wrong. In fact, I would think that Julian Glover would make a better version of the book Gilt (if he weren't so old). And I expected Mr Pump to be a more boisterous type than this sort of sad type.
Some more ideas in Going Postal: The comparison between Moist and Gilt also gets me thinking of Vetinari. He is a Machiavellian manipulator and a tyrant. But he benefits the city - and significantly more than himself. Moist is a good choice of a character to examine Vetinari because he understands the manipulation as it is happening. Reacher Gilt as Patrician would be taking the city back to the days of Winder and Snapcase. Moist knows the difference.
The other significant point: Mr Pump's calculation of the people Moist killed, despite never acting violently. How many people have we brought closer to their deaths by our daily choices? By lack of consideration of others' needs, by not thinking through the consequences of our actions. It isn't nice thinking of ourselves as killers, but we may all be ones.
The other significant point: Mr Pump's calculation of the people Moist killed, despite never acting violently. How many people have we brought closer to their deaths by our daily choices? By lack of consideration of others' needs, by not thinking through the consequences of our actions. It isn't nice thinking of ourselves as killers, but we may all be ones.
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.
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.
Re:
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.
Sjoerd3000 said:
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
.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
Re:
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.
raisindot said:
Tonyblack said:
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.
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
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.
