SPOILERS Going Postal Discussion *Spoilers*

[InfernoOrangeSS]

I just finished the book this week and soon after watched the adaptation.
I have to say GP is one of my all time favorite books. I didn't think I was going to like it as much as I did, but it really took hold of me. Great writing, and great characters. I have to put Moist up there with Rincewind as my favorite characters to read now. (Can't wait to get to Making Money...I am reading his books in the order they were published, so I am presently on THUD!) I can only hope that TP writes more with Moist as the main character, though I can see that being a little tough since his moral redemption has occurred.

About the movie/adaptation...Maybe it's because anytime I see a movie based on a book I have read, I approach it with a severe amount of skepticism. I have seen too many just end up as trash. I really liked the movie. Yes there were several changes from the book, but I felt it had to do with keeping the movie moving and within a time constraint. All of the characters were very close to how I read them. I will say that whoever cast the actress to play Angua must have been reading my mind. She was exactly how I picture her anytime I read a book with her in it. I can only hope that she makes another appearance in the future in a Watch movie. All in all, the movie was entertaining, and better than I was expecting.
:confusion-shrug:

 

[Tonyblack]

It'll be interesting to see who they cast as Angua in the Watch TV series.

 

[InfernoOrangeSS]

It'll be interesting to see who they cast as Angua in the Watch TV series.

I am dreadfully out of touch...I had not heard there would be one.

 

[Tonyblack]

You can find out more by going HERE. We still don't know too much except that it seems that it may happen.

 

[Nomad]

Going Postal is one of my favorite books in Discworld series.

I think that Going Postal also parodises Lord of the Rings a bit. I read (re-read) the book and I discovered that there was something that really reminded me of Tolkiens books. Reading forward I froze. They were talking about something (don't know how's it in English (omniscope?)) that didn't work. Ridcully shouted (trying to translate :think: ) "It still doesn't work, Mr Stibbons, here's this damned gigantic glowing eye again.

I can't be sure its what the author thought, but it is very amusing to think about things like this.
:text-blondmoment: Sorry for any/many mistakes I made in this text!

 

[Tonyblack]

Hi Nomad and welcome!

I also read that bit as a reference to the devices that various people use to see distances in Lord of the Rings - I can't think what they are called, but I'm sure someone will know.

 

[raisindot]

I think that Going Postal also parodises Lord of the Rings a bit. I read (re-read) the book and I discovered that there was something that really reminded me of Tolkiens books. Reading forward I froze. They were talking about something (don't know how's it in English (omniscope?)) that didn't work. Ridcully shouted (trying to translate :think: ) "It still doesn't work, Mr Stibbons, here's this damned gigantic glowing eye again.

Welcome, Nomad. You're spot on about that reference. I think though that it may actually refer to the big glowing red eye of Suaron that appeared in the magical thingamabub in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies rather than the books. I can't be sure, because it's been years since I read them, but I think Tolkien's text wasn't so specific about which aspects of Sauron appeared in the thingamabob.

 

[Penfold]

Hi Nomad and welcome!

I also read that bit as a reference to the devices that various people use to see distances in Lord of the Rings - I can't think what they are called, but I'm sure someone will know.

They were called 'Palantír' (not sure of spelling), although I think it was also a reference to when Frodo saw the Eye in the Mirror of Galadriel. I'm now expecting Jan to appear at any moment to correct me.

Oh, and hellooo and welcome from me as well Nomad.

 

[Who's Wee Dug]

Hi Nomad welcome to the forum.

 

[Tonyblack]

Hi Nomad and welcome!

I also read that bit as a reference to the devices that various people use to see distances in Lord of the Rings - I can't think what they are called, but I'm sure someone will know.

They were called 'Palantír' (not sure of spelling), although I think it was also a reference to when Frodo saw the Eye in the Mirror of Galadriel. I'm now expecting Jan to appear at any moment to correct me.

Oh, and hellooo and welcome from me as well Nomad.

That's the chappie!
Palantir

 

[DreadfulKata]

I love Going Postal, I'm one of the it's-in-my-top-ten camp. Even top five.

Re. the debate about how people felt about Moist's character - there's a difference between liking and enjoying a character. I thoroughly enjoy the character (in GP, not MM which I broadly disliked) and am very happy to spend this book following his story and hearing his thinking.

It doesn't mean I'm blind to that fact that he begins, and remains, essentially a bastard. Circumstance (via Vetinari) push him into a situation where his considerable skills can be used to benefit the city, and consequently Moist begins to change his attitude a bit. But his basic personality is still deeply flawed. Lord V sets a thief to catch a thief (or sets a spring-loaded pit etc etc....) by putting Moist on the case. Only someone with a grifter's nature could take on Gilt. Moist is the man for the job, and the job benefits everyone. But that doesn't make Moist a nice person. It's Moist's awareness of this that makes him sympathetic to me.

And I enjoy watching him be clever, for the same reason I enjoy a good heist or spy movie. It's fun to watch him outwit everyone.

Terry was also clever in the dynamic with the villain. There's books where it's good versus evil and the main character opposes everything that the villain stands for. But I've always enjoyed a story where the villain represents the worse side of the hero's nature. Someone the hero is able to look at and define themselves by not being. I think that's the major prompt to righteousness for Moist in GP, more that Lord V's machinations or wanting to convince Adora or anything. It's wanting to not be Reacher Gilt. The film kind of missed this point and didn't draw any comparisons between Moist and Reacher, I think to its detrement. For Moist to be heroic, he has to be confronting the version of himself that is villainous and working out what makes him different from that person.

 

[raisindot]

You've totally hit the nail on the head, DK. The whole point of Moist is that he's a villain who can reform himself without necessarily having to change who he is. As long as he can apply his grifting talents to fool people legitimately, he's fine. It's when he feels that he has to totally give up his criminal nature (as at the beginning of Making Money) that he feels threatened--something Vetinari fully understands, which is why he choose Moist to reform the banking system in MM.

 

[Kat]

My first Discworld novel.

I almost didn't read it, as I wasn't certain I wanted to read a book with a con artist as the main character, but I'm glad I did, since it began my Discworld obsession.

Moist definitely isn't my favorite Discworld character, but he isn't my least favorite either. I do think he changed somewhat for the better, but I also think he is still basically a con man at the end.

The slowness of the post office made me laugh- the post office where I live has a rather bad reputation, and is known to either lose mail or take forever to send it. My school (only fifteen minutes from me) sent me a letter, and it took a week to arrive. So, I could certainly relate to that part.

 

[=Tamar]

Moist definitely isn't my favorite Discworld character, but he isn't my least favorite either. I do think he changed somewhat for the better, but I also think he is still basically a con man at the end.

I see him as an adrenaline addict. If he can find something sufficiently risky and involving to do that doesn't involve being a con man, he'll be able to give it up. Maybe he'll invent a new form of politics or something (trying not to speculate too specifically). Last year Sir Terry said Vetinari has to be extra harsh with Moist because it's very hard to motivate Moist to reform. The idea is that eventually it'll work. I have some hopes for Raising Steam to be the third Moist book.

 

[alicenanjing]

Adrenaline addict, that's exactly it! That, and an aversion to seeing himself as a goody-goody. I picture him as someone who sees the world as a place where ypur neighbor will swindle you if he can, and so you must swindle him first; and a place where people's greed is only exceeded by their ignorance, so you must outwit them in a sort of preemptive self-defense.

 

[Tonyblack]

Moist seems to thrive on getting himself into situations where his skill and quick thinking allow him to escape. Thinking on his feet would be a good description. He sees this as a sort of game more than dishonest. I think that by thinking this way, he manages to avoid feeling any guilt. This is why it hits him so hard when he realises that his "fun" has actually caused people grief.

 

[raisindot]

[Minor spoilers]

I think Moist embodies Pterry's approach to protagonist development. If you think about it, almost none of his main protagonists and supporting characters are truly "good." Vimes is in many ways an anti-democratic authoritarian who is well aware of the dangers of authoritarianism and his own inner brutal nature. Granny Weatherwax rests on the 'edge' between good and evil and is not a particularly "likeable" character (in the way that Nanny Ogg is). Vetinari is both tyrant and democrat, protector of liberty and stifler of disorder, promoter of mercantilism and underminer of corporate corruption. William DeWorde is a fierce protector of what he calls "the truth" and exposer of aristocratic conspiracies, yet still a member of that artistocracy and compromises his principles to protect his family's reputation.

I think Pterry's least compelling characters are those who have no moral complexity. Nutt, for example, isn't particularly interesting because he's has no moral ambiguity whatsoever--being an orc isn't a moral flaw. Carrot was largely a cardboard lampoon of the old-style kings until he got an edge in The Fifth Elephant.

Moist is pretty much the extreme case of Pterry's moral ambiguity. Moist also symbolizes the "new" Ankh Morpork; a city where entrepreneurs from the working classes with questionable backgrounds (i.e. Harry King, CMOT Dibbler) are replacing the moribund guilds and aristocrats as the economic movers and shakers of the city.

 

[=Tamar]

[spoilers for Unseen Academicals are now major]

Granny Weatherwax rests on the 'edge' between good and evil and is not a particularly "likeable" character (in the way that Nanny Ogg is).

Not to derail the discussion, but I don't find Nanny Ogg especially likeable. She's exactly like the aristocrats in that she has never bothered to learn the names of the women who clean her house, and she rules them by fear. She also doesn't care that at least one of her sons is a thief.
(snipped stuff I agree with)

I think Pterry's least compelling characters are those who have no moral complexity. Nutt, for example, isn't particularly interesting because he's has no moral ambiguity whatsoever--being an orc isn't a moral flaw.

Being one isn't, but Nutt is in the unusual position of having been rescued from an abusive situation and educated. If he had then not managed to control his more damaging urges, he would have had a moral flaw. Aside from generalized abuse, Nutt wasn't conditioned the way the battle orcs were.

Carrot was largely a cardboard lampoon of the old-style kings until he got an edge in The Fifth Elephant.

Carrot began to develop a personal edge in Men at Arms, when he was about sixteen. In the Fifth Elephant he is not quite twenty-one and begins to show his true colors, but that discussion deserves its own thread.

Moist is pretty much the extreme case of Pterry's moral ambiguity. Moist also symbolizes the "new" Ankh Morpork; a city where entrepreneurs from the working classes with questionable backgrounds (i.e. Harry King, CMOT Dibbler) are replacing the moribund guilds and aristocrats as the economic movers and shakers of the city.

Yes, A-M is still in its early 19th century period, with robber barons unrestrained except by each other. I think CMOT is more ambiguous than Moist; Moist does feel some remorse when the human effects of his crimes are made clear to him. CMOT never quite understands the potential harm done by his unfit food and his general role as an archetypal sleazy merchant.

 

[Kat]

Adrenaline addict, that's exactly it! That, and an aversion to seeing himself as a goody-goody. I picture him as someone who sees the world as a place where ypur neighbor will swindle you if he can, and so you must swindle him first; and a place where people's greed is only exceeded by their ignorance, so you must outwit them in a sort of preemptive self-defense.

Agree. That's the way he came across to me, as an adrenaline addict, and also as someone who (in his opinion at least) is conning people out of self- defense. It's been a while since I read the novel, so I could be mistaken, but I remember him claiming several times that he never hurt anyone, and never conned anyone who didn't deserve it.

 

[Tonyblack]

Yes, he's justified his crime to himself at least.