Granny Weatherwax and Sam Vimes -- separated at birth?
Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Because when you really think about it, these two characters are cut
if not from the same cloth, at least from the same lot. Both are
basically angry, hot-tempered loners who need others around them to
remind them of their solitary nature. Both are the best at what they
do. Both are basically speciesest, but are willing to make exceptions
for those of other races that meet their high standards. Both are
extremely confident in their own abilities. They rebel against any
authority other than their own, but aren't hesitant about partnering
with the surrounding power structure if it suits their goals. They
both have very plebian tastes in food, clothing, and music. They both
enjoy mentoring younger peers as much as they enjoy berating them, but
are fiercely loyal and protective of them. While extremely
self-confident in situations that allow them to fully exercise their
professional abilities, they sometimes lose their confidence in
situations that seem beyond their understanding.
I think it a DW book that featured both Vimes and Granny working
together on a case (with maybe Nanny Ogg matched with Nobby Nobs,
Agnes with Angua and Magrat with Carrot (hey, a Copper who would-be
King working with a Witch who is a Queen? Why not?) would be an
awesome premise.
Jeff in Boston
Joerg Ruedenauer
> Or, perhaps by 40 years?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Because when you really think about it, these two characters are cut if
> not from the same cloth, at least from the same lot.
>
Hmm...
> Both are basically
> angry, hot-tempered loners who need others around them to remind them of
> their solitary nature.
>
That's not the primary reason why they need others, at least as I see it.
> Both are the best at what they do.
>
I don't think that applies to Vimes. It'd depend on what you define as
what Vimes does.
> Both are basically speciesest, but are willing to make exceptions for
> those of other races that meet their high standards.
>
I don't think Granny is basically speciesist. But, well, I don't think
Vimes is, either. It is mentioned that he dislikes _all_ species.
> Both are extremely confident in their own abilities.
>
Again, I'm not sure about Vimes here.
> They rebel against
> any authority other than their own, but aren't hesitant about partnering
> with the surrounding power structure if it suits their goals.
>
I Granny's case, I'd say that she wouldn't even acknowledge any other
authority. E.g. Verence is the king, but there's not even a question of
him having authority over her.
That's not quite the situation with Vimes and Vetinari ;-)
> They both have very plebian tastes in food, clothing, and music.
>
Could be... Granny seems to wear simple clothing not because it's her
taste, but because that's what witches should wear. I don't really know
about her taste of music. Do we know of any music she really likes?
> They both enjoy mentoring younger peers as much as they enjoy berating
> them, but are fiercely loyal and protective of them. While extremely
> self-confident in situations that allow them to fully exercise their
> professional abilities, they sometimes lose their confidence in
> situations that seem beyond their understanding.
>
That's better, though I'm still not sure about Vimes' self-confidence.
Could you give examples?
Unfortunately, your posting lacks an analysis of the differences between
Vimes and Granny ;-)
Joerg
--
"Quoth the raven: Nevermore!" -- E.A. Poe
Tobias Wolter
[Granny and Vimes seperated at birth]
> Or, perhaps by 40 years?
No, of course not. It was never mentioned in the books, in that post
ensures it will never be..
--
Legacy (adj): an uncomplimentary computer-industry epithet that
means 'it works'.
- Anthony DeBoer
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > Or, perhaps by 40 years?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Because when you really think about it, these two characters are cut if
> > not from the same cloth, at least from the same lot.
> >
> Hmm...
>
> > Both are basically
> > angry, hot-tempered loners who need others around them to remind them of
> > their solitary nature.
> >
> That's not the primary reason why they need others, at least as I see it.
Well, that's why I see it. How do you see it? :)
>
> > Both are the best at what they do.
> >
> I don't think that applies to Vimes. It'd depend on what you define as
> what Vimes does.
>
Vimes is a copper. He's the best copper on DW (okay, he's BECOME the
best copper--he wasn't in "GG," but was definitely so by "FE.") So
good that he trains others who then become Watchman in other cities.
He's not as good an anything other than being a cop, and Granny isn't
good at anything other than being a witch (well, she's a heckuva card
player, actually).
> > Both are basically speciesest, but are willing to make exceptions for
> > those of other races that meet their high standards.
> >
> I don't think Granny is basically speciesist. But, well, I don't think
> Vimes is, either. It is mentioned that he dislikes _all_ species.
Vimes would have preferred a Watch consisting of humans only. It was
Vetinari who insisted on adding representatives of the different
species to the Watch. Vimes has only become accepting of these other
races once he's seen their capabilities as individuals. Except for
vampires.
Granny has expressed her dislike of "foreigners" (human or otherwise)
on numerous occasions. But she has somehow finds a way to accept those
who meet her high standards.
>
> > Both are extremely confident in their own abilities.
> >
> Again, I'm not sure about Vimes here.
Vimes is completely confident about his abilities as a copper, and
proud of his "streetsmarts." He would not have been able to accomplish
what he did in "FE" and "NW" without this confidence. On the other
hand, he is not as confident about his abilities as diplomat, or
titled aristocrat, but these are not his core competencies.
>
> > They rebel against
> > any authority other than their own, but aren't hesitant about partnering
> > with the surrounding power structure if it suits their goals.
> >
> I Granny's case, I'd say that she wouldn't even acknowledge any other
> authority. E.g. Verence is the king, but there's not even a question of
> him having authority over her.
> That's not quite the situation with Vimes and Vetinari ;-)
Well, considering the number of times Vimes has saved Vetinari's sorry
butt (and the rewards Vimes has received because of it), you could
argue that he does, in some way, have authority over him. Vetinari
needs Vimes much more than Vimes needs Vetinari. Remember, Vimes
believes that the Watch is ultimately accountable to the Law, and not
to the power structure. In fact, Vetinari needs Vimes so much that, if
you remember from either "Jingo" or "Feet of Clay," Vetinari admits
that if Vimes didn't exist, he would have had to create him (and, in
fact, Vetinari believes he did).
As for Granny, she more or less have authority over Verence (she
pretty much got him into power, after all), but she needs the
trappings of a kingdom and its village to give her her particular
place in it.
>
> > They both have very plebian tastes in food, clothing, and music.
> >
> > They both enjoy mentoring younger peers as much as they enjoy berating
> > them, but are fiercely loyal and protective of them. While extremely
> > self-confident in situations that allow them to fully exercise their
> > professional abilities, they sometimes lose their confidence in
> > situations that seem beyond their understanding.
> >
> That's better, though I'm still not sure about Vimes' self-confidence.
> Could you give examples?
As said, Vimes' is confident in his ability as a copper--everything
else he's not as confident in.
o At the end of one of the Guard books (FC?) when Vimes, marching as
the parade leader, suddenly sees a crime happening and runs after the
perpetrator. But, damn it, this is who he is--a copper.
o Nearly all of NW is a clear demonstration of Vimes' capabilities as
a copper, and his confidence in these abilities.
o Nearly every scene is which Vimes lights his cigar before a battle
ensues demonstrates his confidence. "FE" has numerous examples of
this. The graveyard scene at the end of "NW" may be the best example
of how his confidence manifests itself in his ability to control "the
beast" within to enforce the laws.
> Unfortunately, your posting lacks an analysis of the differences between
> Vimes and Granny ;-)
>
Why would I want to counter my own argument? That's other people's
job! :)
Jeff
Terry Pratchett
Ruedenauer <nos...@ruedenauer.net> writes
>Jeff wrote:
>
>> Or, perhaps by 40 years?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Because when you really think about it, these two characters are cut if
>> not from the same cloth, at least from the same lot.
>>
>Hmm...
>
>> Both are basically
>> angry, hot-tempered loners who need others around them to remind them of
>> their solitary nature.
>>
>That's not the primary reason why they need others, at least as I see it.
>
dull and to maintain an anchorage in humanity, Otherwise she might
become prone to cackling. Nanny plays Watson to her Holmes.
Vimes needs people around him because you should always have backup:-)
>> Both are the best at what they do.
>>
>I don't think that applies to Vimes. It'd depend on what you define as
>what Vimes does.
>
Vimes is unique in that he's a senior copper with a huge amount of
power. I agree that doesn't equal 'best' He's just good on the street.
>> Both are basically speciesest, but are willing to make exceptions for
>> those of other races that meet their high standards.
>>
>I don't think Granny is basically speciesist. But, well, I don't think
>Vimes is, either. It is mentioned that he dislikes _all_ species.
>
They both dislike vampires. To the best of my recollection, Granny
otherwise treats all species alike, once you get past the snappishness.
I think Vimes' speciesism is a false front. If he doesn't get on with
someone, it's invariably for a more immediate reason than their species.
>> Both are extremely confident in their own abilities.
>>
>Again, I'm not sure about Vimes here.
>
Me neither. That's why Vimes was happy in the Keel persona. *Those*
abilities, yes, he was confident of them. But the abilities he's had to
develop as Vetinari's envoy make him nervous. That's why he's happy
when the problem can be reduced to coppering.
>> They rebel against
>> any authority other than their own, but aren't hesitant about partnering
>> with the surrounding power structure if it suits their goals.
>>
>I Granny's case, I'd say that she wouldn't even acknowledge any other
>authority. E.g. Verence is the king, but there's not even a question of
>him having authority over her.
>That's not quite the situation with Vimes and Vetinari ;-)
Granny acknowledges Verence's authority over her provided he makes no
attempt to wield it. They both understand the situation.
Vimes *certainly* acknowledges Vetinari's authority, because his own is
derived from it. He instinctively looks beyond himself.
>
>> They both have very plebian tastes in food, clothing, and music.
>>
>Could be... Granny seems to wear simple clothing not because it's her
>taste, but because that's what witches should wear. I don't really know
>about her taste of music. Do we know of any music she really likes?
Granny lives is a society that would consider the Amish to be posh, and
I imagine such music as she hears is what Nanny happens to be singing.
She hasn't really has a chance to develop different tastes.
Vimes has a copper's palate and is set in his ways, I agree.
>
>> They both enjoy mentoring younger peers as much as they enjoy berating
>> them, but are fiercely loyal and protective of them. While extremely
>> self-confident in situations that allow them to fully exercise their
>> professional abilities, they sometimes lose their confidence in
>> situations that seem beyond their understanding.
>>
>That's better, though I'm still not sure about Vimes' self-confidence.
>Could you give examples?
>
Hmm. I think the point is right if taken as I wrote above: faced with a
situation he can't deal with as a diplomat, Vimes will shift gear and
deal with it as a copper -- that is, he'll deal with in on a level where
he *is* confident.
>Unfortunately, your posting lacks an analysis of the differences between
>Vimes and Granny ;-)
>
>Joerg
I'd look forward to it...
--
Terry Pratchett
--
Terry Pratchett
Aaron Dick
"Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mHjMxYRToXgAFA$s...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
> In message <pan.2004.04.16...@ruedenauer.net>, Joerg
> Ruedenauer <nos...@ruedenauer.net> writes
> >Jeff wrote:
> >
> >> Or, perhaps by 40 years?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> derived from it. He instinctively looks beyond himself.
(I don't think it is, but some might call this speculating?)
You know, I've often wondered what would happen if Vimes was put into a
situation where he would be asked to arrest Vetinari. He seems to have that
knack for 'knowing' when someone does something wrong and deciding to deal
with it, i.e. Jingo. Was his trying arrest armies and princes and such
really plausible if his power derives from Vetinari? Surely he can't try and
do things that can't be backed up by his boss?
Then again, there are a few occasions in the books where he finds himself
following orders he'd definately rather not so maybe his sense of hierachy
is intact.
--
Mr Aaron Dick, DHI
Raven House
bewtifulfreak
> "Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:mHjMxYRToXgAFA$s...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <pan.2004.04.16...@ruedenauer.net>, Joerg
>> Ruedenauer <nos...@ruedenauer.net> writes
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or, perhaps by 40 years?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> Vimes *certainly* acknowledges Vetinari's authority, because his own
>> is derived from it. He instinctively looks beyond himself.
>
> (I don't think it is, but some might call this speculating?)
>
>
>
>
> You know, I've often wondered what would happen if Vimes was put into
> a situation where he would be asked to arrest Vetinari.
He *has* had to do this at one point, if I recall correctly, and did so.
Vimes may serve under Vetinari, but from everything I've learned about him,
it's pretty clear that his highest authority is the law (then again, maybe
it's humanity, but the law comes a close second). :)
--
Ann
A California Yankee in Queen Elizabeth's Court
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Joerg Ruedenauer
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
<snip>
> Well, considering the number of times Vimes has saved Vetinari's sorry
> butt (and the rewards Vimes has received because of it), you could argue
> that he does, in some way, have authority over him. Vetinari needs Vimes
> much more than Vimes needs Vetinari. Remember, Vimes believes that the
> Watch is ultimately accountable to the Law, and not to the power
> structure.
>
But Vimes still needs another authority above him, someone who defines
what the Law is and who judges whether Vimes has acted according to the
law. He knows that he can't do this himself. And he probably knows that
Vetinari is quite a good choice for the one who makes the law.
In TT, it doesn't seem like there's a possibility of Vimes being the
new Patrician.
Besides, Vimes' "I am just a copper"-attitude also depends on him having a
boss.
Sanity
<SPAMaa...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in article
<10822944...@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net>:
>
> "Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:mHjMxYRToXgAFA$s...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <pan.2004.04.16...@ruedenauer.net>, Joerg
>> Ruedenauer <nos...@ruedenauer.net> writes
>> >Jeff wrote:
>> >
>> >> Or, perhaps by 40 years?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> Vimes *certainly* acknowledges Vetinari's authority, because his own is
>> derived from it. He instinctively looks beyond himself.
>
> (I don't think it is, but some might call this speculating?)
>
>
>
>
> You know, I've often wondered what would happen if Vimes was put into a
> situation where he would be asked to arrest Vetinari.
He does so. IIRC, in The Truth.
> He seems to have that
> knack for 'knowing' when someone does something wrong and deciding to deal
> with it, i.e. Jingo. Was his trying arrest armies and princes and such
> really plausible if his power derives from Vetinari? Surely he can't try and
> do things that can't be backed up by his boss?
> Then again, there are a few occasions in the books where he finds himself
> following orders he'd definately rather not so maybe his sense of hierachy
> is intact.
He does what he has to do, but that doesn't mean that he does nothing
about it if he smells something fishy. But he will follow the law.
TTFN,
Michel AKA Sanity
--
"Sanity shall make ye -ing fret": | "Dolphins! They think they're so
www.affordable-prawns.co.uk | cute! Oh, look at me, I'm a flippy
www.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk | little dolphin, let me flip for
Check the AFPChess Tournament! | you!" -- Chum
David Harcombe
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:20:01 +1200, "Aaron Dick"
> <SPAMaa...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in article
> <10822944...@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net>:
>
>
>>"Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:mHjMxYRToXgAFA$s...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>In message <pan.2004.04.16...@ruedenauer.net>, Joerg
>>>Ruedenauer <nos...@ruedenauer.net> writes
>>>
>>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Or, perhaps by 40 years?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>Vimes *certainly* acknowledges Vetinari's authority, because his own is
>>>derived from it. He instinctively looks beyond himself.
>>
>>(I don't think it is, but some might call this speculating?)
>>
>>You know, I've often wondered what would happen if Vimes was put into a
>>situation where he would be asked to arrest Vetinari.
>
>
> He does so. IIRC, in The Truth.
Jingo, in fact. Near the end, after their return to Ankh-Morpork. As I
recall, Dorfl says that Vimes is instructed by Rust to "TO DO HIS DUTY,
DAMN HIM".
>
>
>>He seems to have that
>>knack for 'knowing' when someone does something wrong and deciding to deal
>>with it, i.e. Jingo. Was his trying arrest armies and princes and such
>>really plausible if his power derives from Vetinari? Surely he can't try and
>>do things that can't be backed up by his boss?
Vimes' *boss* is the law. Vetinari is merely the man who pays his wages.
Sometimes hard to tell the difference, as 71-hour Ahmed points out.
>>Then again, there are a few occasions in the books where he finds himself
>>following orders he'd definately rather not so maybe his sense of hierachy
>>is intact.
Although his manner of 'following' those orders may sometimes leave a
little to be desired - at least from the position of those giving the
orders...
> He does what he has to do, but that doesn't mean that he does nothing
> about it if he smells something fishy. But he will follow the law.
Mostly. He knows when to sidestep or look the other way (as in Mrs
Goodbody's range of equalizers, Nobby's blatant petty criminality,
Fred's mumping etc) - but most importantly he knows when he *must*
enforce the law.
FWIW, I've always felt Vimes to be one of my favourites, and he's just
getting better with age. And I know people may not agree, but his
cynicism and sheer bloody-mindedness strikes a real chord - especially
in NW.
bewtifulfreak
> Sanity wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:20:01 +1200, "Aaron Dick"
>> <SPAMaa...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in article
>> <10822944...@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net>:
>>
>>
>>> "Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:mHjMxYRToXgAFA$s...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> In message <pan.2004.04.16...@ruedenauer.net>, Joerg
>>>> Ruedenauer <nos...@ruedenauer.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, perhaps by 40 years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> Vimes *certainly* acknowledges Vetinari's authority, because his
>>>> own is derived from it. He instinctively looks beyond himself.
>>>
>>> (I don't think it is, but some might call this speculating?)
>>>
>>> You know, I've often wondered what would happen if Vimes was put
>>> into a situation where he would be asked to arrest Vetinari.
>>
>>
>> He does so. IIRC, in The Truth.
>
> Jingo, in fact. Near the end, after their return to Ankh-Morpork. As I
> recall, Dorfl says that Vimes is instructed by Rust to "TO DO HIS
> DUTY,
> DAMN HIM".
I forgot about that one....I believe he also does so in The Truth, that's
the one I was thinking of myself when I mentioned it.
> FWIW, I've always felt Vimes to be one of my favourites, and he's just
> getting better with age. And I know people may not agree, but his
> cynicism and sheer bloody-mindedness strikes a real chord - especially
> in NW.
I do agree, Vimes has always been a favorite of mine as well.
David Harcombe
> David Harcombe wrote:
>
>>Sanity wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:20:01 +1200, "Aaron Dick"
>>><SPAMaa...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in article
>>><10822944...@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:mHjMxYRToXgAFA$s...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In message <pan.2004.04.16...@ruedenauer.net>, Joerg
>>>>>Ruedenauer <nos...@ruedenauer.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or, perhaps by 40 years?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>Vimes *certainly* acknowledges Vetinari's authority, because his
>>>>>own is derived from it. He instinctively looks beyond himself.
>>>>
>>>>(I don't think it is, but some might call this speculating?)
>>>>
>>>>You know, I've often wondered what would happen if Vimes was put
>>>>into a situation where he would be asked to arrest Vetinari.
>>>
>>>
>>>He does so. IIRC, in The Truth.
>>
>>Jingo, in fact. Near the end, after their return to Ankh-Morpork. As I
>>recall, Dorfl says that Vimes is instructed by Rust to "TO DO HIS
>>DUTY,
>>DAMN HIM".
>
> I forgot about that one....I believe he also does so in The Truth, that's
> the one I was thinking of myself when I mentioned it.
Er... I think (IIRC) in The Truth, Vetinari is unconscious for most of
the book, while people are going round saying '-ing' a lot. I don't
think Vimes ever *actually* arrests him, although (again, IIRC) he *is*
kept in the cells while Igor looks after him. ("Thometimeth the body
juth thayth 'thleep'")
cMAD
Hmmm.
Who, again, in G! G!, asks the Librarian to hide the book Carrot has thrown at
Lupine Wonse in a safe place?
It seems that the highest authority to Vimes is to do what he thinks is the
right thing to do ... and he thinks that acting on his own authority is a
wrong thing to do.
Nice paradoxon, actually.
cMAD
Orjan Westin
> bewtifulfreak wrote:
>
>> Aaron Dick wrote:
>>> "Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:mHjMxYRToXgAFA$s...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <pan.2004.04.16...@ruedenauer.net>, Joerg
>>>> Ruedenauer <nos...@ruedenauer.net> writes
>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, perhaps by 40 years?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> Vimes *certainly* acknowledges Vetinari's authority, because his
>>>> own is derived from it. He instinctively looks beyond himself.
>>>
>>> (I don't think it is, but some might call this speculating?)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You know, I've often wondered what would happen if Vimes was put
>>> into a situation where he would be asked to arrest Vetinari.
>>
>> He *has* had to do this at one point, if I recall correctly, and did
>> so. Vimes may serve under Vetinari, but from everything I've learned
>> about him, it's pretty clear that his highest authority is the law
>> (then again, maybe it's humanity, but the law comes a close second).
>> :)
>
> Hmmm.
> Who, again, in G! G!, asks the Librarian to hide the book Carrot has
> thrown at Lupine Wonse in a safe place?
Well, there's a difference between the law and the Law. A lot of what's
written in the Laws and Ordnances of Ankh-Morpork is silly and/or
dangerous - like the riot act, for instance.
> It seems that the highest authority to Vimes is to do what he thinks
> is the right thing to do ... and he thinks that acting on his own
> authority is a wrong thing to do.
> Nice paradoxon, actually.
Judging from the policemen I've met and spoken to, this is quite common.
To revive the parallell a bit, neither Granny nor Vime cares much about Good
and Evil, but are very keen on Right and Wrong.
Orjan
grahamafforda...@hotmail.com
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:12:10 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
<nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> Who, again, in G! G!, asks the Librarian to hide the book Carrot has
>> thrown at Lupine Wonse in a safe place?
>
>Well, there's a difference between the law and the Law. A lot of what's
>written in the Laws and Ordnances of Ankh-Morpork is silly and/or
>dangerous - like the riot act, for instance.
Err, it may be silly and dangerous, but it's based on historical fact!
Riot Act, Reading the
Britain's Riot Act of 1715 stated that when 12 or more people were
engaged in a riot, any magistrates on hand could command them to
disperse. Anyone not obeying the command could be arrested for a
felony. So reading the Riot Act is a public warning of dire
consequences if certain behavior is to continue. The act was
superseded by the Public Order Act of 1986.
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorr.htm#Riot%20Act,%20Reading
Cheers,
Graham.
bewtifulfreak
Indeed. I certainly agree, although I think what Vimes thinks is the right
thing to do does tend to be the most humanitarian thing, so we're not
especially out of synch on this one.
bewtifulfreak
I thought sure that, although, yes, Vetenari was unconscious for awhile
after the alleged crime, he had been set up to look guilty, so he was put in
the cell not only for medial care but being kept in holding until the crime
was solved. But it's been awhile since I've read The Truth, so the details
are a bit fuzzy now, that may not be the case.
cMAD
As is suggested in NW, sometimes this means killing people ... another
paradoxon.
Anyway, Vimes is portrayed to find himself in situations in which he,
personally, has to make a decision of life and death based solely on his own
judgement
- something (just to draw a parallel that is suggested elswehere in this
thread) that Granny Weatherwax also has to do, e.g., in CJ.
cMAD
Orjan Westin
> Hi there,
>
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:12:10 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
> <nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> Who, again, in G! G!, asks the Librarian to hide the book Carrot has
>>> thrown at Lupine Wonse in a safe place?
>>
>> Well, there's a difference between the law and the Law. A lot of
>> what's written in the Laws and Ordnances of Ankh-Morpork is silly
>> and/or dangerous - like the riot act, for instance.
>
> Err, it may be silly and dangerous, but it's based on historical fact!
<snip details of RA>
Yes, I know. Similarly, a lot of the laws quoted throughout the series
(mostly by Carrot) are based on historical fact, primarily the kind of law
you find in small towns in USA, like "A pet camel must be held by a leash on
Sundays" or "It is not permitted to fish wearing a pyjama between midnight
and dawn".
Laws like these are silly. Laws like the riot act (and the patriot act in
the USA) are dangerous.
In Vimes opinion, IMO, laws should be just and needed, which these aren't.
Orjan
bewtifulfreak
> gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:12:10 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
>> <nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Who, again, in G! G!, asks the Librarian to hide the book Carrot
>>>> has thrown at Lupine Wonse in a safe place?
>>>
>>> Well, there's a difference between the law and the Law. A lot of
>>> what's written in the Laws and Ordnances of Ankh-Morpork is silly
>>> and/or dangerous - like the riot act, for instance.
>>
>> Err, it may be silly and dangerous, but it's based on historical
>> fact!
>
> <snip details of RA>
>
> Yes, I know. Similarly, a lot of the laws quoted throughout the series
> (mostly by Carrot) are based on historical fact, primarily the kind
> of law you find in small towns in USA, like "A pet camel must be held
> by a leash on Sundays" or "It is not permitted to fish wearing a
> pyjama between midnight and dawn".
I had a trivia calendar that had one about looking at a moose out an
airplane window over Canada being illegal, something to that effect (makes
you wonder what the precedence was for some of these weird laws!). :)
> Laws like these are silly. Laws like the riot act (and the patriot
> act in the USA) are dangerous.
I'm probably not grasping the whole picture here, but isn't a law that
disperses people who are rioting (not peacefully protesting) or puts them in
jail if they don't disperse reasonable, not only to keep the general peace,
but particularly to keep people from hurting each other, innocent
bystanders, or the police?
I know just as little about the Patriot Act, but it does sound fairly
extremist to me. But then, I'm not impressed with anything that's been done
by or to America since Bush has been in office.
Jon
> Orjan Westin wrote:
>> gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:12:10 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
>>> <nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Who, again, in G! G!, asks the Librarian to hide the book Carrot
>>>>> has thrown at Lupine Wonse in a safe place?
>>>>
>>>> Well, there's a difference between the law and the Law. A lot of
>>>> what's written in the Laws and Ordnances of Ankh-Morpork is silly
>>>> and/or dangerous - like the riot act, for instance.
>>>
>>> Err, it may be silly and dangerous, but it's based on historical
>>> fact!
>>
>> <snip details of RA>
>> Laws like these are silly. Laws like the riot act (and the patriot
>> act in the USA) are dangerous.
>
> I'm probably not grasping the whole picture here, but isn't a law that
> disperses people who are rioting (not peacefully protesting) or puts
> them in jail if they don't disperse reasonable, not only to keep the
> general peace, but particularly to keep people from hurting each
> other, innocent bystanders, or the police?
I thought the whole point about the Riot Act, both here and in A-M, was that
once it had been read, if the crowd did not disperse, the magistrate was
then entitled to cause deadly force to be used to disperse it, the most
famous case of which was the 'Peterloo' massacre of 1819 in Manchester.
--
Remove 'notme' to reply
bewtifulfreak
Ah, well, that I can see as being too extreme in most cases, unless someone
rioting gets violent and starts attacking an officer or other member of the
public and can't be stopped in any other way. But I still think the concept
of a riot act in general seems fairly neccessary, though perhaps not in the
way it's currently written (if it is indeed still in existance).
Jon
> Jon wrote:
>> þus cwæð bewtifulfreak ;
Well, the other major objection to the Riot Act was that there was no clear
definition of what a riot was; the magistrate could declare any situation a
riot if he so wished; a picket line, a poltical meeting, some blokes hanging
about he didn't like the look of ... In the 'Peterloo' case it was an
entirely peaceful mass-meeting, mainly to hear the Radical speaker 'Orator'
Hunt. The magistrates were 'persuaded' that this constituted a riot, and the
troopers (who, very conveniently, just happened to be waiting in nearby
streets) were sent in, with comsiderable loss of life (exactly how much is
disputed).
The Riot Act no longer exists, and has been replaced by the Public Order
Act. We had a riot in Oldham not long since, and policing techniques do seem
to have advanced a bit since 1819; the coppers didn't bother with baton
charges or tear gas or any of that dramatic stuff. They just made sure the
disturbance was contained, and didn't spread into other areas; they seem to
have taken the view that if they wanted to break up their own streets, let
'em. The (mainly Asian) youths soon got bored with throwing stones at a line
of static policemen, and the whole thing wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in
Belfast, Gaza or even East LA. That didn't stop various journos posting
breathless, dramatic reports from the war-torn streets of Oldham, and
proclaiming it The End of Civilisation As We Know It ... (and it isn't it
funny that you never see that kind of coverage when the rioters are not of
obvious ethnicity?)
(follow up to afp as we are now straying well of-topic)
Graycat
<bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Harcombe wrote:
spoilers for TT
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> Er... I think (IIRC) in The Truth, Vetinari is unconscious for most of
>> the book, while people are going round saying '-ing' a lot. I don't
>> think Vimes ever *actually* arrests him, although (again, IIRC) he
>> *is* kept in the cells while Igor looks after him. ("Thometimeth the
>> body
>> juth thayth 'thleep'")
>
>I thought sure that, although, yes, Vetenari was unconscious for awhile
>after the alleged crime, he had been set up to look guilty, so he was put in
>the cell not only for medial care but being kept in holding until the crime
>was solved. But it's been awhile since I've read The Truth, so the details
>are a bit fuzzy now, that may not be the case.
I think he's put away for the purpose of being protected but on the
excuse of being held while investigations are proceeding.
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/index.html
The Oswalds, DWcasting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Jeff
> Ruedenauer <nos...@ruedenauer.net> writes
> >Jeff wrote:
> >
> >> Or, perhaps by 40 years?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> > >
> power. I agree that doesn't equal 'best' He's just good on the street.
>
creations, but methinks you're wayyy too modest about Sam Vimes'
capabilities. To me, Vimes is Dirty Harry/Kojak/Sam Spade and Andy
Sipowicz all rolled into one--with a rock-hard core of integrity that
these others lack. He wouldn't HAVE the power UNLESS he was the best
at what he did, don't you think? As I kind of elaborated in a
follow-up post, at COPPERING he's the best--or at least in the DW. If
he wasn't so good, why would all of Ankh-Morpork's denizens hold off
on committing crime when Vimes was away in "FE" because they were
fearful of what Vimes would do when he came back?
>
> >> Both are extremely confident in their own abilities.
> >>
> >Again, I'm not sure about Vimes here.
> >
> Me neither. That's why Vimes was happy in the Keel persona. *Those*
> abilities, yes, he was confident of them. But the abilities he's had to
> develop as Vetinari's envoy make him nervous. That's why he's happy
> when the problem can be reduced to coppering.
Again, maybe I wasn't clear in the original post--I meant that as a
COPPER he's very confident in his abilities--at being an titled
aristocrat and diplomat he's not as confident. Which is similar to
Granny's situation in that often when she's in any situation that
doesn't directly let her utilize her witching abilities, she's not
always as confident.
>
> >> They rebel against
> >> any authority other than their own, but aren't hesitant about partnering
> >> with the surrounding power structure if it suits their goals.
> >>
> >I Granny's case, I'd say that she wouldn't even acknowledge any other
> >authority. E.g. Verence is the king, but there's not even a question of
> >him having authority over her.
> >That's not quite the situation with Vimes and Vetinari ;-)
>
> Granny acknowledges Verence's authority over her provided he makes no
> attempt to wield it. They both understand the situation.
>
> Vimes *certainly* acknowledges Vetinari's authority, because his own is
> derived from it. He instinctively looks beyond himself.
Vimes acknowledges Vetinari's authority, but if he ultimately found
Vetinari behaving in a way that ran TOTALLY contrary to his own sense
of what the Law meant (i.e., if Vetinari started tossing innocent
people into the fabled scorpion pit for no other reason than it was
fun to watch), Vimes would very likely emulate his king-killing
ancestor. There were conversations between the two men (can't remember
which book), in which Vimes described himself as being ultimately
accountable to the Law, and not to Vetinari--of course, Vetinari
questioned Vimes' authority for interpreting the law.
> >> They both enjoy mentoring younger peers as much as they enjoy berating
> >> them, but are fiercely loyal and protective of them. While extremely
> >> self-confident in situations that allow them to fully exercise their
> >> professional abilities, they sometimes lose their confidence in
> >> situations that seem beyond their understanding.
> >>
> >That's better, though I'm still not sure about Vimes' self-confidence.
> >Could you give examples?
> >
> Hmm. I think the point is right if taken as I wrote above: faced with a
> situation he can't deal with as a diplomat, Vimes will shift gear and
> deal with it as a copper -- that is, he'll deal with in on a level where
> he *is* confident.
>
Exactly. This gets back to him being the best at what he's good
at--being a copper. Although you did seem to enhance his diplomatic
abilities in "MR."
Granny is the same way with witching--she's not always comfortable in
situations (especially social situations) where she must use different
skills (such as social interaction). And, during the first half og
"CJ," we can see how easily she can feel "powerless" if she feels that
her value is being neglected (even if it's not really true).
> --
> Terry Pratchett
Joerg Ruedenauer
> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> Vimes is unique in that he's a senior copper with a huge amount of
>> power. I agree that doesn't equal 'best' He's just good on the street.
>>
> Naturally, I must defer to your ultimate judgement on your own creations,
> but methinks you're wayyy too modest about Sam Vimes' capabilities. To me,
> Vimes is Dirty Harry/Kojak/Sam Spade and Andy Sipowicz all rolled into
> one--with a rock-hard core of integrity that these others lack. He
> wouldn't HAVE the power UNLESS he was the best at what he did, don't you
> think? As I kind of elaborated in a follow-up post, at COPPERING he's the
> best--or at least in the DW.
>
Vimes may even be the best 'on the street', as Terry calls it, but that's
still not the best at 'coppering'. E.g. he's not very good at solving
crimes, as FoC or J show. Ok, he often finds the culprit eventually, but
even then, he's too slow.
Cyclops
<Snip>
> The Riot Act no longer exists, and has been replaced by the Public Order
> Act.
So they now send the police in to break up any signs of public order?
IGMC.
--
Cyclops
Evil Heretic Infiltrator
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
>
> <snip>
>
> > Well, considering the number of times Vimes has saved Vetinari's sorry
> > butt (and the rewards Vimes has received because of it), you could argue
> > that he does, in some way, have authority over him. Vetinari needs Vimes
> > much more than Vimes needs Vetinari. Remember, Vimes believes that the
> > Watch is ultimately accountable to the Law, and not to the power
> > structure.
> >
> But Vimes still needs another authority above him, someone who defines
> what the Law is and who judges whether Vimes has acted according to the
> law. He knows that he can't do this himself. And he probably knows that
> Vetinari is quite a good choice for the one who makes the law.
> In TT, it doesn't seem like there's a possibility of Vimes being the
> new Patrician.
No he doesn't. Vetinari doesn't define what the Law is--he sets the
parameters under which Ankh-Morpork's various guilds function. While
it is true that the Watch's expansion has been mainly due to the
Vetinari's grateful patronage, it is this patronage that Vimes must
ultimately serve, not Vetinari as the ultimate "kinglike" authority.
However, patricians can come and go. As I've stated elsewhere (and
others have, too), Vimes sees himself ultimately accountable to The
Law of Ankh-Morpork--whatever that is. If Vetinari blatantly
disregarded the law in a way that put the lives of the "law-abiding
citizens" at risk, Vimes would by the first at the palace with a
crossbow--and with coppers like Carrot, Angua, Deritrus and Dorfl
backing him up, Vetinari wouldn't stand a chance.
>
> Besides, Vimes' "I am just a copper"-attitude also depends on him having a
> boss.
>
> Joerg
Vimes needs a boss only because he doesn't want the responsibility of
running Ankh-Morpork (although he probably could, if he had to). He
needs someone to do the politicking and commerce and bureaucratic
stuff for him so he can focus on keeping the streets safe. If you're
looking for an analogy, Vimes is the Director to Vetinari's Producer.
Vimes COULD do Vetinari's job, but Vetinari could never do Vimes' job
(or at least not without declaring martial law).
Jeff in Boston
Alec Cawley
<rais...@yahoo.com> writes
>Vimes needs a boss only because he doesn't want the responsibility of
>running Ankh-Morpork (although he probably could, if he had to). He
>needs someone to do the politicking and commerce and bureaucratic
>stuff for him so he can focus on keeping the streets safe. If you're
>looking for an analogy, Vimes is the Director to Vetinari's Producer.
>Vimes COULD do Vetinari's job, but Vetinari could never do Vimes' job
>(or at least not without declaring martial law).
No, I disagree. Vimes couldn't do Vetinari's job because he couldn't
handle all the variables. Vetinari's job involves balancing the
interests of a lot of groups, not annoying any of them too much. His
success is, as was but somewhere in the books, not that anyone regards
him as the best possible ruler, but most regard him as second best to
themselves.
Vimes, by contrast, positively enjoys offending people - especially the
powerful. He definitely doesn't like complexity - he gets unhappy when
he has too many Clues, but is completely happy when the duty of the
moment focusses on chasing a single miscreant.
Trivially, Vimes hates paperwork, while Vetinari makes light of it.
Vetinari could get Vimes's job done - by counjouring into existence
anothe person to fill the gap. Vetinari never works directly, he always
works through others. Of course, the replacement wouldn't be a Vimes
clone - Vetinari wouldn't have the raw material. But he could fashion a
functional watch out of any moderately competent policeman. Vimes
inherent honesty (and acquired wealth) make it easier: anyone in Vimes
position is open to temptation by money, favours, flattery or similar:
in having a Chief of Police who is effectively immune to all these,
Vetinari is very fortunate. A few persona idiosyncrasies and some
studied insults (and a little replastering) are a small price to pay.
--
@lec Šawley
Len Oil
> I had a trivia calendar that had one about looking at a moose out an
> airplane window over Canada being illegal, something to that effect
(makes
> you wonder what the precedence was for some of these weird laws!). :)
I expect (applying logic, which may or may not be relevant) that it
wasn't the problem with passive looking at moose from a plane as much as
actively flying a plane in a manner to allow passengers (or even the
pilot) to view the moose.
I can see several problems with this activity. Somewhere near to the
mild end of the graph of trouble, the moose gets worried and stampeded
because of close buzzing by the aircraft. On the other end of the scale
I imagine there have been Controlled Flight Into Ground incidents
arising from too much attention being paid to the creatures and not
enough to the trees and even ground nearby.
--
AFP Code 2.0: AC$/>M-UK d@(--) s:+>- a- UP+ R+++ F++ h- P3x= OSD+:-- ?C
M-- L pp--- I->** W+ c@ B+ Cn::::+ CC- PT+>+++ Pu* 5+>++ X-- MT++
eV+(++-) r* y+ end
Len Oil
> Vimes may even be the best 'on the street', as Terry calls it, but
that's
> still not the best at 'coppering'. E.g. he's not very good at solving
but
> even then, he's too slow.
I think he's quite good. Certainly by Discworld/Ankh-Morpock standards
(when most people just want someone punished) he's good.
Obviously he's not as good as Colombo. Columbo turns up at the crime
scene and two seconds after spotting some scuff-marks on the other side
of the room he knows who did it and (usually) how, he just needs the
rest of the episode to bluff and blunder the guilty party into providing
the clue that normal people would accept as proof... :)
Vimes may not know immediately (or even be being led down the wrong
alley by someone) but he goes through the whole process and eventually
comprehends all the /right/ things (including working out what was
obvious but wrong) to come to the correct result in the end. He's
certainly one of the best available characters to do this in the
circumstances, and one of a very limited few who care. (The others
would include Lewton and de Worde if it affects their fields of
interest. Carrot cares about justice. I'm not going to count Vetinari
because if it affects him and/or the city he probably already knows or
sends someone, e.g. Vimes, to find out for him...)
bewtifulfreak
> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I had a trivia calendar that had one about looking at a moose out an
>> airplane window over Canada being illegal, something to that effect
>> (makes you wonder what the precedence was for some of these weird
>> laws!). :)
>
> I expect (applying logic, which may or may not be relevant) that it
> wasn't the problem with passive looking at moose from a plane as much
> as actively flying a plane in a manner to allow passengers (or even
> the pilot) to view the moose.
>
> I can see several problems with this activity. Somewhere near to the
> mild end of the graph of trouble, the moose gets worried and stampeded
> because of close buzzing by the aircraft. On the other end of the
> scale I imagine there have been Controlled Flight Into Ground
> incidents arising from too much attention being paid to the creatures
> and not enough to the trees and even ground nearby.
Yes, but unless the calendar didn't accurately describe the law, it said
nothing about flying too near to a moose being illegal, or even *pilots*
looking at moose being illegal. Then again, I suppose when the law was
made, there might only have been very small passenger planes around in which
there might only be the pilot and one or two other people, in which case
your logic might very well apply, and/or maybe it would deter the pilot from
flying too near to the ground, and thus the moose, if he knew his passengers
might get arrested? :)
bewtifulfreak
> "Joerg Ruedenauer" <nos...@ruedenauer.net> wrote:
>> Vimes may even be the best 'on the street', as Terry calls it, but
>> that's still not the best at 'coppering'. E.g. he's not very good at
>> solving crimes, as <spoilers> show. Ok, he often finds the culprit
>> eventually, but even then, he's too slow.
>
> I think he's quite good. Certainly by Discworld/Ankh-Morpock
> standards (when most people just want someone punished) he's good.
>
> Obviously he's not as good as Colombo. Columbo turns up at the crime
> scene and two seconds after spotting some scuff-marks on the other
> side of the room he knows who did it and (usually) how, he just needs
> the rest of the episode to bluff and blunder the guilty party into
> providing the clue that normal people would accept as proof... :)
I think you've got a good point....maybe by fictional detective standards
he's not especially outstanding, and maybe not even the best of the best by
real life standards. But if you compare Vimes to a real life copper, I
think he's pretty darn good at what he does, considering how (in this case,
Discworld) reality often makes solving crimes much harder than it appears in
one hour detective series or even murder mysteries. I'm a big forensic/FBI
documentary (and drama) fan, and I can't tell you how many real life cases
have been solved after, say, five years dead end, because they just got
lucky and stumbled across a lead or someone came forward after all that
time. Vimes is good with clues, but unfortunately, you don't always get all
the clues you need to find the answers you want, at least not in as timely a
manner as you'd like to find them.
Terry Pratchett
<bewtif...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Yes, but unless the calendar didn't accurately describe the law, it said
>nothing about flying too near to a moose being illegal, or even *pilots*
>looking at moose being illegal. Then again, I suppose when the law was
>made, there might only have been very small passenger planes around in which
>there might only be the pilot and one or two other people, in which case
>your logic might very well apply, and/or maybe it would deter the pilot from
>flying too near to the ground, and thus the moose, if he knew his passengers
>might get arrested? :)
I've always assumed that most of these yock-yock 'laws' are because the
specifics of the crime are deliberately muddled with the generality of
the law. There are probably a lot of laws that could be invoked against
someone disembowelling a whale in the high street, which is not the same
as suggesting that there is a specific law. The same laws could be
applied to a lot of other public nuisance activities.
--
Terry Pratchett
bewtifulfreak
Hmm, that's a very good theory, although when I hear these laws, I always
hear them very specifically (e.g. "There is a law against kissing a turtle
in Ohio," - made up, that one, but things like that - or the moose one I
actually saw written). Sounds like you're suggesting that those who
describe these wacky laws are just looking up general laws and finding
outrageous examples that would fit them, do these strange laws not actually
exist?
David Harcombe
Could even be a bit of both in there, of course. There *are* well-known
examples of stupid laws made up specifically to prohibit normal things,
for example the Puritan laws passed in the UK under Oliver Cromwell
(illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas day, that sort of thing),
although most of these (I think - IANAL) were repealed en masse a number
of years ago.
Some of the others, I do agree, could simply be picking the daftest
examples for the sake of shock/humour value... not what the law was
designed for, but valid nevertheless.
bewtifulfreak
And the ones that remain on the books I imagine have just been overlooked
because they're referred to so infrequently, if ever; it's not like any of
them are actually enforced nowadays.
> Some of the others, I do agree, could simply be picking the daftest
> examples for the sake of shock/humour value... not what the law was
> designed for, but valid nevertheless.
Very possible, could indeed be a bit of both. Some people will do anything
for a bit of shock value, particularly in the entertainment/media
industries.
Graycat
<bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Len Oil wrote:
>> I think he's quite good. Certainly by Discworld/Ankh-Morpock
>> standards (when most people just want someone punished) he's good.
>>
>> Obviously he's not as good as Colombo. Columbo turns up at the crime
>> scene and two seconds after spotting some scuff-marks on the other
>> side of the room he knows who did it and (usually) how, he just needs
>> the rest of the episode to bluff and blunder the guilty party into
>> providing the clue that normal people would accept as proof... :)
>
>I think you've got a good point....maybe by fictional detective standards
>he's not especially outstanding, and maybe not even the best of the best by
>real life standards. But if you compare Vimes to a real life copper, I
>think he's pretty darn good at what he does, considering how (in this case,
>Discworld) reality often makes solving crimes much harder than it appears in
>one hour detective series or even murder mysteries. I'm a big forensic/FBI
>documentary (and drama) fan, and I can't tell you how many real life cases
>have been solved after, say, five years dead end, because they just got
>lucky and stumbled across a lead or someone came forward after all that
>time. Vimes is good with clues, but unfortunately, you don't always get all
>the clues you need to find the answers you want, at least not in as timely a
>manner as you'd like to find them.
Well, if we look at the crimes that Vimes has had to solve, on page so
to speak, few, if any, are as smple as the murders on general murder
mystery shows. In those the criminal is usually close to the victim
and does it for revenge, money or to cover something up - motives that
are traceable and that you can figure out. If this isn't the case it's
a serial killer who's leaving Cunning Clues.
Vimes has had to deal with (spoliers coming up, for all guard books)
mupp
squip
yeehaw
blip
1. A dragon, a creature which is very easy to spot when it's there,
the problem is it wasn't there all the time. The motive was also a big
plot to remove the patrician and as such had no direct link to the
poor buggers that got killed.
2. A crminal which actually turns out be the weapon, so the people
change. The killing is also fairly random.
3. An insane golem, and, again, a plot.
4. A war.
5. Oh and look at that, it's another plot.
So all the major crimes are really politics, and politics easily get
much more complcated than the normal tv-show murders.
bewtifulfreak
Again, a very good point....I think given the crimes he has to deal with,
Vimes manages admirably well (and here's him thinking he's no good at
politics). ;)
Hermit
Alec Cawley
<David.H...@bigfoot.com> writes
>Could even be a bit of both in there, of course. There *are* well-known
>examples of stupid laws made up specifically to prohibit normal things,
>for example the Puritan laws passed in the UK under Oliver Cromwell
>(illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas day, that sort of thing),
>although most of these (I think - IANAL) were repealed en masse a
>number of years ago.
Not en masse - my uncle served on the committee leafing gently through
the statute book finding laws to repeal. The only one he mentioned was
the one which made it illegal to fell a yew tree in a churchyard.
(Valuable war resource - longbows).
--
@lec Šawley
Brian Wakeling
Terry Pratchett uttered thus:
*Sigh* Another whale carcass outside Woolworths. What a
nuisance!
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
"Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow."
David Cameron Staples
<bewtif...@hotmail.com> in hoc locus scripsit:
> Graycat wrote:
>> So all the major crimes are really politics, and politics easily get
>> much more complcated than the normal tv-show murders.
>
> Again, a very good point....I think given the crimes he has to deal with,
> Vimes manages admirably well (and here's him thinking he's no good at
> politics). ;)
But he *isn't* any good at politics. That is also his strength.
Because he knows how bad he is at playing those silly little games, he
does what he is best at, which is the opposite. He asks pointed (and
sometimes rude) questions at embarrassing moments. He points out
disturbing things which it would be politic to ignore. He makes people
uncomfortable.
He is basically an anti-politician, and when he and politics meet, in
normal circumstances, the result is a flash of gamma-rays and a great deal
of discomforture and confusion, which *he* knows is coming, just like a
match-light in the darkness...
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
God is a girl, and her name is Eris.
Lesley Weston
tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk wrote on 21/04/2004 2:13 AM:
<snip weird laws>
> I've always assumed that most of these yock-yock 'laws' are because the
> specifics of the crime are deliberately muddled with the generality of
> the law. There are probably a lot of laws that could be invoked against
> someone disembowelling a whale in the high street, which is not the same
> as suggesting that there is a specific law. The same laws could be
> applied to a lot of other public nuisance activities.
There is another Canadian law that sounds daft - it's illegal in Winnipeg
to wash the sidewalk outside your house (or outside anywhere else,
presumably) during the Winter months. But if you've ever been to Winnipeg in
Winter, it's not daft at all; it would be a serious hazard in a place where
people flood their back yards at the beginning of Winter so that the kids
can play hockey until the Spring thaw. I mean ice-hockey, of course, though
that is a tender subject now that the Canucks are out of the playoffs.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't
actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley
att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
bewtifulfreak
> In Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:54:26 +0100, "bewtifulfreak"
> <bewtif...@hotmail.com> in hoc locus scripsit:
>> Graycat wrote:
>>> So all the major crimes are really politics, and politics easily get
>>> much more complcated than the normal tv-show murders.
>>
>> Again, a very good point....I think given the crimes he has to deal
>> with, Vimes manages admirably well (and here's him thinking he's no
>> good at politics). ;)
>
> But he *isn't* any good at politics.
Oh, I know, I was just being silly cuz Graycat said the crimes he solves
tend to have to do with politics, and he generally manages to solve them
anyway. But I realize he's dealing with the crime aspect and not the
political aspect, I was just being facetious. :)
I think sometimes Vimes anti-politics do work out for the best, though!
Keith Edgerley
"Cyclops" <mar...@cyclops.force9.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:pan.2004.04.20....@cyclops.force9.co.uk...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:49:31 +0100, Jon wrote:
>
> <Snip>
> > The Riot Act no longer exists, and has been replaced by the Public Order
> > Act.
> So they now send the police in to break up any signs of public order?
>
Of course.
Seriously, though, the fact that the Riot Act was replaced under the most
authoritarian government the UK had had for centuries might make you think
that it wasn't so bad. After all, it did involve giving a warning before any
action was taken. And, *pace* certain other posters, Perterloo was very
much an exception, in fact, THE exception, its severity due in part to the
"forces of reaction" (Tory backwoodsmen, no doubt) and in part to the
nervousness of the troops (Hussars, IIRC) .
Keith Edgerley
Mike Stevens
"bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c683h2$8puni$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de...
> David Cameron Staples wrote:
> > In Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:54:26 +0100, "bewtifulfreak"
> > <bewtif...@hotmail.com> in hoc locus scripsit:
> >> Graycat wrote:
> >>> So all the major crimes are really politics, and politics easily
get
> >>
> >> Again, a very good point....I think given the crimes he has to deal
> >> with, Vimes manages admirably well (and here's him thinking he's no
> >> good at politics). ;)
> >
> > But he *isn't* any good at politics.
>
> Oh, I know, I was just being silly cuz Graycat said the crimes he
solves
> tend to have to do with politics, and he generally manages to solve
them
> anyway. But I realize he's dealing with the crime aspect and not the
> political aspect, I was just being facetious. :)
>
> I think sometimes Vimes anti-politics do work out for the best,
though!
If you think of "politics" as meaning party politics in a representative
democracy (which is what most people use the word for most of the time),
together with the strange little games that go with it, then certainly
Vimes doesn't take part in it. But it's hardly relevant to
Ankh-Morpork.
If you think of politics of "what it takes to run a community well",
then Vimes is a great master of it - IMO as good as Vetinari, albeit a
different (although overlapping) area of activity.
If you think of politics as "business appertaining to the city", which
is what it originally meant, then Vimes' depth of street-smartness makes
him a consummate politician.
Incidentally, "politics" and "police" both derive from the Greek
"polis", meaning "city". So perhaps every policeman is a politician.
Hm. I'd find the opposite way round rather difficult to swallow.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk
Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away.
bewtifulfreak
One definition under "politics" in Merriam-Webster is "The total complex of
relations between people living in society," and I think that's more what I
was referring to. Vimes doesn't play the game, per se, but his
straight-forward way of dealing with people, whether in his community or in
other cultural situations, does often swing things his way when all is said
and done.
Mike Stevens
> One definition under "politics" in Merriam-Webster is "The total
complex of
> relations between people living in society," and I think that's more
what I
> was referring to. Vimes doesn't play the game, per se,
Like many real-life politicians (with the exception of far too many who
manage to get elected),Vimes doesn't "play the game", because he doesn't
see it as a *game*, but as an integral part of his reality. He does
most emphatically participate in "the total complex of relations between
people living in society", and to good effect.
That,to me, makes him a very successful politician.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
"I'm not an old fart, and I'm not an old bore,
Or a grumpy old b*gg*r like Evelyn Waugh"
(Christopher Matthew)
bewtifulfreak
> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c68m1u$8hq1g$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> One definition under "politics" in Merriam-Webster is "The total
>> complex of relations between people living in society," and I think
>> that's more what I was referring to. Vimes doesn't play the game,
>> per se,
>
> Like many real-life politicians (with the exception of far too many
> who manage to get elected),Vimes doesn't "play the game", because he
> doesn't see it as a *game*, but as an integral part of his reality.
> He does most emphatically participate in "the total complex of
> relations between people living in society", and to good effect.
>
> That,to me, makes him a very successful politician.
I agree. But I'm thinking in terms of someone like, say, Vetenari, who sees
politics and the running of society as an integral part of his reality, too,
and keeps things running fairly smoothly in fact, but to whom it is a sort
of game, albeit one he takes very seriously; he knows when to bluff, to hold
back his hand, which moves to make, what the rules are and when to break
them, etc. If Vimes *is* a politician, he's a very different sort.
Alec Cawley
<bewtif...@hotmail.com> writes
I don't see Vimes playing the big game. He solves the problem at hand.
But I don't think he can handle the year-in, year-out balancing act that
politics requires. The keeping of on-side of scored of self-important
and sometimes quite powerful guilds - plus UU, diplomacy with Klatch
etc., responding to the Agatean Empire... Vimes is a blunt instrument:
he sloves the problem at hand, offending people on the way if that is
what it takes. Since he is *not* a politician, Vetinari can shrug and
deny blame for his offence (even when it is exactly what he intended).
If Vimes were a real politican, he would have to answer for the offence
given. As it is, he is allowed to get away with it because he is a
"mere" watchman (even if a titled one).
--
@lec Šawley
Evil Bastard
news:BCAC5FA7.2408D%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk:
> in article ckKypiOy...@unseen.demon.co.uk, Terry Pratchett at
> tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk wrote on 21/04/2004 2:13 AM:
>
>
> <snip weird laws>
>
>> I've always assumed that most of these yock-yock 'laws' are because
>> the specifics of the crime are deliberately muddled with the
>> generality of the law. There are probably a lot of laws that could
>> be invoked against someone disembowelling a whale in the high street,
>> which is not the same as suggesting that there is a specific law.
>> The same laws could be applied to a lot of other public nuisance
>> activities.
>
> There is another Canadian law that sounds daft - it's illegal in
> Winnipeg
> to wash the sidewalk outside your house (or outside anywhere else,
> presumably) during the Winter months. But if you've ever been to
> Winnipeg in Winter, it's not daft at all; it would be a serious hazard
> in a place where people flood their back yards at the beginning of
> Winter so that the kids can play hockey until the Spring thaw. I mean
> ice-hockey, of course, though that is a tender subject now that the
> Canucks are out of the playoffs.
>
Of course there are those laws that are simply outdated. Here in Ottawa,
Canada it is illegal to drive cattle up Rideau St. (a main drag here) on
Sundays. Of course there is the current law in the suburb of Kanata where
you can be charged with the crime of having a purple garage door.
T.E.B.
bewtifulfreak
Probably, like the sidewalk law above, many of these laws that sound so
utterly daft had very good reasons for being made initially that might not
be immediately obvious, or, as mentioned, reasons that were once relevant
but are now no longer, so their reasons for being made are not readily
apparent. I really can't fathom the sense is in outlawing purple garage
doors, though, unless it's for the general purpose of not pissing off your
more conservative neighbors. ;)
bewtifulfreak
> Probably, like the sidewalk law above, many of these laws that sound
> so utterly daft had very good reasons for being made initially that
> might not be immediately obvious, or, as mentioned, reasons that were
> once relevant but are now no longer, so their reasons for being made
> are not readily apparent.
I deeply apologize for the above sentence: it is an abomination in the sight
of man, God, and English teachers everywhere. :p
David Jensen
<Q3sdbRJi...@cawley.demon.co.uk>:
I think he handles it just fine by not thinking that he's handling it.
With any particular problem, Vimes has shown that he is as adept at
moving people around for his convenience, but he doesn't admit it to
himself -- he's just being a good copper. As Patrician, he would have to
accept the idea that he really is a politician, a concept that offends
every bone in his body despite the fact that he has repeatedly
demonstrated that he is a fine politician.
John
snip
> >
> > Of course there are those laws that are simply outdated. Here in
> > Ottawa, Canada it is illegal to drive cattle up Rideau St. (a main
> > drag here) on Sundays. Of course there is the current law in the
> > suburb of Kanata where you can be charged with the crime of having a
> > purple garage door.
>
> Probably, like the sidewalk law above, many of these laws that sound so
> utterly daft had very good reasons for being made initially that might not
> be immediately obvious, or, as mentioned, reasons that were once relevant
> but are now no longer, so their reasons for being made are not readily
> apparent. I really can't fathom the sense is in outlawing purple garage
> doors, though, unless it's for the general purpose of not pissing off your
> more conservative neighbors. ;)
>
A law like that does make me think of a city councillor with a gripe against
a neighbour.
Peter Ellis
>
>Probably, like the sidewalk law above, many of these laws that sound so
>utterly daft had very good reasons for being made initially that might not
>be immediately obvious, or, as mentioned, reasons that were once relevant
>but are now no longer, so their reasons for being made are not readily
>apparent. I really can't fathom the sense is in outlawing purple garage
>doors, though, unless it's for the general purpose of not pissing off your
>more conservative neighbors. ;)
I suspect what happened there (and this applies to the more general
case) is that there was a more general law governing external
appearance of houses, and the purple door thing was a single case that
got picked up by the press and widely publicised.
Heck, it doesn't even need to have been a *successful* case - some
uppity neighbour tries to sue someone for having a purple garage door
under general legislation about "no offensive material may be displayed
on the exterior walls of a property" - next thing you know, half the
papers in the country are saying "Oooh look at the loonies who have a
law against purple garage doors".
Peter
Terry Pratchett
<al...@spamspam.co.uk> writes
>I don't see Vimes playing the big game. He solves the problem at hand.
>But I don't think he can handle the year-in, year-out balancing act
>that politics requires. The keeping of on-side of scored of
>self-important and sometimes quite powerful guilds - plus UU, diplomacy
>with Klatch etc., responding to the Agatean Empire... Vimes is a blunt
>instrument: he sloves the problem at hand, offending people on the way
>if that is what it takes. Since he is *not* a politician, Vetinari can
>shrug and deny blame for his offence (even when it is exactly what he
>intended). If Vimes were a real politican, he would have to answer for
>the offence given. As it is, he is allowed to get away with it because
>he is a "mere" watchman (even if a titled one).
>
Exactly. A good summary. That is why Vimes as Patrician would not
work. He gets away with it in the current political circus because
Vetinari finds him very useful and can shake his head and say 'Did he
really say that, your excellency? I do apologise. I shall speak very
strongly to him'.
--
Terry Pratchett
bewtifulfreak
Which begs an interesting point....while Vimes himself doesn't participate
in the game, he's definitely one of the pieces Vetenari uses to play. I
wouldn't call him a pawn, though, as he's a much more powerful and important
piece than that....
Jonathan Ellis
Well, he *is* technically a knight...
Jonathan.
Graycat
<jona...@franz-liszt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c6b8l1$a0op3$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Which begs an interesting point....while Vimes himself doesn't
>participate
>> in the game, he's definitely one of the pieces Vetenari uses to
>play. I
>> wouldn't call him a pawn, though, as he's a much more powerful and
>important
>> piece than that...
>
>Well, he *is* technically a knight...
So really he should be moving two steps forward and skip diagonally
ahead? Well, not that far off I guess...
David Harcombe
Whilst I hesitate to seem to disagree with you in *every* post I make...
and there's nothing personal, honest...
... I don't see how one can say that Vimes doesn't participate. I think
he knows /precisely/ what he is doing, and how it will upset people,
simply by instinct. Vimes plays the game actively, by aggressively
seeming to *not* play the game.
* Very minor NW spoilers ahoy*
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
He gets away with it (as so ably pointed out earlier by Alec) simply
because he's not /officially/ a politician. Havelock relies on this. I
don't think you could have Vimes without him... which I think Pterry
pointed out in NW[1]. I think Sam himself knows that without Vetinari,
the watch wouldn't work.
David
[1] Around the middle (p193-ish in the Doubleday HB) where Madam tries
to bribe Sam into staying and he decides that under Snapcase the best he
could do was be another gang.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 23/04/04 15:25 GMT Daylight Time
>"bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c6b8l1$a0op3$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Which begs an interesting point....while Vimes himself doesn't
>>participate in the game, he's definitely one of the pieces Vetenari uses to
>>play. I wouldn't call him a pawn, though, as he's a much more >>powerful
and
>>important piece than that...
>
>Well, he *is* technically a knight...
Meaning he moves at oblique angles to everyone else, and can jump over anything
in his way? You could be on to something...
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Four-and-twenty Lib Dems came down from Inverness,
And when the vote was counted there were four-and-twenty less.
-Rory Bremner, 7/3/04
bewtifulfreak
Okay, let's just say he doesn't play *their* game, or if he does, he plays
it by his own rules. I don't think he could play the politics game the way
Vetenari does, nor would he want to, and I think that's the distinction I'm
trying to make.
bewtifulfreak
LOL, you're absolutely right, well pointed-out! :)`
grahamafforda...@hotmail.com
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:34:06 +0100, Terry Pratchett
<tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> A good summary. That is why Vimes as Patrician would not work.
Oh well, that blows away a theory I've had for a while that Vetinari
was grooming Vimes as a potential successor, although it was formed
before we found that they were more or less the same age.
Cheers,
Graham.
grahamafforda...@hotmail.com
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:47:44 +0100, "bewtifulfreak"
<bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>I'm probably not grasping the whole picture here, but isn't a law that
>disperses people who are rioting (not peacefully protesting) or puts them in
>jail if they don't disperse reasonable, not only to keep the general peace,
>but particularly to keep people from hurting each other, innocent
>bystanders, or the police?
The point was not that there was simply a "Riot Act", but that, in
order for it to take effect it had to be read *out loud* by a
magistrate to inform the rioters *whilst* they were rioting!
Now imagine that you're that magistrate and you're *not* the size of
Detritus...!
Cheers,
Graham.
Brian Wakeling
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS uttered thus:
If anything, up until NW, I'd always imagined Vimes slightly
older then etinari, anyway. Maybe by as much as a decade.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
Someone pass me that shovel
Brian Wakeling
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS uttered thus:
If anything, up until NW, I'd always thought of Vimes as older
than Vetinari - by as much as a decade, even
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
\\\\
\\\\\\_o
\\\\\\\'/
Damien R. Sullivan
>>(illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas day, that sort of thing),
>>although most of these (I think - IANAL) were repealed en masse a
>>number of years ago.
>
>Not en masse - my uncle served on the committee leafing gently through
>the statute book finding laws to repeal. The only one he mentioned was
Be a lot simpler if all laws expired after 20 years. Sunset clauses all
around. Term limits for laws, not just lawmakers.
-xx- Damien X-)
Richard Bos
Yeah, a lot simpler to have to re-write the whole lawbook, including all
those silly laws on things like burglary, drunk driving, and how to get
married. There must be dozens of silly laws in any jurisdiction, and
hundreds if not thousands of useful ones.
Richard
Duke of URL
news:c6c8eq$ap548$1...@ID-188625.news.uni-berlin.de...
> In a speech called 40894cd8...@News.Individual.NET,
> gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS uttered thus:
> > <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> A good summary. That is why Vimes as Patrician would not
> >> work.
> >
> > Oh well, that blows away a theory I've had for a while that
> > Vetinari was grooming Vimes as a potential successor,
> > although it was formed before we found that they were more
> > or less the same age.
>
> If anything, up until NW, I'd always thought of Vimes as older
> than Vetinari - by as much as a decade, even
I have a strong feeling that Patrician Vetinari has some vampyr blood in
him... Er, to phrase that better, there was a vampyr in his family some
generations back.
Can't justify it with any quotes, but he just gives me that feeling.
And, as such, he would age veerry slooowly.
--
The One-and-only Holy Moses(TM)
cMAD
... namely, a pawn that made it all the way across the chess board.
cMAD
Terry Pratchett
<bewtif...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>.
>
>Which begs an interesting point....while Vimes himself doesn't participate
>in the game, he's definitely one of the pieces Vetenari uses to play. I
>wouldn't call him a pawn, though, as he's a much more powerful and important
>piece than that....
>
To quote Moist von Lipwig, in the upcoming Going Postal:
"it's bad enough that he treats you as a puppet, but then he makes you
pull your own strings."
--
Terry Pratchett
Mike Stevens
news:408A434E...@freenet.de...
I think that one of the essential tools of political activity is being
aware of what role others are putting you in, and taking what advantage
you can of it for your own purposes. I think that Vimes and Vetinari,
two expert operators, are probably both very aware of each other's
strategies and each is using the other for their own (not entirely
dissimilar) ends. And each is aware of just how much the other is using
them, and uses that awareness, and their awareness of the other's
awareness ............
And to some extent, that may well involve each of them deliberately
"playing to type".
To cite an example from my own experience. I used to work for a Trade
Union, and in one particular local negotiation, my opposite number (and
good friend) from another Union was uncharacteristically belligerent
towards the management. As we left the meeting.I said to him "You were
rattling the old sabre a bit today, Tim", and he replied "I knew I could
afford to because you'd do all the necessary moderate constructive
bits".
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Me cogitare credo, ergo me esse credo. (Rainy Day Carts)
Alec Cawley
<dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> writes
Horrendous thought. The rule of the road expires and has to be repassed
every 20 years? Either you pass the same thing on the nod, which makes
the whole thing a waste of time, or no-one knows where they are because
the law keeps changing. Law against murder expires and some cockup
causes it to be forgotten.
--
@lec Šawley
Joe
<al...@spamspam.co.uk> writes
enacted to keep the number of pages in the statute books constant.
How about... now here's a really radical one... how about limiting the
amount of law to that which a single human being (OK, I'll allow a
lawyer here, though it would be fairer not to) can remember? And can
score at least 90% accuracy in regular random testing.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, of course, but it
would be interesting to know what percentage of an 'advanced' country's
population know to within, say, 10%, just *how many* laws apply to them,
let alone are able to quote the essential parts of all of them.
Perhaps life would be simpler if we also had just one man (or woman, for
that matter) responsible for drawing up all law in our country, rather
than the tens of thousands who currently have to justify their existence
by adding to the pile.
--
Joe
Alec Cawley
writes
>In message <ZY5vAoY2PqiAFwp$@cawley.demon.co.uk>, Alec Cawley
><al...@spamspam.co.uk> writes
>>In message <c6chtc$70h$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>, Damien R. Sullivan
>><dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> writes
>>>
>>>around. Term limits for laws, not just lawmakers.
>>
>>Horrendous thought. The rule of the road expires and has to be
>>repassed every 20 years? Either you pass the same thing on the nod,
>>which makes the whole thing a waste of time, or no-one knows where
>>they are because the law keeps changing. Law against murder expires
>>and some cockup causes it to be forgotten.
>>
>How about constant volume? Old laws to be scrapped when new ones are
>enacted to keep the number of pages in the statute books constant.
Much more plausible. Though I would allow a limited growth; the world is
becoming a more complicated place every year. Not long ago, we didn't
need laws to regulate GM foods, human cloning or spam; now we do. When
the law covered only the tribe, it could fit in the chief's head. Life
isn't so simple now.
>How about... now here's a really radical one... how about limiting the
>amount of law to that which a single human being (OK, I'll allow a
>lawyer here, though it would be fairer not to) can remember? And can
>score at least 90% accuracy in regular random testing.
But "the world" doesn't fit into any one individuals head. And hasn't
since the renaissance. You expect one lawyer to understand radiological
safety, copyright on Internet downloads, weight checks for long-haul
trucks, liability for medical errors in pregnancy, misuse of radio
spectrum, admissibility of children's evidence in sexual abuse cases,
sales of weapons to dodgy regimes, the building of breakwaters, motor
vehicle lighting, guns (argh), disclosure of credit card interest rates,
marking of unsafe toys, "acts of worship" in schools, acceptable smoke
levels in pubs, prison recreation, pension provisions for the armed
forces, interchange regulations for air cargo, vivisection, acceptable
heights of hedges, depreciation of offshore structures, the formal
definition of rape, bank holidays and clock changes, tax provisions for
writers residuals, sovereignty over the Channel Tunnel, voting rights of
the mentally ill, acceptable antibiotics in salmon farming, allowable
odds in casinos, grades of stainless steel, relation of birthplace to
nationality, telephone tapping, ...
>Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, of course, but it
>would be interesting to know what percentage of an 'advanced' country's
>population know to within, say, 10%, just *how many* laws apply to
>them, let alone are able to quote the essential parts of all of them.
But many of the laws which apply to me I will never contact. If I
proposed to set up a human cloning agency, I would have to read a whole
lot more law. Those laws still apply to me - but my ignorance is
nonetheless secure.
>Perhaps life would be simpler if we also had just one man (or woman,
>for that matter) responsible for drawing up all law in our country,
>rather than the tens of thousands who currently have to justify their
>existence by adding to the pile.
But you would either stop a lot of useful activity, or allow a lot of
dangerous abuses. Con men are *clever*. As fast as you make laws, they
will exploit them.
I agree that there should be some pressure to minimise law - to compress
it, to repeal old laws. But unless you are to return to a static world
(which never existed), the world will get more complex and the law will
get larger.
--
@lec Šawley
Stacie Hanes
<snip>
>
> Perhaps life would be simpler if we also had just one man (or
> woman, for that matter) responsible for drawing up all law in our
> country
Nice system, if the man or woman doing it thinks like you. What if the man
was G.W. Bush, or <insert your least favorite politician here> making the
laws for everyone?
Unless you'd like to add a system of checks and balances, you're describing
a dictatorship.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
"swordswomen of the afpocalypse" copyright Jon of afp, 2004.
Richard Bos
> In message <ZY5vAoY2PqiAFwp$@cawley.demon.co.uk>, Alec Cawley
> <al...@spamspam.co.uk> writes
> >Horrendous thought. The rule of the road expires and has to be repassed
> >every 20 years? Either you pass the same thing on the nod, which makes
> >the whole thing a waste of time, or no-one knows where they are because
> >the law keeps changing. Law against murder expires and some cockup
> >causes it to be forgotten.
> >
> How about constant volume? Old laws to be scrapped when new ones are
> enacted to keep the number of pages in the statute books constant.
Not a good idea; society is constantly growing more complex.
> How about... now here's a really radical one... how about limiting the
> amount of law to that which a single human being (OK, I'll allow a
> lawyer here, though it would be fairer not to) can remember? And can
> score at least 90% accuracy in regular random testing.
And why should I be expected to know all the laws pertaining to the
running of a small business? Why should someone who doesn't drive know
the parts of the road laws which hold only for buses?
> Perhaps life would be simpler if we also had just one man (or woman, for
> that matter) responsible for drawing up all law in our country, rather
> than the tens of thousands who currently have to justify their existence
> by adding to the pile.
I'll wager it would be much, much more complicated, because 90% of the
laws would be made by a man who doesn't have the faintest idea of the
area of human endeavour that law is supposed to govern. Specialisation
can be good.
Dragging this back on-topic, why do you think Vetinari's idea of making
the Guilds govern their own business instead of doing it all himself
works so well? The bakers' guild knows about baking. The candlemakers'
guild does not.
Richard
Stephen Tempest
(gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS) writes:
[no spoilers for anything here]
>The point was not that there was simply a "Riot Act", but that, in
>order for it to take effect it had to be read *out loud* by a
>magistrate to inform the rioters *whilst* they were rioting!
>
>Now imagine that you're that magistrate and you're *not* the size of
>Detritus...!
Well, my mental picture is of a chap in a powdered wig standing on an
upturned barrel reading the act... and surrounded by a dozen
closely-packed redcoats with fixed bayonets, staring menacingly at the
crowd. I think he'd be pretty safe.
From a human rights perspective, the Riot Act is a great advance on
the contemporary alternative, which was for a panicky young lieutenant
of Yeomanry to make his own decision when the crowd had become a riot,
and to order his men to charge. At least reading the Riot Act gave
the crowd fair warning to disperse.
Oh yes, for the record:
"Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons being
assembled immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart
to their habitations or to their lawful business, upon the pains
contained in the act made in the first year of King George for
preventing tumultuous and riotous assemblies. God save the King."
Perhaps it should be posted whenever somebody looks like starting a
flame war? :)
Stephen
Joe
<r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> writes
>Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:
>
>
>> How about... now here's a really radical one... how about limiting the
>> amount of law to that which a single human being (OK, I'll allow a
>> lawyer here, though it would be fairer not to) can remember? And can
>> score at least 90% accuracy in regular random testing.
>
>And why should I be expected to know all the laws pertaining to the
>running of a small business? Why should someone who doesn't drive know
>the parts of the road laws which hold only for buses?
You were not alone in not quoting my ' what percentage of an 'advanced'
country's population know to within, say, 10%, just *how many* laws
apply to them'.
That was exactly my point. It's probably easy enough to find out how
many statutes exist. What I asked was: 'how many apply to *you*?' and
why don't you know the answer?
>
>> Perhaps life would be simpler if we also had just one man (or woman, for
>> that matter) responsible for drawing up all law in our country, rather
>> than the tens of thousands who currently have to justify their existence
>> by adding to the pile.
>
>I'll wager it would be much, much more complicated, because 90% of the
>laws would be made by a man who doesn't have the faintest idea of the
>area of human endeavour that law is supposed to govern. Specialisation
>can be good.
The law is supposed to be the servant of the people. For what other
reason might it exist? If the purpose of a law cannot be understood by
the man in the street, what's the point of it? Whose interest does it
serve? Perhaps the man in the street cannot frame the law to achieve the
purpose, but that's a job for mere technicians. It's the purpose that
matters, and if it can be stated clearly, in everyday English, any
competent lawyer can draw up the law in conjunction with an expert in
the particular field.
>
>Dragging this back on-topic, why do you think Vetinari's idea of making
>the Guilds govern their own business instead of doing it all himself
>works so well? The bakers' guild knows about baking. The candlemakers'
>guild does not.
>
Again you seem to be making my point. Why do *we* have *lawyers* making
laws for our bakers and candlemakers? Not merely the phrasing, but the
purposes. And don't say 'it's because they're good at making laws'
because they are clearly not. Vetinari employs the real experts to do
the phrasing, and sets out the purposes himself. OK, 'letter' and
'spirit' if you want the usual terminology.
--
Joe
Joe
Stacie Hanes <house_d...@yahoo.com> writes
>Joe wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Perhaps life would be simpler if we also had just one man (or
>> woman, for that matter) responsible for drawing up all law in our
>> country
>
>Nice system, if the man or woman doing it thinks like you. What if the man
>was G.W. Bush, or <insert your least favorite politician here> making the
>laws for everyone?
>
>Unless you'd like to add a system of checks and balances, you're describing
>a dictatorship.
>
single person can enforce anything. It's when hundreds of thousands of
people have a vested interest in enforcing *any* law, as long as doing
so gives them privileges, that bad laws become hard to ignore. Nobody in
authority in my country has any incentive to make good law.
If my one person wanted to be obeyed, the best (only!) strategy would be
to pass laws which were actually supported by a vast majority of the
population. That way we wouldn't get the bent banana laws that we do at
the moment.
I believe it's agreed that Vetinari keeps his job precisely because the
laws he hands down actually work. If he began churning out masses of
unenforceable, self-serving gibberish, he wouldn't last another day. For
all his undoubted authority when people consider him the best man for
the job, the day they stop believing that is the day he's one Assassin
against an entire city-state. Guess who wins?
Our Parliamentary system was originally set up so that nominees of the
population, separate from the Government, simply refused to authorise
Government action which they could not be persuaded was in the interests
of their voters. Today, the party system ensures that whoever has a
majority of these nominees is not subject to checks and balances. It is
the party which effectively owns the lucrative and extremely desirable
position of MP, and grants it to applicants in return for unconditional
support.
--
Joe
bewtifulfreak
> Our Parliamentary system was originally set up so that nominees of the
> population, separate from the Government, simply refused to authorise
> Government action which they could not be persuaded was in the
> interests
> of their voters. Today, the party system ensures that whoever has a
> majority of these nominees is not subject to checks and balances. It
> is
> the party which effectively owns the lucrative and extremely desirable
> position of MP, and grants it to applicants in return for
> unconditional support.
I have the same concern as Stacie when it comes to one person setting down
all the laws, although I do see your point that it would be in their
interest to represent the will of the people or face a revolt. But the
problem is, dictators often surround themselves with powerful troops and
other allies who are rewarded for their support, in order to allow their
singular will to stand up to the disent of the population at large.
However, I do agree with you wholeheartedly that the original concept of
government was by the people, for the people, whereas nowadays it does seem
to be by and for a much more exclusive set of people, and a vote doesn't
seem to mean nearly as much as it used to.
Mike Stevens
> I agree that there should be some pressure to minimise law - to
> compress it, to repeal old laws. But unless you are to return to a
> static world (which never existed), the world will get more complex
> and the law will get larger.
Mechanisms do exist to do just that. From time to time Parliament
passes a "<Foo bar> (Consolidation) Act" which replaces a whoel series
of other related Acts, some of which repeal or modify bits, but not the
whole, of earlier ones, by a single Act setting out the end result in as
clear a way as legal precision allows. One that I used to know a bit
about for my then job was the Employment Protection (Consolidation)
Act,1978.
Preparing these is , I believe, part of the function of the Law
Commission.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Old mathematicians never die. They simply count for less.
Mike Stevens
> That was exactly my point. It's probably easy enough to find out how
> many statutes exist.
But statute law is only part of the law, and Common Law is often much
herder to define, as it's enshrined in many thousands (millions?) of
judgements of the courts of centuries. And Common Law covers some of
the most important things. For example, I don't think there's actually
a statute making murder illegal, just the Common Law.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class.
grahamafforda...@hotmail.com
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:09:13 +0100, Stephen Tempest
<ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[no spoilers for anything here]
>>The point was not that there was simply a "Riot Act", but that, in
>>order for it to take effect it had to be read *out loud* by a
>>magistrate to inform the rioters *whilst* they were rioting!
>>Now imagine that you're that magistrate and you're *not* the size of
>>Detritus...!
>
>Well, my mental picture is of a chap in a powdered wig standing on an
>upturned barrel reading the act... and surrounded by a dozen
>closely-packed redcoats with fixed bayonets, staring menacingly at the
>crowd. I think he'd be pretty safe.
As a fusilade of bottles, rocks and anything else the rioters at the
back can get their hands on comes flying his way...?
Cheers,
Graham.
Brian Wakeling
Stephen Tempest uttered thus:
"Our Beloved Author chargeth and commandeth all persons being
Trolls to shut up, and quietly disappear back into the ether,
upon the pains contained in the act made in the fifty-second
year of Queen Elisabeth II, for preventing tumultuous and
riotous instances of *PLONK*. Gods Save Terry!"
Something like that, you mean?
<g>
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
"Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons."
- Woody Allen
Duke of URL
Picking a Nit: Since only Brits recognize Lizzy as any sort of authority,
that wouldn't work. It should be "in the xxth year of Patrician Veternari".
André Coutanche
>
> Picking a Nit: Since only Brits recognize Lizzy as any sort of
> authority, that wouldn't work. It should be "in the xxth year of
> Patrician Veternari".
*****
And picking an even smaller (and OT) nit: said Lizzy *is* recognised as an
'authority' by many more people than Brits - like in all the countries of
which she is head of state (Canananada, Oz, NZ ... Grenada[1] etc.), and
she has some standing as 'Head of the Commonwealth' in many others which are
republics.
But you're right that a Discworld Riot Act should invoke a Discworld
authority.
André Coutanche
[1] There was another American who once had trouble with this one, as I
recall.
Ed Weatherup
> In message <6xCic.8034$eZ5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
[snip round-world stuff]
> I believe it's agreed that Vetinari keeps his job precisely because
> the laws he hands down actually work. If he began churning out masses
> of unenforceable, self-serving gibberish, he wouldn't last another
> day. For all his undoubted authority when people consider him the
> best man for the job, the day they stop believing that is the day
> he's one Assassin against an entire city-state. Guess who wins?
>
There's a tiny spoiler-ette for NW below ...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
All true but it hinges on Ventinari's character -- he isn't a self serving
sort of person, in the way that Snapcase was (see NW) and that many (all?)
RW politicians are, so he is unlikely to hand down self-serving gibberish.
Unfortunately such people are very rare, or non existant, on RW and if they
are they don't become politicians which is why the system wouldn't transfer
to DW to RW.
[snipped RW again]
--
Ed.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 26/04/04 00:55 GMT Daylight Time
>Picking a Nit: Since only Brits recognize Lizzy as any sort of authority,
There's a number of Commonwealthians on the group who might disagree with you.
Or might not, of course...
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Four-and-twenty Lib Dems came down from Inverness,
And when the vote was counted there were four-and-twenty less.
-Rory Bremner, 7/3/04
Jeff
> In a speech called 40894cd8...@News.Individual.NET,
> gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS uttered thus:
> > Hi there.
>
Curious. I had always thought Vetinari as being at least a decade
older than Vimes...kind of like a genial but dangerous John Gieguld
figure that Vimes "looked up" to as an older and wiser patron.
Then, after I read "Night Watch" it seemed that the two of them were
closer in age. Finally, the illustration of Vetinari in "The
Last(Lost?) Hero" indicated that Vetinari was significantly younger
than I had thought (unless he had some rather good longevity potions
at his disposal).
Jeff in Boston
Graycat
grahamafforda...@hotmail.com
(gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS) jotted down:
>Hi there.
>
>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:34:06 +0100, Terry Pratchett
><tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> A good summary. That is why Vimes as Patrician would not work.
>
>Oh well, that blows away a theory I've had for a while that Vetinari
>was grooming Vimes as a potential successor, although it was formed
>before we found that they were more or less the same age.
I've never seen that as likely. Vimes is Vetinari's blunt
instrument, something he needs and uses when he can't take a
direct hand in things. But Vimes wouldn't (imo) work as the
mastermind behind the scenes, as Vetinari does. He doesn't
even keep up with his own paperwork or the clockwork of the
watch, Carrot does that.
It is mentioned somewhere that Leonard of Quirm is one of
those people who look eternally venerable. Vetinari too me
seems to be always in his early fifties.
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/index.html
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Jeff
> "cMAD" <cm...@freenet.de> wrote in message
> news:408A434E...@freenet.de...
> > bewtifulfreak wrote:
>
> I think that one of the essential tools of political activity is being
> aware of what role others are putting you in, and taking what advantage
> you can of it for your own purposes. I think that Vimes and Vetinari,
> two expert operators, are probably both very aware of each other's
> strategies and each is using the other for their own (not entirely
> dissimilar) ends. And each is aware of just how much the other is using
> them, and uses that awareness, and their awareness of the other's
> awareness ............
>
> And to some extent, that may well involve each of them deliberately
> "playing to type".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Personally, I think Vimes is aware that Vetinari is always scheming
*something* but he isn't usually aware of the final *purpose* of the
Patrician's machinations, but someone the Patrician trusts him to
ultimately achieve this goald, and provides hints if Vimes goes off
tracks (i.e., the whole "poisoning" sub-plot in "Feet of Clay." It's
also quite clear that in "Fifth Elephant" Vetinari send Vimes to
Uberwald not just so serve as diplomat, but, presumably, to solve the
political issues surrounding the dwarf king secession (and the theft
of the Throne of Scone), and to ultimately negotiate favorable trading
terms. Vetinari was not concerned about the means; he trusted Vimes to
achieve his ends.
Jeff in Boston
Jeff
> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c68m1u$8hq1g$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > One definition under "politics" in Merriam-Webster is "The total
> complex of
> > relations between people living in society," and I think that's more
> what I
> > was referring to. Vimes doesn't play the game, per se,
>
> Like many real-life politicians (with the exception of far too many who
> manage to get elected),Vimes doesn't "play the game", because he doesn't
> see it as a *game*, but as an integral part of his reality. He does
> most emphatically participate in "the total complex of relations between
> people living in society", and to good effect.
>
> That,to me, makes him a very successful politician.
>
>
>
>
>
SPOILERS
>
>
>
>
>
Remember, though, that Vimes' initial rise from Captain to Commander
was not of his own machinations, but an end result of Carrot's
one-on-one negotiations with Vetinari behind Vimes' back. So, in some
sense, Vimes is being manipulated by both men. The same thing applies
to Vimes' promotion to Duke--another Carrot negotiation. It's very
interesting to note how much Carrot exerts over Vetinari; maybe this
is an understated, tacit understanding the Vetinari acknowledges that
Carrot is the true king. Perhaps Vetinari's easy agreement on Carrot's
requests is part pragmatic (Vetinari realizes that a stronger Watch
that owes its expansion to his patronage is his best protection
against the Guilds who are constantly plotting to overthrow him), and
partly the price he must pay to keep Carrot from asserting his claim
to the throne.
Jeff in Boston
Rhiannon S
>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>Date: 26/04/2004 11:58 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040426065845...@mb-m27.aol.com>
>
>From: "Duke of URL" MacB...@kdsi.net
>Date: 26/04/04 00:55 GMT Daylight Time
>
>>Picking a Nit: Since only Brits recognize Lizzy as any sort of authority,
>
>There's a number of Commonwealthians on the group who might disagree with
>you.
>Or might not, of course...
Hey, I'm in the UK and I don't recognise Liz, anyway she's Liz the 1st not 2nd.
--
Rhiannon
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/
"The trick is to commit crimes so confusing that police feel too stupid to even
write a crime report about them."
Aubrey on remaining at liberty
www.somethingpositive.net
Rhiannon S
>Date: 26/04/2004 14:24 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20a5bede.04042...@posting.google.com>
>
>Then, after I read "Night Watch" it seemed that the two of them were
>closer in age. Finally, the illustration of Vetinari in "The
>Last(Lost?) Hero" indicated that Vetinari was significantly younger
>than I had thought (unless he had some rather good longevity potions
>at his disposal).
Well, Vimes is from a lower socio economic class than Vetinari and has spent
years battering hell out of his liver and trudging around in horrible weathers.
Vetinari has (presumably) had a good diet, an indoor job with no heavy lifting
and a pretty comforatble life. It's not surprising he doesn't look his age (or
Vimes looks older than his), good old Roundworld principles.
Joe
<mike...@which.net> writes
>Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:
>
>
>> That was exactly my point. It's probably easy enough to find out how
>> many statutes exist.
>
>But statute law is only part of the law, and Common Law is often much
>herder to define, as it's enshrined in many thousands (millions?) of
>judgements of the courts of centuries. And Common Law covers some of
>the most important things. For example, I don't think there's actually
>a statute making murder illegal, just the Common Law.
>
empowering various bits of the civil service (e.g. Inland Revenue,
Customs & Excise) to make up law on the hoof. It stands until challenged
in court.
--
Joe
Damien R. Sullivan
>Horrendous thought. The rule of the road expires and has to be repassed
>every 20 years? Either you pass the same thing on the nod, which makes
>the whole thing a waste of time, or no-one knows where they are because
It's not a waste of time. Good laws should easily get passed on the nod.
"Yep, murder still bad. Yep, drive on the right." Obsolete laws quietly
expire. Bad laws passed in the heat of a moment hopefully don't get passed
again.
Why do it this way? Because for whatever reason legislators seem to not like
spending their time repealing laws. Doesn't look good on the resume, perhaps.
Bad and obsolete laws tend to just get ignored, while still being on the books
to make trouble.
But this way you get legal evolution (beyond that of case law.) Good laws get
approved by each generation, bad ones wither away.
>the law keeps changing. Law against murder expires and some cockup
>causes it to be forgotten.
Not very likely.
-xx- Damien X-)