Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE

9A – Reaper Man - Part 1

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

The first of two episodes on 1991's Reaper Man, exploring further representations of Death, dances Macabre and Morris, existentialism, pastoral romanticism and animal ethics.

Hey, there, it's Josh, just dropping by with a few announcements before the episode starts. The first thing I want to do is to thank all of our patreons, and I thank you all. We don't have any new ones, but I want to thank everyone who's been supporting the show for over a year now, some of you. Thank you so much to j Dan, Gabriel, Daniel, Jason and Adele. Thank you so much for your support. As you might have noticed, I sound a bit different. That is because I'm using my new headset. Don't love how compressed this sounds compared to the other microphone I was using, but that one was causing me a lot of difficulties with editing and and things. I was having to do a lot of work to get it to sound nice. Where it's this one makes things a lot easier just to record and then be able to edit straight away without having to mess around compressing and amplifying, removing background noise and things. So makes my life a lot easier. I didn't have this microphone when I recorded the episode you're about to listen to, so that'll sound different, but then from now on this is the one I'm going to be using. There's also a lot of noise in the episode of my squeaky chair. I have tried to take as much of it out as I can. Be Yeah, that chair literally fell apart the other weekend when I went and sat on it. So it was on its last legs and I now have a new, much comfy and much quiet a chair, and that is all thanks to the patron supporters. Small amount, I think they're all pledging around six Australian dollars a month, but all of that added up was able to get me a new microphone and a new chair when I needed them. So it makes a real meaningful difference and helps make the show better. So thanks again everyone for your support. A more somber announcement is that, as you'll hear from this episode, I'm Flying Solo on this one and for the foreseeable futures is meant to be a one off. Or you know, maybe I was going to have to do a couple of episodes by myself while Alice was busy with everything else that's going on in their life. But since then they have decided that they are just too busy to be doing this podcast on top of everything else they're doing. They will no longer be a host of UNSWEREN academicals. Not something I wanted to happen or that I wished had to happen, but the other option was to just put it on hold until they were ready and I didn't want to delay it to even like a once every two month thing, which turns this whole thing into it into a ten month project. I will be soldiering on head by myself for the foreseeable future. I am hoping to get a couple of guests on for the next few episodes and we'll see whether I end up finding a another permanent cohost or whether we have rotating guests or whether it's just me. This episode is a bit of it experiment. It's more of a lecture style than the discussions are and the joking around and stuff that we've been doing so far, just because I don't have anyone there to bounce off. So yeah, they it's not as funny and and it gets a bit ramply in parts, but I'm doing my best. So yeah, let me know what you think. If you actually prefer this solar lecture style, let me know and maybe that's something we stick with. We will see. Also, this will be a two potter. I think maybe they all will be from now on. That seems to be the natural length or format of them. That or we keep arriving at. Yeah, this was meant to be all in one and and I'd record it at all, but then I realized, editing and listening back to it, that I'd really only focused on the death side of the story and really given the whole wizard and window poons and the fresh start club plots short shrift. I mentioned them a couple of times but didn't really delve into them too deeply because I didn't really think there was much there. However, had a listener, Liz from France, right in with a bunch of interesting thoughts about the fresh start club subplot and its engagement with disability and bereavement and things like that. So I've been doing a bit of research into that and yeah, I'm going to put together a second part that focuses more on that sub plot. So I've taken the references that were here to that out of this episode. This is a strictly death focused episode that deals with some of the engagements with different traditions and metaphysics and ethics and things and then yeah, I'll be back with part two. That all focus more on the fresh start club and wizards subplot. Not sure when that will be. I mean the aim is to do a book a month, but really just depends on how much time and energy I have to record and then edit these things. Like it's a day's long process to prepare one of these. So I'm going to do the best I can and get them out as quickly as possible. But yes, I don't think there's going to be a strict schedule aiming for a book every month or month and a half if I'm doing two parts. But they'll happen when I happen, but hopefully more regularly than yes, I apologize for the format change and many roughness there might be with this episode. It's a bit of a learning process for me as well. I'm working out how to restructure this and getting comfortable with recording them on my own. But even if I do end up getting another permanent host, there's going to be a short transitional period before a suitable candidate presents itself and then normal service will be resumed. In the meantime, I apologize for any unavoidable and convenience caused by superpuloist life events. Yeah, so let's get into the episode. Thanks again to everyone for your support. WHAT'S DIS world? It's DIS world podcast analysis. Yeah, so, I'm Josh and...

I am still an unseen academical and I am here to talk today about the eleven discworld book, One thousand nine hundred and ninety ones. Reaperman, the second book in the death sequence wherein death is made redundant and discovers the value of life while working on a farm, and I'm going to be using this book to explore the nature of death, existentialist humanism, Morris Dancing and animal ethics. Yeah, let's start things off, as we usually do, by talking about the things I liked and disliked about Reuperman. So broadly, I don't think this book is is as tight as more or indeed a lot of the other discworld novels we were praising. How you're well constructed and tightly plotted. And what was last episode? And on my previous reads, I've always come away thinking that Uperman was one of the weaker books in the death sequence, probably one of the better discoord books overall, but as far as the death seaquons which I think is probably the strongest of the sub series, and in discworld it's always been between this and soul music, for which one, I think is is the weakest in the series, with the other ones ranking among my favorite discworld novels. And on the big reread I did last year after we started this and went through the whole series, yeah, I found myself enjoying soul music a bit more each time I've gone back to which we'll talk about more next episode. So with my last reader of the whole series I did find myself pretty solidified in my opinion that Uperman, is as good and interesting as it is, is the weakest of the discord death books. Then, having gone and you know, started our analysis here and then having re read the book again for this episode, I think this is a far better book, the more undeniably so, I think. And yes, and as I said, I've been enjoying soul music the more I've gone back to it, and I have gone back to it since rereading UPERMAN for this in preparation for the next episode, and and found myself enjoying and appreciating it more then. So I'm sort of at the point at the moment where I'm wondering if more which was always one of my favorite disco books and books in general, I'm wondering if that might actually be the weakest in the death series, because while we were praising the plot and and the tight construction of Moret in the last episode, this is an undeniably more ambitious book and while I don't think it quite nails it, just the the thematic scope and the way that a lot of the threads that do seem disparate are all coming together to feed into each other in this book is very impressive. I don't think it's the final product and I think we see something closer to that in the later books like hog father or thief of time. But yes, I think this is just another level, another step up for Pratchett in his writing here. So that is to say, I like the book overall, but I I like the ambition of it then the thematic coherence of it in particular. There are a few things I dislike about it, though, a lot of them sort of small and Nippiggy ones that maybe we'll come across as we go. But as for the broad things I don't like, I don't like the shopping trolleys. They understand where they fit into the themes and will discuss that with the critique of consumerism and things like that. But shopping trolleys, I mean, is it still on a nachronism if they're sort of a more advanced, futuristic, out of place thing? Yeah, they don't fit into the world of discworld and I don't think it's even like the the earlier discworld books where, you know, we do get the scene of rince wind going into our world and ending up on a plane, or even lords and ladies, where it it's implied was a weird sisters where their Shakespearean plays are sort of resonating throughout the multiverses. I don't think the shopping trolleys and stuff are part of this invading, encroaching parallel dimension. They're more in manifestation of consumerism, which doesn't line up with the state of m uncle more pocket itself. So yeah, I don't like the the shopping trolleys or the Snow Globes. I think you could have done the same thing and just pick something else that didn't seem so out of place. And that sort of feeds into my other overall not complaint, but yeah, what I think is a shortcoming of roup of man is that there really isn't enough of a death story for this to be like a death novel and really is the defining novel for deaths. Character, his story is sort of given short of thrift and that there's not a huge development. Right. He just goes from the thinking life is not worth while to thinking light it's worth while in essentially an instant. There's no real build up and development like there was with more. Miss Flipworth just sort of tells him off and then he completely changes as a character. Yeah, they're significantly less death in this book then I remember there being, or you know, you really expect there should be, and I think if some of the stuff with the shopping trolleys and the wizards and stuff had it been pulled back and we spent a bit more time actually developing death to get him to the same point. Like, I think what happens in the death side of the story is great. I just I think it needs a bit more time to develop and it's sort of yes, seems a bit rushed, or in substantial more than rushed, because what's there is good. It just happens so quickly and it's such a minor part of the book itself. As for how other people feel about the book, I'm under the impression that this is generally considered, especially among...

...more academic types, to be one of the better, if not one of the best, discord books, and I think that's to do with that thematic depth. I mean, it really does kickoff sort of a a golden age of the discworld novels. Right, it comes out the same year as which is abroad. So you got reprimand and, which is abroad as it which, as we discussed, is by far the most critically examined and influential discworld novel. Then you have small gods, which is the other one that's revered and examined, Lords and ladies, which is one of my favorites, and then men at arms, which is another one that gets a lot of critical attention and and general praise, and then you have a bit of a dip with soul music, interesting times and masquerade there, which we mentioned in the masquarade episode. But then it kicks off again with feared of clay and hog father into sort of the later discord novels that have this more mature satirical point of view rather than the early comedic parody stuff. Yeah, this is coming off the back of stuff like moving pictures and Eric and even guards guards, which are these direct parody. So I think this, this and which is abroad, which she had come out the same time, so I probably being written in parallel, really are a turning point for the discworld series. Having said that, Andrew and Butler, who's reviews from the pocket Terry Pratchett Guide we always quote on these episodes, only gives it a three out of five reading, agreeing with us that it's not as well constructed as more, but that the character of death is just as moving, if not war more so, although he's says, the window prunes haunting is a bit of a retread of the earlier hauntings of Princess Kelly from more and King variants, from Weird Sisters, I'd ad there, the king in Pyramids there. So we do see a bit of Pratchett retreading the same ground, which he seems to do a bit more than you realize. In these earlier books there are these tropes that he keeps coming back to. Conversely, though, in the magic of Terry Pratchett, mic burrow is calls Rouperman one of Pratchett's most poignant pieces of writing, while praising the final scenes where Bill D or takes miss flipworth dancing as probably the most moving pieces of writing Pratchett had yet produced. I think that's that's a pretty fair assessment, even if I also agree with Butler that the book itself is is not perfect. And opposite point of view, which which borrows quotes in his biography as well, though, comes from Guardian reviewer Jonathan Co, who slammed the book, claiming Pratchett had no ax to grind, no political point to make, no intention of imagining a consistent, talking like world, just a babyish glee in keeping the gags firing off the page and caution that the effects would soon wear thin, which, yes, I think burrows rightfully calls a baffling response to a book that has an entire secondary plot about masks, humerism and literally portraits shopping malls as parasites that sucked the life out of cities. So I don't think Co's reading this, I was going to say, is deeply but even just picking up on the the surface level themes that are going on in this book. Yet while borrows commends Pratchett for making an especially savage pointer out about consumerism, he too concedes that, aside for some great lines and likable characters, the secondary plot with the wizards and the shopping malls does feel like an unnecessary distraction and claims that pratcher later admitted that he too wished he had used the two plots for two separate novels or as. Doesn't give a citation for that claim of Pratchetts, but they do seem to be pulling in different directions, even if they do thematically overlap. And we tooked a bit in the more episode about the attempt at a Hollywood adaptation of more in the in the late S. and while there wasn't a a full length adaptation of Reaperman, there was a ten animated short about the early scene of deaths firing by the auditors that served as a pilot for the later weird sisters and soul music animated series, which we'll talk about that one more next episode. And we brought this up. I'm in the weirds this episode, but a very important point that I missed is in these animated series death is voiced by none other than Dracula himself, Christopher Lee from the horror films, and Sarah Man and in the Lord of the Rings. Now I'll put in a clip of him here. Some kind of joke, is it? I am not known before. My sense of fun knows that's of course not. If you go, will it be a new death will arise from the minds of the living helmet? When I see him, I will hardily recommend you. You'll see him then? Oh yes, when he comes for me, I must go at last. I have tied. So what are you going to do with it? I am going to Phi S. Yes, more vampire overlap there. That's just a fun little tidbit. I personally I'd always imagined tourney j who voices the older God from the legacy of kin video games. Yeah, he voices the Ouder God, who raises the Fallen Vampire Lord Raziel from the dead, boring him to become his soul Revera, his angel of death, and killing vampires to release their immortal souls to feed him who did not survive the a bitch, Razzier, I have only...

...spared you from total dissolution. You are reborn the birth of one of King's abominations, traps the essence of life. It is this soul that animates the corps you lived in and that res here. Is The demize of not good. There is no balance. The souls of the dead remain trapped. I cannot spin them in the wheel of fate, they cannot complete their destinies. Redeems, free their Solos and let the wheel of fate churn again. Become my soul weaver, my angel of death. So there's a bit of thematic overlap with our reprimand. They're obviously whether you have a a reaper and a or a riva and and a death and angel of death figure, but also the idea of death stopping, which, in the case of that video game series, it's because the world's been taking over by vampires and vampires are immortal and if vampires don't die, then yeah, the souls are being released to feed this this elder God. So good, like completely incidental and insignificant to an actual analysis of reprimand, but I did think that was an interesting formatic cross over there and I wonder if perhaps reprimand, which which came a few years earlier that the first legacy of kin game o blood omen. The legacy of can comes out in one thousand nine hundred and ninety six. I don't think there's out, there's any salt stuff in that one. But then the the soul river game comes out in one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine. So I think, I think it's likely there was a probably some Pratchett influence on the writers of that series, given discworlds popularity and presence in the N S. also, the the elder God in the legacy of Kane series is depicted as a like a giant lovecrafty and tentacle mass, but is covered in eyes. So, as we'll see later, he bears some resemblance to Azrael has described in Ripperman and Brook Lauren things. So yeah, all a bit of a coincidence there, but our fun one. If you're not familiar with the legacy of Kane series, you might recognize him as the Villain Judge Claude follow in Disney's hunchback of Notre Dame adaptation. Apparently he also did a audiobook version of the castle of a Tranto in two thousand and six. This is widely considered to be the the first gothic novel. So I put that in the notes to talk to Alice about it, but we said they're not here. But yeah, if you're looking to brush up on your classic Gothic Literature, that sounds like a fun way to do it. You also looks a lot like Christopher lie so might just be some typecasting going on there. Getting into the book itself, I think maybe we should start with, I guess, the portrayal of death in this no on on a sort of wish that we had kept some of the the stuff about the historical depictions of the angel of death for this novel rather than dumping it all in more because some of the things I was setting up there were with the crown and everything, would be perhaps more relevant here. But we've already done it there, so you can listen to that episode for the the take on death with a crown. But a representation of death that we didn't talk about in the mold episode that is relevant here is, I've already mentioned him, that of Asrael. So as reel is one of four arch angels in Islam, along with Michael, Gabriel and Israfel, although he's not actually mentioned in the Quran right. I think he comes more from folklore so like we were talking about with Liith in the which is a broad episode. Yeah, you have so a three thousand two eleven, which refers to an angel of death, but the name as reel itself yet does not appear in the the actual religious text. Yeah, his depiction comes from later folklore, as Hastings Encyclopedia of religion and ethics describes him as reel is considered to have seventyzero feet and four thousand wings. Well, his body is provided with as many eyes and tongues as there are men in the world, and these eyes are said to close when people on Earth Die, so that once the final eye is closed, yes, is when life will be over. Yes, no, not actually mentioned in the or described like this in the Kuran itself. And although you have that verse that refers to an angel of death, the name Israel doesn't appear. And then there are also other verses in the Kuran that refer to different angels of death. And according to Exter Jesus or commentary on on the Quran and and these biblical texts, these other verses are said to refer to lesser angels of death who are subordinate to as reel. Yes, so you have hastings encyclopedia saying that authorities, although it doesn't cite any authorities, he says all authorities agree and believing that the angel of death is present wherever a man is ceasing from life and that some explain this multiple presence by saying that the angel of death has assistance who make the man soul rise up to his throat whence as reel comes and takes it alther hastings encyclopedia does say that every time of being dies, one of the eyes closes. The say that at the end of the world only eight eyes will be open, since there will be only eight beings left alive, the for archangels and the fourth throne bearers. I'm not sure who the fourth throne bearers are, but that's just interesting for the significance of the another eight there. So yeah, I think it's pretty clear that some...

...of their the things that happen within Riuperman, with death splitting into the different aspects of him, like the death of rats and all the other deaths that are going around, is sort of influenced by this conception of Asrael, who is, you know, a character and as name checked in the story, itself. So it's another pastiche or another ingredient to add to the pastiche of death in the discworld. It also says in Hastings Encyclopedia that no man can escape as real, it is impossible to cheat him, even by being instantly transported by magical means to the very ends of the Earth, and that asrael is there in an instant, this being seen in the story of Solomon and the young man who was carried to China by his GIN, which is a popular story found everywhere, hasting says, but specifically in the thousand one nights, for example. As stute readers will recognize this as a plot point in the color of magic and the light fantastic. So even before getting to hear where, we can see this mythology of death and as reel influencing pratchett storytelling. where, I think Pratchett picked up this idea of a Israel, though, rather than hastings encyclopedia or, in addition to hastings encyclopedia, or the is brewers dictionary of fate, phrase and fable, which is pratchetts go to resource, as we've discussed in one of the previous episodes. I I can't remember which, yes as were, is mentioned in the entry on Adam in brewers dictionary, and that states that in Muslim legend, God sent the other archangels to Earth to fetch dirt from which to Construct Adam, but they refuse, since they foresaw that he would be fooled by eve into initiating the fall. As reel was then sent to complete the task and therefore appointed to separate the souls from their bodies, thus becoming the angel of death. So when there's obviously some full stuff there that I'm sure Alice would have things to say about, but what stood out to me about this is the idea of death being a reward for life or becoming the angel of death being tied into the the creation of life. That sort of a Prometheus Pandora thing going on there. Just also interesting because in Hebrew asrael translates to angel of God or help from God. So there's this idea of death being yeah a positive force in the world rather than a negative one, which is kind of the entire thrust of the death series, or at least these these first two books. And yet something that would become a corner stone of Pratchett's late philosophy as he became a well known campaigner for euthanasia. Another traditional aspect of death depiction that gets incorporated into Pratchett's depiction in Ruperman is, of course, the deaths maca, or the dance of death, although I think this actually got edited out of the more episode. But Elis and I did have a like quick discussion about how to pronounce Maca, that I think that's the way most people pronounce it today. Obviously it looks like it's spelled macabre and I was saying, Oh, I've read something the other day that pronounced it macabre and it was maccabree because it rhymed with with like other words that I can remember it was. And then I realized after there was actually gay men's graveyard book where, during the dance with death scene that we discussed in the more episode, they recite the poem rich Man, poor man, come away, come to dance the maccabre. Time to work and time to play, time to dance the maccabre. One and all will hear and stay, come and dance the maccabre. See, yeah, that that pronunciation was coming from there, although if you go and check the pronunciations of macab on the Oeed, you also find that they pronounce it Macabre, at least in the traditional versions. So they'll edit those in here. Macabre edit a josh here. I have since learned that the distinction seems to be between American and British pronunciations of the word, which is of French origin. So apparently British speakers say macabre and Americans saying macab, which the Australian usage, which normally follows the British but seems to follow the US in this instance. And the oeed gives macabre as the pronunciation when it's a verb, so describing something, as you know, deathlike. But yes, they're macabre as a noun. Seems to be pronounced macabre. I haven't heard anyone else but gayman refer to the dance macab as the dance macabre, but it turns out the dance macabor the dance of death, which maybe I'll just call it that to save misunderstanding, and it's a bit of an enigma itself. I think this is just a concept that is so old that I lost sight of Eddie origins that might have had. But the earliest recorded mention of a dance macab or dance macabre, comes from French poet Jean left for a Verez Lera spit a di La Morte. In this poem, the protagonist, who is represented as the author of the speaker himself, is seized by a sudden illness and argues before a tribunal for a letter of continuance in order to die at a later date. So similar in imagery to the seventh seal that we talked about last episode with the Chess Games and things. The earliest English usage of dance macab comes in John lyndates dance of death poem from from around Fourteen Twenty six, which is a series of dialogs between death and...

...a variety of figures, so not just the the speaker this time, but a variety of figures from across the social different social classes. So we're getting more of this social flattening or equalization, you know, death of the ultimate equalizer coming through here. The earliest recorded visual depiction of a dance macab comes from a similar error. It's from a now lost mural at holy innocent cemetery in Paris, which dates from around one thousand four hundred and twenty five and features a dead crowned King, which is notable for being at the time when when France did not have a king. So death is is the king, rather than this being a depiction of the dead king himself. In the folklore of discworld, Jacqueline Simpson and Pratchett himself reference a famous English mural in the closter of London's old Saint Paul's Cathedral, which burned down in the great fire of one thousand six hundred and sixty six at also a set of surviving carvings on the ceiling of Rosalind Chapel near Edinburgh. They say the dance was also painted in the margins of prayer books and acted out in religious pageants. They say that nowadays it is best remembered for being the closing sequence of Ingmar Bergmann's film the seventh seal, although I a another and I would argue, perhaps more famous and certainly more influential modern depiction is the one thousand nine hundred and twenty nine Disney animation of the dancing skeletons, which was the first in the studios series of silly symphonies animations. If you look this up on Youtube or whatever. You might recognize it the skeletons dancing at a graveyard. I think that's been repeated through some as to other Disney properties as well. Yes, the crown deaths crown that we talked about in the more episode is significant here because you obviously you have death reacting to the new death crown and recommend saying a crown. I never wore a crown. And then the other death says you never wanted to rule with death, punctuating his final words to the new death upon defeat by saying that there will be no crown, only the harvest. Now we talked about the crown in the more what episode and how the depiction of death with a crown is perhaps not accurate to the biblical sources and comes in later in as a Momento Mori, which I think is relevant because, yes, the discword death is separating himself and positioning himself as the good guy because he's the one who wouldn't wear a crown. Here the crown is being seen as a symbol of tyranny. Right, but the crown and its association with death comes from Momento more. He's and is meant to be a humbling image, right it's meant to show that even kings die, not that death is the king who rules over all. It's meant to show that, or it does show that death rules overall, but it's also implying that kings die as well as as big as the thing. So there's a there's the equalizing going on it. I think it's meant to be a humbling symbol rather than a gloating one. So I think Pratchett takes things in different directions. There s ooster wick notes in their two thousand and nine doctor's thesis on the dance macar. In text and image in elite medieval England there is are mistakable social criticism in the dance of car. The mightiest on earth are usually the first to encounter death. The Pope tends to open the procedures, being forced to submit to the dance despite his dignity. The emperor and the king follow and together with the Cardinal, they form for soul survivors on the hexham screen. We're talking about actual, like ritual performances of the dance Macap here. So yeah, I think it's a the crown is meant to symbolize the destabilizing of power rather than the reinforcing of it, which ties into the bucked Ian idea of this carnivalesque in version that we're talked about last episode and previously as well. So the theme of dancing also brings us to the Morris dancing which appeared earlier or earlier for us in Lords and ladies and returns again here and reap a man. So yes, I said, we talk a little bit about Morris Dancing when we got to reap amand so here goes. I think this is a pretty hum not esoteric, but unknown, I guess, dance for unless you're really into folk dancing or have read the discworld books. Really, I mean maybe it's more of a thing in England and other places, but yeah, the only time I've ever heard Morris dancing being talked about is in the discworld books. So when you see it there and it's meant to be a parody of a real world thing, I almost go the other way where my only association with Marris dancing is discworld. So when people, having now looked at videos of people doing it in round world, in our world, it does seem like sort of a parody or recreation of something in discworld. To me. But according to Pratchett and Simpson, in the folklore of discworld, a typical Mars dance evolved. Six men in two lines of three facing each other. They are all dressed alike, usually, I'm white, with colored bouldricks and decorated hats and possibly with ribbons and Rosettes to they clash sticks in time to music which is played on an accordion or fiddle, and lere and wave large handkerchiefs or clap, and they often have bells strapped to their ankles and knees. And Yeah, you can look the stuff up on Youtube. It's it's it's a strange dance and I'm not really sure how it would have got started, though were will get to that. As for its name, a popular theory in the eighteenth century was that, according to Pratchett...

...and Simpson, was that the name Morris was a corruption of the Spanish word Morisco or Moorish, and that it was a fashion introduced from Spain in the fourteen century, which would imply that it was first danced by the upper classes, not among the country folk, and that they called it moorish not just because it was foreign but because it was so wild and energetic in contrast to the stately dances of the court, which sounds a bit far fetched and ridiculous. But as they sigh, I was I was going to get Ellis to read this in a grumpy voice. That's that are to have there in the outline, but I'll do my best to do with myself. In one thousand five hundred and eighty three, a dude named Philip Stubbs complained furiously in his anatomy of abuses that there would be Morris men at village festivals dressed in green, yellow or some other light onetime color. And as though that one up Gordy enough, I should say they bedecked themselves with scarves, ribbons and laces hanged all over with gold rings, precious stones and other jewels. This done, they tie about either leg twenty or forty bells, which rich handkerchiefs in their hands and sometimes laid across their shoulders and necks, borrowed for the most part from their pretty MOPSI's or loving betsy's for buzzing them in the dark. Not really sure what that means. They then March this heathen company towards the church or the churchyard, their pipers piping, their drummers, thundering their stumps, dancing, their bells Jingling, their handkerchiefs fluttering above their heads like madmen, their hobby horses skirmishing among the throng. So yeah, there is historical record of people being mad about all this uproarious Morris Dancing. But while Pratchett and Simpson say that this is a plausible suggestion for the origin of the Morris Dance, that there is no actual evidence for it being disintroduced tradition from Spain, a perhaps more plausible theory that originated in the nineteen and Twentieth Century posets that the origins of the Morris lay in fertility rituals or prehistoric Europe, with the noisy bells and the waving hankies and aggressive sticks meant to drive away evil spirits and the high leaps in the air meant to make the crops grow tall, which makes it an immensely ancient magical right for the promotion of life, which is obviously what Pratchett is playing on in Reeperman. And we also have historical record of this from none other than John Milton, not from paradise lost, but from his earlier poem, a Kermis from sixteen thirty seven. We're in a magician boast that by dancing while other sleep, he and his companions are echoing the dance of time and nature. We that are purify imitate the starry choir who, in their nightly, watchful spheres, leading swift around the months and years, oceans and seas with all their finally drove now to the moon in waveling Morris move. So yeah, we have it's not just Pratchett. We have John Milton himself recording the Marris dance in a a fantasy poem, I guess you call it. I'm in this is a magician saying that, and Chromis is about. Yeah, the magician who turns people into half animals. But yet, although this is definitely what Pratchett is playing on in Ripe Man, he and Simpson also admit that there is no hard evidence for this either. Out this is a historical interpretation, but there's no actual historic record of the origins of the Marris dance being a fertility or seasonal ritual, even though it may have turned into one. But project clarifiers that, whether or not this theory holds good on earth it is well known to be the truth of the matter on the disc where it is all about the cycles of growth and decay, summer and winter, life and death. And this is why there is one village in the ramp tops, the one where they really do know what they're doing, where Morris men dance twice, and twice only in every year. You've got to dance both, they say, otherwise you can't dance either. So yeah, here we have the idea of the Marris dance and death, once again tying into this idea of the seasons and persevene that we talked about in Lords and ladies and yeah, we'll probably go into more of that about the dark Morris and things when we get to Winter Smith, where it plays a major role in the story. The other major source for the depiction of death in reprimand and just sort of the whole novels are themes and story is, of course, the one thousand nine hundred thirty four film death takes a holiday, directed by Mitchell a leason and based on the Italian playwright Alberto Cassella's one thousand nine hundred and twenty four play a La Mort in Vacanza. I guess death on vacation. This is a the story about death coming to Earth as a mortal man and and in their story he falls in love with a girl and then at the end he has a monolog about how, you know, he's learned the value of life by living it, which you know, goes back as a concept further than this film, but I think this is the bill, a solidification of it within the western tradition, or literary and film a tradition at least. I tried to get a translation of the play to see if there was anything different between it and the movie, but I couldn't find one and as far as I can tell, I think the answer is no. Watch the film itself. But yeah, not much to say about this movie in relation to discworld and reprimand. Of the thing it jumped out to me the POPs out the front that it was produced by the Nira, the National Rifle Association, so that that was interesting...

...to see that at the start of a movie, especially one that is sort of feeding into this idea that death is necessary and not to be feared. Interesting Cross over there. There's also a people that die in the film are killed in a cart crush very similar to the one that kills mort in the follow book in Soul Music. So again that's sort of a stock image in the sort of it's going to say Gothic, but more the early, early film and Cinema and things for yeah, that was there and I wonder if Pratchett sort of picked up on it or meant it as a reference. Speaking about we did ask in the the previous episode on the book. More you know, where is mort when death goes on holiday or is fired in the in this book, and I think they explain it away, or Pratt Pratchett explains it away by saying are they had a falling out, but that doesn't really explain why he isn't called into replace death, or is it involved at all, given the state the world ends up in. Maybe it's because he died before that happened. I'm really sure. On the timeline. It's sort of gets cleared up in song music, but seemed like a little bit of a lazy or it's a bit of a cheat to just say, Oh, they had a follow out mort's I don't want to deal with more in this book because he's not part of the story I want to tell. So but yeah, it death takes a holiday, which is perhaps better known to younger or more modern audiences as the strangely well known one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine Brad Pitt and Anthony Hopkins Film. Meet Joe Black, which is a remake of death, takes a holiday. Try to watch that one, but my God it is three hours long and nothing interesting happens except for the the scene which, if you see this movie of over, you just want to Google it quickly. You know the scene I'm talking about, the with their with the looking back and then the cars. Yeah, did not see a you know, the scene happens where you get the little the meat cute between Bread Pitt and the main character in the film, whose name I forgetten I forget the name of the actor that plays her, but she's a main character in now more rats and and some other things. They do the meat and they walk away and then they're looking back at each other but they keep missing and this goes on for so long. I think they do it like like seventeen times or something, the look away and then back, and then he stops to look away and I literally stopped and paused it in the middle of this scene because I couldn't believe it was still going. I got up and got a drink or something and I sat down, I played and then there were still like four or five more look backs to go, and then the thing happens, which is utterly ridiculous. But yeah, I made it two hours into this threehour movie and have no desire to go back because it doesn't really make sense or really deal with death at all. It's a very it's a very different movie. Two death takes a holiday. So yes, don't recommend that one, but I do recommend googling that scene if you haven't seen it. This concept of death taking a holiday or coming to earth to learn or what it's like to be human is also explored by Neil Gaiman in the same man series. In it's mentioned in Samon number twenty one, which is the prolog issue two seasons of miss where it says one day in every century death takes on mordeal flesh, better to comprehend what the lives she takes must feel like and to taste the bitter Tang of mortality. And then this is given a full story treatment in the three parts spinoff series death, the high cost of living, wearing game and's death of the endless takes human form, and this is gay means death at in her sort of maximum manic pixie dream girl mode. I don't think this spinoff series is particularly good and is less about what death herself learns from her experience than her inspiring the suicidal teenager Sexton to go on a living through I was going to say through the power of love, but through the power of, you know, being talked to by a hot check. So yeah, I don't know if that one's quite as deep and definitely not as ambitious as a pratchets treatment of the same theme, though I did think it was interesting, given that we have the female death and Gamer and the male death in Protchett, that in Reperman we also have a female sleep who prowls around with a pocket full of dreams. So we have the opposite, whereas game and sleep is male. Although I think they talked about the Sandman in one of the later describe books. It might even be sold music, from remembering it, from having read that recently, see and nothing particularly significant there. But it is interesting that the the agendas a swap between the two authors, also to give Neil game and a bit of credit, after we've slighted him up a couple of times for essentially doing later, lesser versions of things Pratchett had already done or come up with. According to burrows, game into bricktly inspired more and the death sequence, telling Pratchett, after he'd written equal riots, that he thought he should write a book about death. who was Gayman's favorite character, though, again, this coming from borrows, there's no citation and I cannot find an original source for the quote, as Kig v Cannon observes in her two thousand and eighteen masters thesis on Pratchett, Gayman and the Persona Fai and the personification of death. However, although gaming's view on death seems more focused on needing consolation and friendship on the lonely journey to whatever waits past death lands, pratchetts takes seems more concerned with understanding that each life is precious due to its individuality and thus deserves to be treated with respect and care and reprimand is obviously where we really see that...

...solidification of death's character which persists throughout the rest of disc world. But as well as the softening of death's character himself, a lot of the scholarship around riper man and the death series contends that our vision of death itself is often through such a betrayal. PhD Researcher Steve Firth, for example, argues in his examination of how belief on what happens after death frames the return to normality. The projects humanization turns death into another foe with whom we can argue and eventually overcome, rather than the unavoidable and unyielding notion that is reality. I have trouble with I mean not just the idea, the assumption that all this secondary critical. The secondary criticism is just touting, without any real research, that the PRATCHETTS portrayal of death somehow makes real world death itself more understandable or less scary to the person who is facing death themselves, because, like, this isn't real. And I know that might be a silly point to make, but I am not a religious person, but I understand that if you believe in heaven then the idea of dying is is not as scary because if you were you die, you going to go to a good place and if you actually believe that, then you think that's where you were going. So I understand how that would be reassuring, whereas the idea of Pratchett's death in you doesn't really apply because you know it's a book, you know it isn't real and it's a nice way to conceive of it. But I think if I was staring down the barrel of it I wouldn't find it very comforting because I'd know that what wasn't on the other side was Pratchett's death and this desert or whatever. Maybe I'm just being immature and I haven't got past that hurdle in my life, but yeah, a lot of the scholarship just says, well, of course Pratchett's death is nice. Therefore he makes real world death nice without really providing any evidence or a link at it's just sort of assumed and unlike the idea of Christian heaven or like you know, many religious afterlife's sort of the point of Pratchett's death is that unless you buy into Pratchett's idea that you who believe something, it comes true. But again that is explicitly stated to be a fictional idea that only applies in discworld and not our own. So yeah, I'd I personally don't get much comfort from this. Even though were I like the character and appreciate what project is trying to say about death, I don't find it personally comforting. And Yeah, unlike the idea of a Christian heaven or, you know, many religious afterlife's. If anything, I think PRUTCHETT's death reinforces the idea that death is inevitable and that there's there's nothing beyond right. I mean, if the best you end up walking the desert. But that is as much as we have. A softening of the character of death and him showing care for the people he reaps in Refman, we also get a reinforcement of the determinist aspect of death and the way he seems to function in discworld. So, as Christopher Lockett notes in his two and twenty one chapter on death, cruelty and magic, or humanism, in the fiction of Terry Pratchett, unlike traditional fantasy, in which magical ability tends to be granted as a function of an extrinsic principle, there isn't any relationship between God's and magic in Discworld, with God's being themselves brought into being by human belief. Rather, this is to say that, rather than them being the originators and the creators of the world and therefore they're the sort of measure metaphysical. They're outside and they run it. They are actually the gods of discworld are a function of discord itself which, as we will see when we get to small gods, are dependent on humans. Right, they are human defined rather than humans being God defined. Gets it's the idea of being created in the image of God. The discord gods are created in the images of humans, or at least in the image of human and beliefs, which, of course Pratchett is implying about round world itself. But yes, we'll get more into that when we get to small gods. But this is also similar to Gayman's Sam and, where the seven endless come into existence with the first models and I said, to pass from existence when the last one dies, although I think in discworld death is seen at the beginning of time in Eric and I think at the end of time and one of the other books, so that might be Eric as well. Yeah, in discold we do see death existing without belief to sustain him, but it's very explicit in game and sand man that belief is all that is sustaining the endless, even though they seem to have more of this metaphysical governance of the world itself. But lock it comments that at first glance it might seem as though Pratchette, death is an exception to this belief determined existence in discworld, as he appears to function as an extrinsic ordering principle, a transcender being existing outside the Human God paradigm. And yet the suggestion is that death's existence is predicated on mordels, like the Gods, who need human belief to exist. Death is himself yoke to humanity and, as he at various points observes, he's indeed what gives mortal life it's ultimate meaning. Canon clarifies this idea by saying that if a person never had to face mortality and the ravages of time, there would be no impetus for change and no reason to value traits like kindness of rovery. Paradoxically, death is like a guiding hand that pushes us towards empathy. If death is inevitable, the compassion during life is a greater virtue. In a way, ripper man written years later than more. It is the story of death of the discworld, learning the lesson that he had already taught his apprentice and daughter over the course of Mort Stacy Haynes concurs in her chapter on death...

...and the maiden and the guilty of lichartu collection observing the debts actions and saving the girl from the burning building and upeman are diametrically opposed to everything he tried to teach. More, however, death has changed since then, which I think, you know, sort of gives credence to mavored of Moret as deaths, buildings, women, rather than more. It's right. It's debt's attitudes who have changed and therefore change the historical epoch of the discord itself. Right. More disappears and doesn't affect anything, where the fact that death is now passionate and values life really changes not not just his mode of being but the very literally the existence of every living being. On the discord itself. An yeah, we we have an admission of this in Roupeman when it says death knew that to tinker with the fate of one individual could destroy the world. That knowledge was built into him. But to build or who realized it was so much horse elbows. I mean we had the motif throughout more that there is no justice, there's just us, and that is flipped in Roupeman, where we have it is no longer an extrinsic principle that's being enforced on people. We now have human perspectives as moral benchmarks themselves. Indeed, death himself experiences and explicit existentialist crisis are when he first dreams. In roupemmand, you got Mrs Flipworth asking him what's worrying you bill, and he says I suddenly know that we are going to die, to which he responds that the best thing to do is to keep busy and act cheerful with death responding, but we will come to an end. I was rooting for us and when presented with the idea that what happens, he when he dies, what he believes will happen, which is strongly implied in small gods, he still despairs saying, but I know what I believe. I believe nothing. So yeah as lock, it also observes, pratchett's writing provides a valuable counter narrative to determine as thinking, that is, in its articulation of a small h humanism through the unlikely genre of fantasy. The reason he says, fantasy is a seemingly unlikely genre for the articulation of a secular humanist philosophy. is because it emerges as a genre out of a specifically Judaic Christian sensibility. There was predicated upon the existence upon the extrinsic logic of power as imposed from without, something exemplified by the persistent tropes of such quasi divine organizing principles of fate and destiny, to say nothing of the always presence figure of the Chosen One, for which the Lord of the Rings is the obvious benchmark. Right. This is the idea of the heroes journey and the nostolda cycle that we talked about in the previous episode. So yes, if Pratchett is trying to push back against this determinist idea of death, he is not only the anti more, but is the anti tolken in this way. And look, it also asserts the Pratchett's works can be read as a counterpoint to the latter day calcification of humanism, as it has become associated with the arid positivism of the new atheists through its imperative that our primary ethical task must be the amelioration of cruelty. I think that could be a bit of a stretch. I mean I think Pratchett, as much as he emphasizes well empathy and compassion, would fit in quite well with the new atheists. I mean he was a staunch positivists. As much as people try and claim the sorts of explorations that he's doing these books is evidence of Pratchett's spiritual sull side, I mean I think it gives him evidence of a philosophical ethical side. Project was a very outspoken atheist and and as we pointed out a couple of times, was an old white man fame for wearing a fedora. So I don't think Pratchett is our anti new atheist savior. I would also argue that projects writing, and look it's analysis rather than budding back against humanism, more accurately reflect the humanist existentialist philosophy of twenty century French philosopher Jean Pulse Sartra. so forgive me if this is philosophy on one stuff or some basic white Guye Bullshit, but yes, I want to do a bit of a reading of Repriman in light of such as existentialism and humanism, which seems really obvious, and obviously these other critics that I'm just quoted touching upon this idea, but I haven't actually seen anyone link the philosophy presented in reprimand to Sacha or such as existentialist philosophy. So this could be something novel, but I also realize it could be a very basic reading. But yeah, for those unfamiliar, existentialism is a humanism. Is a one thousand nine hundred and forty five lecture by Satra and which he sought to simplify his theory of existentialism and defend it against Marxist critics, who alleged it privileged middle class individuals and did not extend to the common masses, and also against Christian critics, who alleged it was a moral due to the lack of a divine or extric ethic against which to measure people's actions, right against, you know, Moral Commandments. This is the common criticism of existentialism, which is a branch of Philosophy, which is defined as a ranch of philosophy that privileges the existence of the individual and free will. Right. It's the pondering up what happens when we accept an assert our existence it's usually secular and the modern incarnation following from Nietzche's declaration that God is dead at the the turn of the twenty century, which was the idea that religion, and specifically Christianity, no longer held the genuine belief and influence over society, and then we needed to develop new morals and new ways of being that incorporated atheism essentially, although of course,...

...that there isn't earlier and and still exist in Christian strains or religious strains of existentialism. May think the big one who's kick guard was sorrn kickguard, where they explore the idea of individual action and free will in in light of Christian teaching. Right, but generally it's seen as a secular movement, especially among the modern pros nature in an ad, specifically possart in our version. But yes, a common criticism of existentialism is the accusation that if there is no god, everything is permitted, that if there there's no ten commandments to say don't kill while then there's no reason why you can't kill. Right. Essentially, Laz a, fair, do what you want and Suchra is actually the first person to attribute this quote to the Russian writer Friday or Dos Toyevski, although he missquotes it, and then it's one of those it's a similarcer sort of thing where such as miss quoting becomes the quote that everyone perpetuates, but the actual quote from Dostoyevski's brothers Comas of what will become of men without God and immortal life. All things are permitted then and they can do what they like. Question Mark. So yeah, where we see this criticism manifest in Rupeman, where men are given the mortal life. Right, wind'll prunes can't die and that that doesn't enable him to live this this life of moral debauchery. Right, it's actually very upsetting to him that he can't die, and it is the value of life at its transience that gives people both their moral value but the imperative to do things and enjoy themselves while they're here. I don't know if I necessarily agree with it, but there's the idea that is being perpetuated in the book. I think I'd quite like to be a model, which again might just be my immaturity and basic white guy bullshit coming through. But also in Roupeman, where we only see the consequences of the immortality right coming through in Windell poons, and it's I'm just realizing now it's kind of a contradiction that the girl burning to death of the barn or what needed to be saved, when surely she wouldn't have died if Windall poons isn't dying as well. Or maybe the idea was to save her after death was reinstated. I'm not too sure, but you know, we're we don't see the consequences or implications of that from any other characters or any different angles. I mean I'm sure of that. Nario would be very happy to have a rank of assassins that could not be killed by convertial weapons. Yeah, so it's a bit I think this is a bit of a narrow and I'm substantiated take, but that is the idea that prature is getting at there. But yes, while there are these differing secular and religious takes on determinism and moral moral standards in ex essentialism, what Sarcha claims is that what all exs essentialists have in common is simply the fact that they believe that their existence comes before essence. And this goes back to Alice's explanation of the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, where in Catholicism your actions determine the outcome of your final judgment, whereas in protestantism there is a predetermined outcome and you just have to act in the good faith, for yours will be there would be their right one. I think Alice explain that using a a bank teller, analogy and and fighting somehow, but Sacha explains is through his famous example of the paper knife, so I'm going to read this at length. Here Sacha says, if one considers an article of manufacture as, for example, a book or paper knife, one sees that it has been made by an artisan who had a conception of it. Thus the paper knife serves a definite purpose, for one cannot suppose that a man would produce a paper knife without knowing what it was for. Let us say, then, of the paper knife that it's essence, that is to say the sum of the formula and the qualities which make its production and it's definition possible, that its essence proceeds its existence. When we think of God as the Creator, we are thinking of him most of the time as a supernatural artisan, so that when God creates, he knows precisely what he is creating. Thus, the conception of man in the mind of God is comparable to that of the paper knife in the mind of the artisan. Thus, each individual man is the realization of a certain conception which dwells in the divine understanding. So yeah, this is the idea that, if you believe in the created God, then people, humans, man as such, as using the masculine term, there are created with a purpose in mind. This is an intrinsic human nature that, regardless of Religious Commandments, right, there is a people are created to serve a purpose and act in a specific way. And if everything is determined and there is no free will, then you can't go against that, or if you do, you are acting incorrectly and in immorally by not living up to your purpose. He then continues, though, that atheistic existentialism of which Sarcho is a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist, then there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it, and that that being is man, who first of all exists and then defines himself afterwards. To begin with, he is nothing. Man simply is not that. He is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills and he convinces himself after already existing. So yes, if there is no creator, if God is dead or God is irrelevant or absent or however you want to interpret that, that therefore people no longer have a creator and it is up to them to define their own purpose. That's the thrust of his argument here. Now, of course, my immediate reaction to that is what about other animals,...

...for right, or really anything in the world? What about trees? What about nature? You know, anything non synthetic or manmade or whatever, and Sucho doesn't go into this. In existentialism is a humanism, though I think you'd find a defense for it in being a nothingness, of which existentialism, as Humanism, is a not a summary, because being a nothingness is like seven hundred pages long and existentialism, there's a humanism, is like twenty five. But it is a a combination of the ideas that metaphysical ideas presented, of being in nothingness and in there. I think you'd find a defensive this in relation to the German philosopher Martin Hydegger, who was a card carrying member of the Nazi party, his conception of the day scene, which privileges men above other animals as the only beings capable of self reflection and consideration. Again, this is debatable, but I guess you could say there is some evidence that humans are able to self reflect to a different degree than than other animals. So if that is what is important for Selfdetermination, than yes, perhaps humans do have a privilege point of view from which to do that compared to other animals and unconscious parts of nature. But there's obviously an anthropercentric bias to this theory, which he spends a lot of pages trying to defend, in being a nothingness, but just sort of throws out without justification in existentialism as a humanism. But yet he is building on previous philosophers rather than just coming out of nowhere with this stuff. The other objection that I would expect else to come up with if they were here is also what about biological imperatives? Just because there is no creator doesn't mean that there are not still intrinsic biological impulses. For I did mean even if you don't want to get into like evolutionary psychology stuff, but biological imperatives. Is it immoral to not eat if you're biologically inclined to eat? I realize we're getting away from Pratchett here, but those are those are some of the gut reaction objections to this. And also, if if you do accept a human nature like you see a lot of this in the defenses of meat eating and things that. Well, humans are biologically meant to eat meat. So to be a vegetarian is a moral or not right because you are defying biology and it's this is the fallacy of nature at that what is natural is correct sir, in denying that we're humans have a nature that defines them, it is giving credence to the idea that if they do have a nature then yes, such are so saying, well, if we did have a nature, we'd probably be expected to follow that, but we don't, rather than saying so what if we have a nature, here's the reasons why we don't follow that. But this idea of human nature is something he addresses briefly, although I would say unsatisfactorily, in existentialism as a humanism, saying that in the philosophic atheism of the eighteen century. The notion of God is suppressed, but not the idea that essence is prior to existence. Man possesses a human nature, according to eighteen century philosophers, which means each man is a particular example of a universal conception that here again, the essence of man precedes that historic existence which we confront inexperience. And he dismisses this again, sort of without foundation. But there will be something in being in nothingness. But this is giving the idea of the table of Rasa, which Alice brought up, the idea that the man in humans are brought into existence as blank slates rather than creatures with with biological imperatives. And this dates back to Greek antiquity but is ironically popularized through day car, who is very anti will not anti Sarchokasacho didn't exist, but on the opposide of that, he was a duelist and definitely believed that you and creatures served a particular purpose, a particular divine purpose. But yes, this is then later popularized through the philosophy of John Luck and and even Freud, to an extent, although that for it is clearly against this idea and saying that there are underlying, or unconscious would be his word, psychological drives that force us to perform in particular ways, though whether those ways are moral or not according to Freud, I'm not really sure, and I think someone else who would be opposed to this idea is Pratchett himself, who is a, if not a biological determinist, definitely has leads in the direction of evolutionary psychology, as we'll see when we get to the the science of discworld books and thief of time, especially where we have the idea of the characters body shapes and forming their behavior, which yet another reason why I think Pratchett would probably fit in quite well with some of the new atheists rather than resisting them, even if he might be the funniest and most likable compassion at one I think he is will view lines up with with some of those people, and indeed Erica nearly speculates in her chapter on death, the auditors and the importance of individuality in philosophy and Terry Pratchett that possibly the reason why death is so fascinated by humans is precisely because they created him and therefore influence his very being. So that being imagined as humanoid results in him picking up certain aspects of humanity and indeed, according to death in thief of time. He says, it can be no other way. Even our very body shaped forces upon our minds a certain way of observing the universe so that we pick up human traits. So yeah, more to discuss when we get to that book. But that is such as...

...axiom. That is the point he's working from. So he doesn't really he just sort of dismisses the idea of human nature without really refuting it. But I guess he's asking us to accept that there's no divine ordained morality and if there is a human nature, it is either irrelevant to morality or insignificant and certainly, I think, less pertinent than a divine set of rules. Right. Yes, such are also cautions against the notion of the Nietzsche Ubermensch, the idea of like the will to power and self actualization. But yes, got co opted through eugenics and Nazism, into the oppression of others around you rather than self actualization. But he cautions against this idea of the will to power, clarifying that man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be, not what he may wish to be, and he defends his philosophy against accusations of a moralism by arguing that, if it is true that existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he is. Right. And then he goes on to defend his philosophy against accusations of a moralism, the idea that, well, if there's no set of divinely ordained laws, then you can do whatever you want and no one can hold you accountable. He argues against this by saying that, well, if it's true that there is no god and that humanities existence precedes essence, the man is responsible for what he is. The people, rather than being free, are responsible for what they are. Thus, it is the first effect of Ex essentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders, that when we say that man is responsible for himself, of we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men and that in choosing for himself, he chooses for all men, that to choose between this or that is at the same time, to affirm the value of that which has chosen and the what we choose is always better, and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all. So yes, this is the idea that every time you do something, you are promoting that as the correct action for other people to follow as well. Now he gives the example saying that if I decide to marry and have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation and from my passions or my desires, I'm thereby committing not only myself but humanity as a whole to the practice of monogamy. Now this is a bit of an ironic example if you know anything about John Paul Satra's relationship with Samaranda. Both wire are they. They were definitely not committed to monogamy and and probably shouldn't have been committed to each other. They don't seem to have a had a particularly happy relationship. But, apart from any sort of hypocrisy that is going on here, I also think this example is too strong. I think this, this idea as a philosophy works in me. If you, if you do take into that subjective situations right, if you, if your situation and your passions and your desires lead you to monogamy, then I think what you're saying is people in a if not identical, in a similar situation with similar means to me, should also get married or practice monogamy. I think you can say that, but I don't think they gets too strong to say therefore, everyone in all the world, regardless of their situation of passion, should be monogamous, which also doesn't really refute the Marxist critique that this is this that the Marxist critique is that this is a sexistentialist ethic, is a bourgeois, a middle class ethic graded only works, it doesn't take into account the the means of achieving these goals. Right, if you can't achieve your goals and you can't promote the proper action, and it is a privilege to be able to get married and live happily of after, where some people are unable by their social situation to do that. So I think why, when promoting monogamy, he's probably trying to appeal to the Christian critics, but I don't think he's addressing the Marxist ones and is also perhaps digging himself a deeper hole there. But this is what protic's death is getting out in his final speech to Asrael, where he says there is no hope but us, there is no mercy but us, there is no justice, there is just us, all things that are ours, but we must care for if we do not care, we do not exist. If we do not exist, then there is nothing but blind oblivion. Right. So we obviously have if we do not care, we do not exist. That's existentialism, Right, such a saying man cannot exist until he has defined himself morally. Pratchet is saying that exact same thing. And of course we have the repetition of the refrain of there's no justice, there's just us. Except the meaning has shifted, because the signifier has shifted. The meaning of US has shifted. This is a quilting perhaps, but in more US was death and more the metaphysical enforces of death against or defined as separate from, humanity, whereas now death the US is including death in humanity. That all exist. Distance is one being and he no longer has this extrinsic while at the the same time he is compelling, as reel and the other deaths, to say that if there is only us right. It is up to us to define justice, and until we act justly, then there will be an unjust existence and therefore we don't exist. Now, obviously there they do exist, but they do not exist as moral correct being. So that's what's going on there. The other problem with this, though, is that on discworld, essence does proceed existence. As nearly points out, on the discworld...

...belief has creative power that if enough people believe in something, it comes into being, and thus belief predates the object, and that's a quote. Their belief predates the object. So over, don't quote, but pointing out the similarity of language in both Rouperman and the analysis of Roupeman to such as philosophical formations. But yeah, they does seem to be a bit of a paradox in whether our death is determined by belief, or is this extrinsic actor sent by as reel to look after the discworld or whatever? I'm not really sure, because I think along with the shopping trolleys, I don't really have much more to say about as reel is a bit of a another anachronism in that it points to a a metaverse around the disco and obviously we have multiverses, we have parallel universes and rints, wind and the other wizards interact with with our world, with round world. But then this points to like a higher metaphysical existence that is governed by asrael. I don't know if as real is brought into being by belief. Read the the analogy being the the death of rats, which the death of rats is not believed in the the death of rats is brought in by a necessity. So the death of rats purposes definitely defined before it exists, even if it is not deliberately created. Again, I'm and working through this as I am saying it. I don't think as reel is defined by a belief. So even if death is an aspect of him that gets brought into being by the discord people's existence, I don't know who is believing in asrael himself, if he is this metaphysical outward force. And all of this doesn't have to line up right. I think that's the point about Roup of man is that it's not this tightly plotted clockwork thing like Moud. It really is a thematic book, and the thematic thrust is getting at these ideas, even while creating paradoxes that perhaps don't work as well when you when you try and break them down and fit them into these specific philosophic arguments. I mean, one of the reasons I really like existentialism is a humanism is that it doesn't get the whole picture right. It is a simplification of being a nothingness and does away with a lot of the actual philosophical basis and arguments for these ideas. But no, that stuff about that the daisine and everything is useful. It is a bougeoire privilege thing where sarcher gets to sit and think about all these things because he's privilege to be able to do so, whereas what is actually useful is just this idea or whether the premises for it check out in a strict philosophical examination. The idea to behave in this way is useful and applicable and I think good. I mean essentially we're sarcher's ended up is, you know, be excellent to each other, treat people how you want to be treated. The golden rule that can't and of Jesus and and all these people always come back to. But I think he provides a good argument for it, even if it's not necessarily a bulletproof existential one. Just the idea that, rather than looking outwards for morality, that you are creating it through your actions, I think is a valuable and an applicable philosophical practice and ethic, and I think Pratchett is saying he agrees. Yeah, so this is probably something that I wanted Alice here to balance me out on. But yeah, just seeing a lot of connections between such as existentialist humanist philosophy and that being promoted and or explored in in Reuperman. I mean we can kind of think of this as the didactic builduns a run, though we're talking about last time, where this really is pushing a specific point of view. And Yeah, it was interesting to read through the the chapter on Pratchett and individuality in the philosophy and terror project connection and sort of see the author circling around these connections and without really drawing them themselves. So I don't know, I this obviously needs more work, but that's what I'm sitting here and I'll surprise not to see it elsewhere. But yeah, just but this emphasis on collective morality UPRIMAN and Pratchett's writing as a whole also, like really strongly emphasizes individuality, and what distinguishes the old compassionate death from the new industrialized death in Rouperman is his insistence that bleads of grass and people should be rouped one at a time. As nearly observes, this kind of emphasis on individuality is also central to the ethics of care as a Phill osophical concept, appealing to the American philosopher now noddings, who argues that there is a problem when we treat people only as members of a group rather than individuals, and that to be treated as types instead of individuals objectifies people so that they've become cases instead of persons. She says persons instead of people, which is not a term I like, but also when I have come across it usually refers to a collective group of people. So would seem to contradict the idea of not treating people as types. So I'm going to see people there. But this also recalls granning weather wax, who argue similarly in both which is broad, and carpet Jugulum, telling Myley oats that sin is when you treat people as things, including yourself. That's what sin is. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that. They means. They're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things. That's where it all starts. And nearly likewise argues that individuality is fundamental to the nature of humans, that we are individuals and must be treated as such, and that to ignore this and attempt to deal with humans purely collectively is to be unjust, and...

...she argues that this position is echoed by death in reprimand, who knows that humans are inherently individual and that their individuality cannot be stifled without destroying humanity itself. As she observes, while the auditors commitment to obstruct principles and blanket order might seem more committed to justice and start, contrast to more it is in fact death, preservation of individuality, which preserves the very possibility of justice, rather than Randy and objectivism. However, nearly links this philosophy to that of the eighteen center, as Scottish philosopher David Hume, who argues that one of our motivations of forming communities is that humans are not well suited to survive as individuals in the wild and the when we joined together, but that when we join together, however, we are able to overcome our physically wigg estate by harnessing the power of our intellect and combining our forces. I don't know if this analysis is quite sustained in Reaperman, but, as nearly points out, in each of death's encounters with the auditors in Uperman, hog father and thief of time, they are defeated by death only when he acts together with humans, with Miss Flipworth lending our death some of her time in Reuperman as well. So when death says, you know, there's no justice, it's just us, he's not saying there's just me. I think that is important to projets ethical philosophy. A projets engagement with individuality also connects to Reuperman's critique of industrialization and in the more episode, we mentioned Nicki and Moody's Article on death and work in the guilty of Literature Collection, which examines the death series as a response to Thatcherism Reaganomics at their general automation and bureaucratization of the workforce in the s. This is clearly parodied in Reuperman by they're tellingly named auditors who describe the absence of death as a short transitional period. Right. We had that the court did. I read out at the start about as quite a read out at the start, with the apologies for the inconvenience. We also have a gesture towards the decadsian critique of the upper classes and industrialization which we were talking about, the references to Dickens in more. But there's another one here where after death has his whole existentialist breakdown over breakfast with Miss Flipworth. She tells him the best thing you could do right now is to finish his porridge and then he looks down at the bowl and says can I have some more? Yeah, this is a pretty obvious reference to to Dickens all of a twist, although I wonder if it is as obvious just because this is one of those quotes a guess in a Lacro sort of thing, where the quote is it's commonly known, or is I've commonly encountered it is. People think the quote is please, so may I have another, where as yes, the original line from Dickens text is please, can I have some more? So another nod to Dickens in the death series, but another one where I don't think that it's really saying anything. It's just gesturing towards Dickens. Don't think there's actually anything going on there, but I thought it was interesting to point out, after we drew attention to it in more and I'll keep an eye on them for the the future death books be and that there's an ongoing criticism, or at least satirization of industrialization and automation throughout roof man, obviously through the parasitic shopping centers, which is also contrasted with death sort of idealic pastoral life on Miss Flipworth's farm. Obviously you have death killing both the harvest and the new death, which restores the balance and preserves the pastoral nature of the discord economy for at least another thirteen books before the industrialization of Bank marport takes off in the fifth elephant. So yeah, there's sort of a gesture towards the LUDDITES, which project references in some other books later as well. These are the group that smash the printing presses when when they first came into being, came into being when they were first invented, when they were first being a guess made available, and you know lad idea seen as a detrimental term for someone who's afraid of or doesn't understand new technology. The more nuance understanding of the latter it's or that the correct and historical understanding of there a lot of it's is it wasn't a matter of being afraid of new technology. This was a group campaigning for workers rights in that this automation of their jobs was but the predict press was now going to put everyone who did manual type setting out of a job. So yes, is an economic automation issue rather than a fear of technology issue. And here, maybe, maybe I'm running about this as well, but I don't love this idea that technological progress should be stilted because of creating jobs and things or because of hanging on to older forms of Labor, I guess, rather than jobs. Like I don't think these people should be put out of work, but I do think that they should either be compensated or channeled into new forms of work rather than just keeping with the old methods when the new methods are available. Way. I'm not a a labor expert, but you do see these sorts of arguments coming out now in opposition to things like cutting down on fossil fuels and stuff, where people and towns that rely on fossil fuels and coal mining and stuff say, well, it's going to put people out of the job, and the emphasis probably is there on on creating new jobs rather than just trying to preserve the old ones, which is perhaps a privileged thing to say, but I am someone who current you can't get a job in the field I've been trained...

...for in literature academia. I'm not saying this from a point of you know, I have a comfy job and these laborers should it's move on. I think it's a bit of a a simplistic way of looking at things and, I guess rather romantically. I have a view of life where people's existence and functions are not defined by their jobs, and I think this is something that is, if not enforced, inspired by by living under out late stage coupalism right or even early capitalism. Is that you know, the first thing you do when you meet someone you go you know, Hi, who are you? I'm Josh What Are you? They're asking about your job. What do you do professionally, and at the moment I would say I am a postfan driver. Right but that's not who I am. I'm only using myself as the example rather than, you know, having a widge about my job or whatever. But you know, I who are you? I'm someone who does academic work, I run a podcast, I have these feelings, I have these thoughts about things, but all of that in the social sphere is like narrowed down to what is your job, what is your function, and I think that is a very capitalistic point of view that is just naturalized and taken for granted by people who are living in that systems, which you know, is me and I'm assuming most, if not all, of the listeners. But we see this idea being reflected in ripper man as well. Right death says that he's happy that he has been, you know, fired, because now he will be able to learn by himself and he's excited that he will have new experiences at last. And, as kind of observes, there's death of the discworld, who has always had his entire existence dictated it to some extent by his job and his charges, rebels in the idea that he will finally get to experience the freedom of choice before his existence ends. So there is there is a freedom from labor the deaf revels in, while at the same time the book railling against the Automated Systems that would free people from farm work. Right there, the farmers in the field who, yeah, that aren't these supernatural beings who can cut blades of grass individually faster than, you know, an automated Moa or harvester or whatever like. We don't actually see any other farmers in ripe man. And I know this is silly, I know it's all metaphors and things, but there is some kind of disconnect in the same way that farm work isn't as leisurely as death makes it out to be. Right, people don't have the ability to work as hard and carelessly as him, and hard labor is a problem. And and I personally have a have a problem with the idealization of yeah, guess, Farm Work and hard labor. It tied in with the this at this idealic, pastoral view that you see, you see him reprimember your so is a trope of Western thought and fiction. Is the idea that you should the the goal is to submit yourself to a life of hard physical labor, and I think that is a result of capitalism and I'm sure you could or that. I'm sure there has been people who will draw a link between the rise of capitalism and cultural depictions and insistences that laboring and work are the good life. There's this cyclical idea of restoring the balance that we talked about with regard to the heroes journey and more at last. At so because we have to sort of returns or preservations of an earlier order, both in the rejection of the new death and the reinstation of the old death, which is probably a good thing. But we also have the rejection of the the You Harvester and there a return to manual farm labor rather than technological automation, which is something practic goes on to glorify in the later industrialization of a more parking the late discuad novel. So yeah, probably not an overall ideology of Pratchetts, but there is something here where it is normalizing a return rather than a progression. And you know, Moody argues that texts that use elements of nostalgia should not necessarily be seen as conservative, claiming they become, especially in the S, a way to imagine a possible future by fantasizing about having the power to in the past. I'm not really sure what that means, because it doesn't really address the way to achieve that future, which is something that, you know, Marxist utopianist theorists like Frederick Jamison and Darker Servant, who are sort of your big wigs. Even Science Fiction Ustopian Studies, would say that the difference between fantasy and science fiction is both of them are a strange from reality. They both present different worlds that are different to our own. But what sets science fiction apart from fantasy is that science fiction also has a cognitive aspect that, if it doesn't show the way to achieve that future, connects our work to that future, suggesting that the future, or the ast changed world that it is presenting is achievable or related to our own wrist. Fantasy is just completely removed. So perhaps all texts that use elements of NOS soldier nostalgia shouldn't be necessarily consent seen as conservative, although I think there is something inherently regressive about fantasy depictions of pastoral nostalgic utopias rather than science fictional ones. Yeah, they require a bit more to get there, rather than just the idealization, which I get. I guess Pratturet is presenting in the promotion of this epic of individual care and...

...things, but it's something that doesn't necessarily sit well for me, as we're sort of expected to accept that the pastoral life is the good life without really being shown why. It's told by Miss Flipworth that it's good, but that's because she is the representative of that point of view. Year there's no real criticism or or engagement of her. But more on Marxist analysis and ideology of in the next episode on Soul Music. But that's I don't really buy into this pastoral utopianism, especially when is also tied up in no farming. We see this, you know, wheat farming or whatever, in reprimand and things. But there the normalization and idealization of farming, or so is a normalization on idealization of animal slaughter, which is something pressure presents a I was going to say critique off but I think as we go through the analysis perhaps helps in endorse or and normalize. So yes, this leads us to reprimands engagement with animal ethics, which I'm finding is they've far more consistent feature of projects writing in the discworld novels then, yeah, I remembered. Obviously we talked a lot about mcgrant and her vegetarianism in the witches series. But here when Miss Flipworth goes to kill a chicken for dinner, death of jets, but we feed on them, he says helplessly, and Miss Flipworth responds, that's right, and they feed us. This one's been off lay for months. That's how it goes in the chicken world. So here we have chickens not being not having their lives valued for their individual worth, that they are only being tolerated while they are useful, which is it's not capitalist, because it is there's no capital involved, there's no money, but it is laborist right if the chickens are only allowed to live while they are producing. And this was my argument with regard to ORCs in unseen academicals and that I was extending to the goblins in stuff, which will talk more about when we get there. But not is not really valued for being himself. He is valued because he can coach a football team. And there all the other races that the dwarves, the werewelves and everything are only tolerated once they are shown to be able to not only serve the city as part of the arc more pork watch, but enforce it's morals and values on other citizens through that police authority. These fantasy races that have been that a stand in for, you know, real world cultures that are discriminated against in the the direct metaphor of the book. They're only tolerated once they assimilate and and reinforce sort of English were to cultural values, but also only so long as they are useful. The goblins are only valued because they can sing, not as only valued because he can coach football team. And the chickens and Rouperman are only valued while they produce eggs and then they're killed. Right. This isn't really a circle of life thing. This is aed and there are vegan theorists that would use this very specific term. This is like force labor, this is slavery. I don't think that is my no bullshit. Vegan theorists read on this like prouches, directly engaging with this conundrum, because you have death, express and concern about it and then but doesn't but doesn't prevent it. Right there. What he does is he takes the chicken and gives it a supposedly more merciful, peaceful death, and there is some inster of seeing nuance to this. It says death had never killed. He taken life, but only when it was finished with. There was a difference between theft and stealing by finding. So this is another thing about the the Labor of the chicken is that it's not like the chicken produces eggs and we make use of them and then the chicken is allowed to live out its natural life and die and then you could take it and cook it like there's an argument there that everything is feeding. Everyone know this chickens life is being specifically taken. It's not finished with. And yes, death is equating this to theft rather than, you know, finding the chicken and take an advantage of it. And Miss Footworth methods of killing are also made to sound gross and in personal. It says Mr Flett, she says Mr Flitworth used to ring their next but I never got the knack of that. The cleaver is messy and they run around a bit afterwards, but they're dead all right and they know it. So yes, at this point death intervenes but, as I said, not to save the chicken but to give it a supposedly more humane death, which, notably, is obscured from both Miss Flitworth and the readers vision. In what is off putting about this is footworth is. We are told that she chokes them or she cuts their heads off, or a husband checked or she cuts their heads off. We don't know what death does, right. Presumably he just magically takes the soul from the chicken. But Miss Flitworth and the reader aren't confronted with the taking of the chickens life the same way that we are by Miss Flitworth's methods. And this is a big part of vegetarian and Vegan theory as well. Is Are there's a famous quote that is often control attributed to Paul McCartney, though I don't know if he ever said it and he certainly wasn't the first, but the idea that if slaughter houses had glass walls, we'd all be vegetarians. Now this is demonstrably untrue, as all talk with the n near Cornis movement in the second but part of the normalization of meat eating and the perpetuation of it as an acceptable practice is the fact that is obscured right it's a lot of houses are placed outside of major cities and things, and this is...

...what carrot Jay Adams, who's a like the major feministegan critic, calls the absent reference the idea the individuality, the personhood of the animal that is being slaughtered is removed between its processing and and the person, the mediator, who is eating it. By the time it's on your plate, is no longer a chicken it, I mean in this case, is bad example, because we call chicken chicken by the idea the difference between calling something a cow and calling something beef. The idea that the personhood or the individuality of the animal is a raised is an essential part of the meat eating process at its acceptance. So yeah, when death takes the checking turns his back and then all we're told is a tiny spot of light hovers from his palm as gently blown on and faded away, rather than the messy clever where they run around afterwards. This is as much as we're getting a softening of the idea of death coming to humans, we are getting a softening and Rouperman of animal slaughter. So if it's meant to be an undenied axiom that pratchetts portrayal of the Compassionate deaths soppn softens people's attitudes towards death and helps us accept the notion of our own death or the depth of other people. By the same logic, the softening we see here promotes the acceptance and killing of other animals, and the fact that this is the first and maybe only time death has actually killed is it's confronting, but is also presented as necessary. This is what I was talking about, for this is an idea called will conism. So if you have vegetarianism or Veganism, our philosophical positions against meat eating, right, right. Rather than being pro eating vegetables, they are pro or they are anti eating animals. Canism is, then the ideology of pro eating animals. It's a term coined rather recently by the social psychologist Melodie Joy, I think here around two thousand and eleven to yet describe the ideology of meat eating, and it's quite interesting that this is a word, like the word vegetarian, has been around when the word vegetarian itself comes into usage in the mid nineteen century. A VEGAN has been around since the one thousand nine hundred and seventy is there were earlier terms before that, dating all the way back to yet Greek antipity and things, whereas the term for a meat EEDIA, like you call someone a meat eater, but the name for a meat eating ideology, as far as I know, has never been given a specific name until yet the last ten years or so, I think earlier in the nineties and stuff. They talk about card neverism. So same sort of idea. But this is not the idea that just meet eating is okay. But Joy definds this as the the three ends of normal. It's normal, it's natural and it's necessary. Right, so it's normal, everyone does it, it must be okay, it's natural. This is humans are meant to eat meat, so therefore it must be right, which ties back into our existentialist essentialist I guess we were doing before exploring, before and necessary, the idea that we have to eat meat, that we can't not eat meat, which is obviously disproved by the existence of Vegetarians. But that is why I have a moral problem with myself, and perhaps other people eating meat rather than my cat, who is knocking a ball around on top of the shelf while she's the ground up dead chickens I poured in the ball for in that cat's a carnivals and can't sustain themselves without me, whereas people can, and therefore I would argue that they shouldn't. Near conism, which ties into this, shelley. So then a modern extension of that, or a more recent extension of kind of stylology, is what Joey calls near econism. This is the idealization of naturalistic, pastoral animal farming and meat eating. See, yes, she describes this as the ideology that what's wrong isn't meat eating, it is industrialized meat eating. And if you take the industrialization out of the animal slaughtering meat production process, you and and return to a an allegedly more natural, more intimate version of meat eating, than that is ethical, while industrialized me eating is not as so this is where you get things like, you know, local meats and celebrity chefs killing animals on TV. General of it. Did it, you can look it out. So yes, this puts the lie to the idea that if slaughter houses had glass walls, ever are be vegetarian, because now there is a moment for everyone to have this intimate relationship with the animals they killed, and you often see this in fiction and stuff, with the idealization of indigenous practices, of like thinking animals for killing them and things like that, but that's not what we get in reprimand. Is why I do think this sort of neocarist practice that's going on, this killing of the chickens, is meant to signal a neoconist ideology, which you know, would be in keeping with the books themes about idealizing pastoral living and criticizing automation and industrialization. Death doesn't think the chicken and move on. Instead it says build or felt Sol that's the chickens accusing gaze on him, and that's a very interest use of...

...terms there, because heart from care carrol Je Adams and and meling joy in. These people are the other big theoretical influence on modern modern vegetarian studies or critical animal studies is the French deconstructiveness philosopher, Jacques Direta, who do a lot of things, but one of the last things you did is you got really interested in animal ethics. He was not a vegetarian and did not particularly like Vegetarians and argued that me eating was inevitable. But his major contribution is he has an essay called or is a a speech he gave which I think went for nine hours over a bunch of days. Yes, is is a speech, a one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven conference. Was a ten hour address given over a number of days. That is called the animal that, therefore I am and this has been hugely influential on modern animal philosophy and things. But to boil it's ten hours down to the crux of it, is Derota says that animals have worth and sub ethical subjectivity. That is worth considering. They have interior lives and we know this because literally, this is what he says and this has been the most influential piece of writing on modern animal philosophy. He says I know my cat as a person because one night I got up and went to the toilet and I was naked and I was going to the toilet. I was making I turned around, my cat was looking at me and I felt embarrassed and he says, there's my cat wasn't a person. I wouldn't feel embarrassed to be naked in front of them, but because I did feel embarrassed to be naked in front of them. They must have an interior priority, or I must believe they have an interiority, and therefore opens up a whole bunch of questions of having accepted that, what should do now someone who has no problem being naked and constantly is in front of his forcats? Now I don't think this is a particularly good argument. But the the deeper philosophical point there, beyond that ridiculous anector, is the idea of being confronted by the other this comes into Sacha as well. In that Sutra says we have to create ourselves for other people, that if there was no one else and no one to judge us, we could do whatever we want it. But the fact that there are other people and they are there judging our actions is part of what makes us have to create a collective morality. So yes, this idea that if we are confronted by the gaze of the animal, therefore they should be regarded with subjective interior or interiority, which is a fancy way of saying like personhood, personality or at least interior lives that are worth moral consideration. It's interesting that, yes, we have build or feeling Cyril's accusing gaze on him. Perhaps a a coincidence? And Ruperman predates Dere it is speech by seven years and it doesn't get translated into English until, I think it's like two thousand and one or something, although I think the first parts translated earlier. But this idea of the gays as part of existentialist philosophy has been around. But we also have after the scene with the chicken and Ruperman, and we have after lunch build or and this footworth putting down rap poison, which makes death feel like a murderer, which is again an interesting turn of phrase in regards to Derada, because part of the distinction that Dereta makes between killing a nonhuman animal and killing a human is the idea of murder versus what he calls a non criminal putting to death right. There's nothing different in the taking of a life from either of these creatures. If you if you do grant them, you know, and an ethical interiority or a subjective interiority. What is different is that one is considered just and therefore is not criminalized, while the killing of a human is considered unjustin is therefore criminalized. See, yes, there is. There is a ethical difference between the concepts of the murder and killing rather than a quantity of difference. The acts themselves the same as the context. That that is different. And yes, that death and Miss Flip Worths Matt rescilling also causes the manifestation of the death of rats, who will go on to be a main feature of these death novels at add somewhat of an icon for the discworld series. See Ye a kind of says as a it's cute, little psychic, but it is also a momentary Morey of animal slaughter or animal murder as death feels. So as much as Pratchett is idealizing this lifestyle, he is the one part of it he is taking time to stop and critique is Ashum necessity of animal slaughter or if it is necessary. He's having some moral clowns and having his death work through them. So yeah, that bit definitely stood out to me. At riberman's end you also have the death of rats appearing in death. Don't that's domain and puntitioning him to be allowed to remain as his own subjective personality, and although death initially rejects this request, saying he is death alone. The last word, that which appears after an Olypses, gives death pause and then and then he allows the the death of rats to keep up living. So you know, this is the idea of non human companionship being a valuable part of life, while also continuing that idea of the the confrontation with the animal oither right death is not only has climbs about killing other animals...

...after recognizing their interior lives, but also sees value in keeping them around. And of course, during during a rat up trap seeing we have the reference to the amazing Maurice and he's educated rodents, which is a book cratcher would write ten years later. She also continues the tradition of non human animals, and not only I mean Maurice, the amazing race, is a cat, but is also a stray cat much like the one I've just taken in. But is humanizing. Rats were generally seen at as pests. So yes, it's very easy to humanize cats and dogs and horses and even pigs and things, but to humanize pests is interesting. And in fact the idea of animal companionship is a corner stone of the morality that pratches preaching in Roupeman, because the whole book and the appeal to asrael rests on this allusion to the bird man of Alcatraz. Rights, it says, build or remembered visiting an old man once, only once, right. So He's gone to collect his life. And this man had spent his entire life locked in a cell at a tower for some alleged crime or other and had tamed little birds for company during his life sentence. They crapped on his bedding and eat his food, but he tolerated them and smiled at their flight in and out of the high barred window as death. Had wondered at the time why anyone would do something else. And then he talks to the death of rats and says, I won't delay you, I expect you've got things to do, rats to see. I know how it is, and the book ends would it says, and now he understood. So the entire morality of the humanization of death and his compassion is tied to this respective of not just human life but other animal life as well. And this final scene is an allusion to Robert Stroud, who was known as the bird band of Alcatraz and romanticized the one thousand nine hundred and sixty two film starring Burt Lancaster. Except in reality Stroud was a pimp, a pedophile and a murderer who killed people. While in prison, he only kept birds very short time and then when he went out Alcatraz did not. He kept birds while he was at another present. So yes, this isn't an innocent man being kept in a tower for some alleged crime or other. This is a a non documented pedophile and multiple murderer. So yes, perhaps not someone you want to base your morality and conception of compassion on, and I sort of expect better. I've Pratchett really there seems like a bit of a lazy reference for him. That seems like projuice, the kind of person who would point out that the bird man of Alcatraz was a despicable person, you know, and put the lie to the commonly accepted Cliche, whereas he leans right into it. So while I agree with and appreciate his sentiments and their connections to animal ethics, I yeah don't know if he went the best way about it there with the Birdman of Alcatraz references. Okay, and that it's all for now. I'll be back hopefully soon part two, or looking at some things to do with the window prunes and the fresh start clubs. So yeah, thanks for listening by and we're clear. HMM, explilinos, that is mouse in the cat.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (24)