Talk:Feet of Clay (novel)

In the translations section, should there be something to show what the titles mean, rather than just putting them out there? I'll leave that to someone else, because I don't speak any of those languages. :P Tigger89 22:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Motivation

A note on Dragon's motivation: early in the novel, he claims not to care about Angua's race ("a good pedigree is the thing") and is instead unnerved by the fact that Carrot may be a truely good king, one of the ones out of legend that listens to the common people instead of the rich. Later one, he TELLS Vimes that he was concerned about half-werewolf heirs to the throns. Could he just have been lying? And if so, should we include this in the summary? -- Raveled

Title

I'm not sure if this is too important, but I thought that the point of a statue that is good apart from feet of clay is that if the feet crumble due to impurity then the whole statue goes down. There's already something there about the saying in general though, so I thought better not to edit.

Actually, the entire verse resonates with the book, the statue being out of a dream that was meant to symbolise a kingdom being watered down from a really good king (head of gold) to an unstable and pathetic king (feet of clay). I'm sure there's some way that you could read into it but I'll leave that up to someone else. MaddenedMan 12:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure that it's appropriate to repeat the whole "Nebudchadnezzar's dream" interpretation herein. Okay, so actually I'm mincing words here - I distinctly feel that it's NOT appropriate. Here's why:

1. In the first place, it's completely unnecessary, as there is already a disambiguation note at the top which provides a link to information about the phrase and its origin.

2. Secondly, going into this kind of detail in the article seems to imply that Pratchett was intentionally going for a Biblical reference, which is doubtful. The phase "feet of clay" is common enough (more than common enough) in mainstream language that it's quite possible to use it without even remotely intending to refer to its original source.

3. Finally, it is both a break in consistency with the character of the novel, and an unacceptably ethnocentric position for an encyclopedic work, to state that this verse is from "the Bible". It should most correctly be referred to as being from the Hebrew scriptures.

Why? First off, because the culture being mirrored by Pratchett here is definitely Judaic, not Christian. Pratchett's "version" of Christianity seems to be the religion of the god Om, as referenced in Small Gods and some of the City Watch novels (e.g, Constable Visit). Whereas everything about Dorfl suggests a Judiac-type culture, from the very fact that he is a golem (a creature that originates in Jewish folk tales) and the script used to write his "holy words", to many other aspects of the character and culture.

Secondly, in academic and historical terms, it is always most proper to refer to a work by its original title and association. The Hebrew scriptures were in existence long before Christianity; saying that the Book of Daniel is part of "the Bible" (i.e., the Christian Bible by implication) is a form of cultural appropriation. It should be referred to as part of "the Hebrew Bible" or "the Hebrew scriptures" - or simply "the Book of Daniel" as in the main article.

For now, I'm removing most of this section because, for the reasons above, I don't think it's either pertinent or appropriate. But I've included my arguments here in case of an impending revision war. :)

24.128.175.142 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

City Watch Novel

Why is it the 4th City Watch story? Should be the third, eh?

Contradiction between moral and atheist

The article currently says: "The book ends with Dorfl joining the Watch and becoming the rigorously-legalistic and utterly (yet atheistically) moral clay arm of the law." I think this text strongly implies that there is a contradiction between being moral and being an atheist. This of course, is an arrogant theistic slur against atheists. Consider the text: "The book ends with Dorfl joining the Watch and becoming the rigorously-legalistic and utterly (yet moslem) moral clay arm of the law." -Sensemaker

I read it differently. I think the sentence is just making a distinction between religion and morality, which is fair enough, as the two are often represented as being inseparable. Geoff B 17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hence, no religion, no morality. That seems extremely prejudiced against atheists. No doubt the most smug, self-righteous and prejudiced theists often think atheists are immoral and represent religion and morality as one and atheists as immoral, but we should not consider religiously intolerant people's opinion more than those misogynists and racists. We do not explicitly state that a person was smart despite being negro or female. Pointing out that sometimes a person can be moral despite the fact that he is atheist is strongly implying that most atheists are not. Consider the sentence "you're smart, despite the fact that you are a woman". While actually stating that a single example goes against a prejudice the sentence strongly implies support for the prejudice in general.

When I think about it I am not sure Dorfl is an atheist. He is open to the possibility that gods exist, but until proven otherwise he assumes they do not. Isn't that agnosticism rather than atheism? My attitude is similar to Dorfl's and I refer to myself as an agnostic. Of course I wouldn't be an angostic if I had as much evidence of divine intervention as a discworlder has -Sensemaker

It's merely making the point that Dorfl's moral are not acquired from a religion, but from himself, but if it offends you so much that you feel you need to write two paragraphs about it, change it to a more 'neutral' wording. Geoff B 09:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not particularly offend me -I do not consider myself an atheist. However, I do wish to be fair towards them. I do not need to write two paragraphs, I choose to. Besides, is it truly remarkable that a discworlder doesn't get his ethics from a god? Most discworld gods do not seem to impose a set of ethics on their worshippers. I have changed the wording to: "The book ends with Dorfl joining the Watch and becoming the rigorously-legalistic and utterly moral clay arm of the law as well as something as rare as a discworld atheist." -Sensemaker

Summary

I wrote a much shorter synopsis yesterday and replaced this one.

I found the old one to be far too detailed and colourful. Instead of a chapter-by-chapter retelling I took a chronological approach which should be much easier to follow for someone who hasn't yet read the book. 85.182.11.111 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I find this version too short and not detailed enough. I suggest returning to the older version or rewriting and expanding this one. I would like to hear more opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.111.212 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 February 2008

refimprove tag

On Feb 23rd DP76764 added a refimprove tag to this article. I asked him why he did so on his discussion page and he replied "surely there are some/any citations that could be added" and that otherwise the article's notability could be challenged.

Notability guidelines for novels are certainly met, regardless of any unsourced statements. To be on the safe side, I removed the only statement that was unsourced ("FoC is a parody") and removed the refimprove tag. Dp76764 also tagged some other Discworld novels but I'm too lazy to look into that, at the moment. 91.39.164.166 (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, which of the criteria do you feel this article satisfies? I'm guessing #5? DP76764 (Talk) 14:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Criteria

A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

2. The book has won a major literary award.

3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.

4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.

5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards, rather that the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.