![]() |
The Terry Pratchett Books Message Board welcomes visitors to the Discworld, Terry Pratchett Novels and literary enthusiasts. |
| |||||||||
|
||||
|
Well, hopefully I've given you enough information there that you can comment and join in the discussion even if you've never seen the film or read the book. That's what I was trying to do. I've only seen the first film and read half of the book.
The Garner who cares. |
|
|||
|
i'd emailed my reply to buzzfloyd, but she'd already left the house before she got it so she'll have to post it when she gets home.
|
|
||||
|
Hmmm, yes, there was plenty of information, after all, I just didn't want to read it all if it was about something I wasn't going to be able to follow...
And actually I'm not going to be all that constructive, because I rather agree with you analysis of it Grace, I mean, from the excerpts quoted here I probably can't fathom the whole of either character, but it does seem rather vague what the author wants us to think, I'm even wondering if he knew what he wanted us to think or if he was unsure too... I mean cruelty vs. murder, it's a big question, maybe his whole point was to get people thinking for themselves, and debating about it ? From the little I have read here, I agree that Rizzi is clearly at least equally "bad" as Sonny, if not worse, from a purely "moral" point of view, although they are both bad men... But as I said, I have neither seen the film or read the whole book, so I may be missing information to reall tell the difference. |
|
||||
|
Here is Garner's response, as emailed to me:
[quote:a315ef0843]In paragraph three, your partial quote might change the meaning slightly. when you add in "It never occured to Carlo that", then it could just be carlo's view being exhibited, not Puzo's. Carlo's not a product of Little Italy in new york city, he grew up out in nevada. if i remember right, he might be from italy rather than sicily. these set him apart a bit from the Corleones, but he still shares much the same world view. He knows how the mafia works. Sonny is a primal man. His strength is admired by the other men, who wish they were as tall, as hung, as rich, and as fearsome. What carlo dearly wants is to be someone like Sonny. Carlo, prior to his beating by sonny, thinks to himself that, man to man, he could take sonny out in a fight. Carlo, to be fair, is a big guy himself. however, carlo was in fear of sonny from the very first moment. his sense of superiority over connie and his speculative superiority over sonny likely stem from an inferiority complex he has about the corleones. ambitious people often transmogrify a sense of inferiority into one of superiority, because the mind cannot hold self loating, and they would loath to be inferior. After sonny beats carlo to a pulp, Carlo resents sonny for having established/proven the dominance chain. he fears sonny, especially sonny's ability to murder, and specificly sonny's ability to murder HIM. carlo can't escape the inferiority-through-fear-of feeling he has towards sonny, now, and because of the world he lives in and the values it upholds, i think puzo's saying that carlo simply didn't consider a different world view. he didn't say "well, at least i'm not a savage lawless beast", he said "well, i'm not as big a mafia bastard as sonny". To look at Carlo's possible destiny as contrasted to Sonny's... Sonny was a kind and gentle kid who grew up to be a murderer. he has an amazing tallent for street warfare, and in the previous mafia war that established the hegemony of the Five Families, Sonny earned his reputation as a military genius at the age of only 16. his approach to killing other people is very much the same as a military strategist. he's got a job to do, but he has few compunctions to stall his plans, and none of those compunctions deal with legal sanctioning of his actions. He was a savage man who did bad things, but as you point out, he wasn't exactly a 'bad' man, and he had a good soul, at least in the begining. Carlo's destiny... what we know of his youth is that he grew up in nevada, working construction. everything we've seen of him directly suggests he's money hungry, and his marriage to connie was probably motivated more by his own hopes for personal advancement than by anything else. there's never really anything said to make carlo a likable character. Connie fell for him because of his looks. not his personality. I think its carlo's destiny, unadulterated from the onset, to be a man whos ambitions far outstripped his potential. he makes bad choices routinely, and we only see his behavior worsen as it goes on. the best he does for connie is to 'screw her every night' without beating her when he's terrified of her family. neither of these men are moral in the eyes of society, but, and you argue this fantasticly, within the eyes of the smaller world, the world of the Godfather Corleone, Sonny is the good son, and carlo is the bad egg.[/quote:a315ef0843] The Garner who cares. |
|
||||
|
Requoting from the book:
[quote:18108fc8e1]Sonny was a man who could, with the naturalness of an animal, kill another man, while he himself would have to call up all his courage, all his will, to commit murder. It never occurred to Carlo that because of this he was a better man than Sonny Corleone, if such terms could be used; he envied Sonny his awesome savagery, a savagery which was now becoming a legend.[/quote:18108fc8e1] I don't see the ambiguity in this passage. What constitutes being a better person is not something Carlo thinks about, so it [i:18108fc8e1]cannot[/i:18108fc8e1] be his point of view. Otherwise it would occur to him. Essentially, Puzo is saying, "It never occurred to Carlo [i:18108fc8e1]as it would to someone else[/i:18108fc8e1] that because of this he was a better man etc". I think there is a strong implication that it would occur to someone with clear judgement that Carlo was a better man because he could not kill. In other words, that the opinion of the moral right (morally righteous?) would always be that Carlo was better as he was not a murderer, and did not have it in his nature to be a murderer. The Garner who cares. |
|
||||
|
It makes me think that Puzo [u:90830f3ef3]does[/u:90830f3ef3] mean that Carlo is a better man-but ONLY in this particular sense. Sonny is compared to the animal world- not the sophistication and civilisation that is considered synonymous with humanity. However, the fact that Carlo is described as [i:90830f3ef3]incapable[/i:90830f3ef3] of committing murder- not that he is more self-disciplined, or more ruled by his conscience, but that he is [i:90830f3ef3]fundamentally lacking[/i:90830f3ef3] in this capability which Sonny has, reminds me of the supposed* moral of the Harry Potter books- "it is our choices which matter". And, in a strict definition of the word, Carlo is demonstrated as being 'better' at being human than Sonny is, because Sonny acts on instinct.
*(ie, the fact that Harry himself is depicted as being unable to cast an 'unforgivable' spell, but does this make him better than other characters or simply weaker?) |
|
||||
|
That's a very interesting take on it, Roisin. I hadn't looked at it that way.
Do you think that Puzo is saying that Sonny should not be regarded as a bad man at all, or perhaps as a lesser man somehow? The Garner who cares. |
|
||||
|
I'm really not sure, but Puzo seems to write about Sonny as if he himself admires the character- he is in a sense an ideal of manhood.
I wonder if Puzo is also using this statement to vindicate Carlo a little- with all of his faults, he at least is not self-righteously thinking "Well, I'm a better man than he is, my sins are less serious." Because even if Sonny is a murderer, Carlo beats his own wife, when he really is honor-bound to protect her. |
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|