History Headscratchers / UnseenAcademicals

* Some might hate me for this, but there's a sentence about half-way through the bool that states -[...]UU's first football match in decades began-. This brings up the following question: Didn't they fulfil the bequest's conditions right there? We never get an information about the bequest's conditions state they have to play a full match (if that were the case they would not fulfil it anyway in the end). Only that they need to ''enter a team in the game of foot-the-ball'' . Didn't they actualy just do that right there?

** He snapped, I'd say. The book says he can't do math anymore.

* If Ponder is doing the Bursar's job now, what happened to the Bursar?

*** Adrian only came over as part of the Dean's group. Of ''course'' he went back with the Dean. How is that not clear? Not every single detail has to be explicitly stated.

*** Thing is, it is never said. Only the former Dean actively goes back to Brazeneck. There's no mention of what Adrian was doing in all the time. He appears, speaks one line, flees the scene not to get into the line of fire and...vanishes.

** He went back to Brazeneck, where the thing with the chicken happened, if I remember correctly.

* {{WhatHappenedToTheMouse}}: Adrian Turnipseed...Where did he go after the scene he was in? The text makes it clear he didn't talk to Ponder.

**** And it's not even that she wanted him killed, she just wanted to be ready to kill him if needed. Vetinari was, as always, clever enough to know it wouldn't be.

* Why is the statue of Alberto Malich still up in UU in ''Making Money''? I thought Albert blew up up in ''Reaper Man''?

* If there are over 200 football rules on the Disc compared to the [[NotMakingThisUpDisclaimer 17 we have on Roundworld]] ([[NotMakingThisUpDisclaimer printed on about 125-200 pages and up, mind you]]), why is there none yet concerning penalty kicks, linesmen etc? What DO these rules concern?

**** Checked. [[NotMakingThisUpDisclaimer It's rule number 4.]]

*** Pretty certain it has to be the former. Lady Margolotta has no reason seen, said, implied, or even inferrable from what we've seen that suggests she'd want the latter.

*** We might never know whether she wanted him killed or to go into bersekrmode and rampage through the city. Not until someone asks Pterry.

*** I'm not sure what you're saying is wrong here. She thought Nutt was a threat and wanted him killed, and Vetinari overruled her--she's offended because he went against her advice, and doing so exposed that she wanted Nutt killed.

*** ''I'' am fully aware of that. But as said, the text suggests ''she'' adviced to arm the guards with crossbows and ''she'' seemed offended when Vetinari ordered to stand them down. I am not saying that it DOES mean anything, just that it COULD.

*** You're right. '''''We''''' don't learn what it takes to bring down [[spoiler:an orc]]. Lady Magolotta, who's helped ''raise'' Nutt, probably did. Just because ''we'' don't know something doesn't mean the ''characters'' don't know it. In fact, it's usually quite the opposite.

*** But we never learn what it took to take them down completely. And, as said, it might be viewed as a bit weird that Margolotta adviced Drumknott to prepare a way of dealing with the two she should have known could easily have ...very negative consequences.

Recall what [[spoiler:orcs]] apparently served the ''losing'' side of some sorceror war, so they ''can'' be beaten in combat.

* In the end of Unseen Academicals when Glenda and [[spoiler: the orc]] go to the palace, Lady Margolotta apparently adviced Drumknott to station guards with crossbows in the hall to shoot the two. And she seems rather offended when Vetinari tells his secretary to 'stand them (the guards) down'. Now, we learned that [[spoiler: the orc]] is pretty much nigh-immortal and that the bolts therefore would only harm/kill Glenda, very likely sending him in a near impossible to stop bersekerrage and rampage. Margolotta's ought to be fully aware of that. What the hell was that woman thinking/planning?

**** Checked. [[NotMakingThisUpDisclaimer It's rule number 4.]]

*** I think that's actually IN the FIFA-Rules. Will have to check.

** While it is strange there wouldn't be some of the basic rules in place, the rules which are in place are probably along the same lines as the rules for Quiditch in the ''HarryPotter'' universe, albeit fewer magic related ones- basically, there is a need to expressly forbid specific forms of violence as otherwise, people will do them (have done them), because there AintNoRule. Imagine if football rules included things like no stabbing or shooting other players or wearing brass knuckles on the field. The number of rules would pile up quickly.

** While it is strange there wouldn't be some of the basic rules in place, the rules which are in place are probably along the same lines as the rules for Quiditch in the ''HarryPotter'' universe, albeit fewer magic related ones- basically, there is a need to expressly forbid specific forms of violence as otherwise, people will do them (have done them), because ThereAintNoRule. Imagine if football rules included things like no stabbing or shooting other players or wearing brass knuckles on the field. The number of rules would pile up quickly.

** Going by earlier books (Like Jingo, where they count the score based on fouls rather than goals), it's likely that at this point, a certain amount of violence on the field is expected and allowed, and you just keep playing rather than stop to do penalty kicks.

* If there are over 200 football rules on the Disc compared to the [[NotMakingThisUpDisclaimer 17 we have on Roundworld]] ([[NotMakingThisUpDisclaimer printed on about 125-200 pages and up, mind you]]), why is there none yet concerning penalty kicks, linesmen etc? What DO these rules concern?

**** Perhaps, like the cricket trophy annually contested by England and Australia, it literally is The Ashes - of the Hat, and not the cricket stumps? This would fit the theme of UA and all the obscure British sporting allusions...

*** Didn't Ridcully mention somewhere in the text that the hat 'Henry's after' is grumbling too much for his taste?