[R] _Wintersmith_ Review
Leo Breebaart
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series, but I
can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The Wee Free
Men_ just fine (though I preferred _Maurice_), but _A Hatful of
Sky_ was a disappointment: I thought it was too predictable, with
too many familiar Discworld themes and motifs being revisited in
ways that I just did not enjoy as much as I would have liked to.
_Wintersmith_, alas, continues pretty much in the same vein. It's
a pleasant enough read, but *again* we have endless ruminations
on what it really means to be a witch, *again* we have an
anthropomorphic personification trying (and failing) to become
human, *again* we are told about the hard lives of the "plain
folks", and so on. The Nac Mag Feegle are there, but bring
nothing new to the party, and mainly show up to briefly repeat a
few of their established tricks (follow Tiffany in her dreams,
dress up as a human, etc.)
Having said that, the pastoral focus of the series is by no means
a bad thing. _Wintersmith_ reads as if it were one leisurely long
folk tale itself (truly a "Story of Discworld"!), and the evoked
atmosphere rings true. I haven't read anything that felt this
English to me since the _The Dark is Rising_, or perhaps _Cider
With Rosie_. In that sense, _Wintersmith_ may well be the
strongest and most accomplished of the three Tiffany books.
As usual with Terry, there is also very much to enjoy at the
scene and paragraph level. I loved the section on Mrs Tick's
_Magavenatio Obtusis_ (also enhanced by the memory of Terry
reading this at DWCon), I enjoyed Tiffany's first victory over
Granny with You the kitten (wonderful name!), and the big
laugh-out-loud moment came when Tiffany delivered what I consider
to be the best quote of the last five Discworld books or so: "I
warn you! I've got a Cornucopia and I'm not afraid to use it!"
Nevertheless, I had been hoping for a bit more than what
_Wintersmith_ gave me. It's a good story, but there's just too
much comfortable familiarity in plot, characters, and events.
(Final nitpicky complaint: I had considerable trouble buying the
initial event that sets the whole plot in motion: Miss Treason
must have known by then that Tiffany was the kind of girl who
would have responded *far* better to an actual explanation of (a)
what they were going to witness, and (b) why she should under no
circumstance join the dance. Seems to me the hand of the author
is too visible here: Terry needed a way to get Tiffany to do
something rather out of character, so deliberately withholding
crucial information from her and letting the resulting teenage
resentment cloud her judgement may have seemed like a good
solution, but I had trouble retaining my willing suspension of
disbelief at that point.)
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
>
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
>
>
>
>
> I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series,
> but I can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The
> Wee Free Men_ just fine (though I preferred _Maurice_), but
> _A Hatful of Sky_ was a disappointment: I thought it was
> too predictable, with too many familiar Discworld themes
> and motifs being revisited in ways that I just did not
> enjoy as much as I would have liked to.
>
> _Wintersmith_, alas, continues pretty much in the same
> vein. It's a pleasant enough read, but *again* we have
> endless ruminations on what it really means to be a witch,
> *again* we have an anthropomorphic personification trying
> (and failing) to become human, *again* we are told about
> the hard lives of the "plain folks", and so on.
I see what you're saying, but I kind of *liked* that aspect.
I've often thought I'd really like a Witches novel in which
*nothing* particularly happens, and we just wander around
after them on an ordinary day. This wasn't it, obviously, but
it came pretty close, and I suspect the fact the plot was a
Discworld staple was part of that.
As far as "the hard lives of the 'plain folks'" goes, there
was a bit of a twist here; when Annagramma virtuously refuses
to take their food, it's because she's thinking of them as
such. Tiffany, who's thinking of them as *people*, knows
better.
<snip stuff I broadly agree with>
> (Final nitpicky complaint: I had considerable trouble
> buying the initial event that sets the whole plot in
> motion: Miss Treason must have known by then that Tiffany
> was the kind of girl who would have responded *far* better
> to an actual explanation of (a) what they were going to
> witness, and (b) why she should under no circumstance join
> the dance. Seems to me the hand of the author is too
> visible here: Terry needed a way to get Tiffany to do
> something rather out of character, so deliberately
> withholding crucial information from her and letting the
> resulting teenage resentment cloud her judgement may have
> seemed like a good solution, but I had trouble retaining my
> willing suspension of disbelief at that point.)
I dunno - I got the distinct impresstion that until Tiffany
grabbed her attention by doing this Miss Treason hadn't given
any thought to what sort of girl she was at all.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/
"The need to compile lists is a personality disorder,
as is the need to assert the superiority of some things
over other things."
-Jeremy Hardy
8'FED
> I see what you're saying, but I kind of *liked* that aspect.
> I've often thought I'd really like a Witches novel in which
> *nothing* particularly happens, and we just wander around
> after them on an ordinary day.
Like this, you mean?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.pratchett/msg/fca03a04c6786e4c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.pratchett/msg/bc6f7ad5f96c6e22
Your reply at the time was, "that sounds brilliant".
Adrian.
Arthur Hagen
>
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
>
>
>
>
> I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series, but I
> can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The Wee Free
> Men_ just fine (though I preferred _Maurice_), but _A Hatful of
> Sky_ was a disappointment: I thought it was too predictable, with
> too many familiar Discworld themes and motifs being revisited in
> ways that I just did not enjoy as much as I would have liked to.
I have to agree that Wintersmith was a disappointment -- in my case compared
to both the earlier Tiffany books. It's like it's been dumbed down
considerably. Things are explained over and over again, as if the reader
never read the first explanation (never mind whether the reader /needed/
it).
Then there's several loose threads, where you get the impression that
something will return or be completed later, /but never is/. And things
that stand out like an American tourist in Soho, like using a footnote to
state the names of three guards who have nothing whatsoever to do with the
story. Were those three people who paid for or "won" having their name in
the book, and The Author failed to or forgot write them in before the book
was completed?
The most major flaw IMO is that it appears to be happen on a roundworld
inhabited by some of the same personae as Discworld, but it isn't Discworld.
Only one winter and one summer? And only one Winter and one Summer dancing
twice a year?[1] And Hogswatch being the shortest day and longest night of
the year? That doesn't jive.[2] With the Summer/Winter personification
being the main /point/ of the book, this seems to me to be a major bounce of
logic.
This roundworld also seems to have a *very* short year, where most of the
action takes place in a fall->winter->spring period that sums up to a couple
of weeks. There doesn't seem to be any unaccounted-for days, which doesn't
add up with the story line.
No, this one goes on the bottom 5 list of DW books, and is IMO the worst DW
children's book so far.
As an ebook, it's better than Thud!, but whoever set it still doesn't know
anything about the possibilities of the program he set it with (like font
sizes, bold and italic), and the scans of the greek text are so blurry and
anti-aliased that they can't be read. A waste of $13 -- I should have
waited for it to hit the $6-or-so bargain bin like Thud!, which I predict
won't take long.
[1]: The season is based on the disc's spin, and every day of every season
occurs somewhere on the disc at any given time[3]. The Wintersmith and
Summer Lady should dance twice[4] every day.
[2]: Midwinter as the shortest day clearly indicates a sphere, not a disc.
Hogswatch should be the *longest* day. The shortest day would be midsummer,
as the sun will be hidden directly behind Cori Celesti for a while.
[3]: This was, IMO, a logical flaw with "Hogfather" too. A disc world
based Kris Kringle would do sector based deliveries, every day, cause it'd
be hogswatch /somewhere/.
[4]: When it's spring on one part of the disc, it's autumn on another.
Regards,
--
*Art
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com>
> Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org> wrote:
>> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for
>> _Wintersmith_.
> So does the commentary.
>>
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>>
>>
>>
>>
> And things that stand out like an
> American tourist in Soho, like using a footnote to state
> the names of three guards who have nothing whatsoever to do
> with the story. Were those three people who paid for or
> "won" having their name in the book, and The Author failed
> to or forgot write them in before the book was completed?
Can't be that, the guards were first named in WFM.
> The most major flaw IMO is that it appears to be happen on
> a roundworld inhabited by some of the same personae as
> Discworld, but it isn't Discworld. Only one winter and one
> summer? And only one Winter and one Summer dancing twice a
> year?[1] And Hogswatch being the shortest day and longest
> night of the year? That doesn't jive.[2] With the
> Summer/Winter personification being the main /point/ of the
> book, this seems to me to be a major bounce of logic.
Except that it's long been established that only astronomers
care about the Great Year, to everyone else a year is four
seasons.
I think it's also been stated that Hogswatch *is* the shortest
day of the year, whether that makes sense or not (I agree it
doesn't, but am quite happy for this to be explained by the
same mechanism as the climate; it's magic).
> [3]: This was, IMO, a logical flaw with
> "Hogfather" too. A disc world based Kris Kringle would do
> sector based deliveries, every day, cause it'd be hogswatch
> /somewhere/.
Why? Just because it's always midwinter somewhere? In
Australia it's midwinter in July, but Christmas is still in
December...
Sanity
> And things
> that stand out like an American tourist in Soho, like using a footnote to
> state the names of three guards who have nothing whatsoever to do with the
> story.
Classic epics like the Illiad and Aeneas have pages and pages full of
names of people who have little to do with the story, or only feature as
someone getting killed ;)
--
TTFN, | AFPChess, Planet AFP, L-Files & more:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
| Afpers' blogs: http://planetafp.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
Michel AKA Sanity | Discworld & Pratchett Wiki: http://wiki.lspace.org/
Arthur Hagen
> The time: 29 Sep 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com>
>
>> Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org> wrote:
>>> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for
>>> _Wintersmith_.
>> So does the commentary.
>>>
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>> a roundworld inhabited by some of the same personae as
>> Discworld, but it isn't Discworld. Only one winter and one
>> summer? And only one Winter and one Summer dancing twice a
>> year?[1] And Hogswatch being the shortest day and longest
>> night of the year? That doesn't jive.[2] With the
>> Summer/Winter personification being the main /point/ of the
>> book, this seems to me to be a major bounce of logic.
>
> Except that it's long been established that only astronomers
> care about the Great Year, to everyone else a year is four
> seasons.
There's still 800 "equinoxes" (for lack of a better word) in an an
agricultural year on the disc. Why just two dances?
And why would the personifications of Summer and Winter lie dormant for half
the year when it's "their" season on two eights on the disc at any given
time?
>> [3]: This was, IMO, a logical flaw with
>> "Hogfather" too. A disc world based Kris Kringle would do
>> sector based deliveries, every day, cause it'd be hogswatch
>> /somewhere/.
>
> Why? Just because it's always midwinter somewhere? In
> Australia it's midwinter in July, but Christmas is still in
> December...
It's also stated (and repeated in WS) that Hogswatch's Night *is* midwinter,
unlike Christmas, which is a date. People who celebrate winter solstice
does it on different dates in the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
Regards,
--
*Art
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Good points, now I think about it. The second one (as alluded
below) would also apply on a roundworld.
>>> [3]: This was, IMO, a logical flaw with
>>> "Hogfather" too. A disc world based Kris Kringle would
>>> do sector based deliveries, every day, cause it'd be
>>> hogswatch /somewhere/.
>>
>> Why? Just because it's always midwinter somewhere? In
>> Australia it's midwinter in July, but Christmas is still
>> in December...
>
> It's also stated (and repeated in WS) that Hogswatch's
> Night *is* midwinter, unlike Christmas, which is a date.
> People who celebrate winter solstice does it on different
> dates in the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
It's also stated it's the "turn of the year", which is a date.
My book of festivals says the Feast of St John the Baptist is
midsummer, but what they *mean* is it's June 24th, which is
usually close enough.
sian_shoe
> I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series, but I
> can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The Wee Free
> Men_ just fine (though I preferred _Maurice_), but _A Hatful of
> Sky_ was a disappointment: I thought it was too predictable, with
> too many familiar Discworld themes and motifs being revisited in
> ways that I just did not enjoy as much as I would have liked to.
*raises hand* Yep, that's me. It really appeals to the 12 year old girl
stuck growing up in the middle of nowhere in the countryside that was
once me, the one that thought she was a bit brighter and Not Like The
Rest, which is essentially what Tiffany Aching is. That little 12 year
old girl loved that Tiffany also kissed a pretty boy trying to be
winter, and that Roland wrote her letters and blushed in her presense
and brought her a watercolour set. I think the technical word is:
SQUEE!
> _Wintersmith_, alas, continues pretty much in the same vein. It's
> a pleasant enough read, but *again* we have endless ruminations
> on what it really means to be a witch, *again* we have an
> anthropomorphic personification trying (and failing) to become
> human, *again* we are told about the hard lives of the "plain
> folks", and so on. The Nac Mag Feegle are there, but bring
> nothing new to the party, and mainly show up to briefly repeat a
> few of their established tricks (follow Tiffany in her dreams,
> dress up as a human, etc.)
>
...Yes, you're right. This doesn't mean it's a bad thing. It's a story
about stories, remember.
> Having said that, the pastoral focus of the series is by no means
> a bad thing. _Wintersmith_ reads as if it were one leisurely long
> folk tale itself (truly a "Story of Discworld"!), and the evoked
> atmosphere rings true. I haven't read anything that felt this
> English to me since the _The Dark is Rising_, or perhaps _Cider
> With Rosie_. In that sense, _Wintersmith_ may well be the
> strongest and most accomplished of the three Tiffany books.
>
Hit it spot on with Cider With Rosie- I actually was surprised Terry
wrote about sex- albeit in a veiled, knowing way. For example, Tiffany
reading a Romance novel- hands up here girls, how many of you sneakily
read your Mother's Jackie Collins/Mills&Boons/Silohuette novels? I did.
Especially for the naughty bits.
> As usual with Terry, there is also very much to enjoy at the
> scene and paragraph level. I loved the section on Mrs Tick's
> _Magavenatio Obtusis_ (also enhanced by the memory of Terry
> reading this at DWCon), I enjoyed Tiffany's first victory over
> Granny with You the kitten (wonderful name!), and the big
> laugh-out-loud moment came when Tiffany delivered what I consider
> to be the best quote of the last five Discworld books or so: "I
> warn you! I've got a Cornucopia and I'm not afraid to use it!"
>
You the kitten is brilliant, and I can see several fluffy white cats
being named You now; I like the fact that Tiffany is not a Granny
Weatherwax clone, and will grow (maybe) to be her equal. I wonder where
Tiffany fits in the mould- Granny, Nanny or Agnes/Magrat?
> Nevertheless, I had been hoping for a bit more than what
> _Wintersmith_ gave me. It's a good story, but there's just too
> much comfortable familiarity in plot, characters, and events.
I don't care, I want more breadcrumbs! More Aching, please Terry! I
admit the Feegles are 2d, but- well, they're feegles; and as a Plot
Device goes, it appears the focus is on Tiffany; feegles are just
background, in Wintersmith.
Sian
X
Arthur Hagen
[adding spoiler space for a minor Wintersmith spoiler]
one
two
three
five
six
seven
giraffe
nine
ten
>
> You the kitten is brilliant, and I can see several fluffy white cats
> being named You now; I like the fact that Tiffany is not a Granny
> Weatherwax clone, and will grow (maybe) to be her equal. I wonder
> where Tiffany fits in the mould- Granny, Nanny or Agnes/Magrat?
She fits straight into the Mary Sue mold, taking over for Susan.
Regards,
--
*Art
Richard Eney
Well, that's twice you've misused a piece of language.
Jive does not mean jibe.
The SF fan writer's critical term "Mary Sue" refers to a character
who is very obviously the author's wish-fulfillment fantasy of being
in _someone else's_ story. The archetypal version is Lieutenant Mary Sue,
fresh out of Starfleet Academy, being assigned to the Starship Enterprise
and taking on all the effective roles, while the other characters stand
around and applaud, all of that being in a fanfic, an amateur story that
is not authorized by the owners of the copyright. Wesley Crusher was
not a male Mary Sue, because he wasn't a version of the writer (as far
as I know).
Tiffany may be in part Pterry's authorial voice, but she is not a Mary Sue.
=Tamar
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
> The SF fan writer's critical term "Mary Sue" refers to a
> character who is very obviously the author's
> wish-fulfillment fantasy of being in _someone else's_
> story. The archetypal version is Lieutenant Mary Sue,
> fresh out of Starfleet Academy, being assigned to the
> Starship Enterprise and taking on all the effective roles,
> while the other characters stand around and applaud, all of
> that being in a fanfic, an amateur story that is not
> authorized by the owners of the copyright. Wesley Crusher
> was not a male Mary Sue, because he wasn't a version of the
> writer (as far as I know).
While I agree that Tiff isn't a Mary-Sue[1], the term *has*
been extended to include similar characters in original
fiction.
ISTR that in a previous discission of Mary-Sues I gave, yes,
Wes Crusher as an example of a non-fanfic Marty-Stu, although
he seemed to become *more* of one in the hands of writers
other than Gene Wesley Roddenberry. I think I described that
as "like a bizarre form of sycophancy".
[1] If there's a MS on Discworld (and I'm not saying there is)
it's probably Sam Vimes.
Sofia
> That little 12 year
> old girl loved that Tiffany also kissed a pretty boy trying to be
> winter, and that Roland wrote her letters and blushed in her presense
> and brought her a watercolour set. I think the technical word is:
> SQUEE!
I only recieved my copy this morning so I don't know that much about it,
but if our young Roland turns up writing Tiffany love letters and buying
her little love gifts, then is it meant to be just another cute love
story, or is there a more solid story perhaps?
Thanks
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
sian_shoe
Sofia wrote:
>
> I only recieved my copy this morning so I don't know that much about it,
> but if our young Roland turns up writing Tiffany love letters and buying
> her little love gifts, then is it meant to be just another cute love
> story, or is there a more solid story perhaps?
I... Well, I can't work it out. I'm sure it's painfully obviously what
her (heavily repressed) feelings are; but maybe it will take the
Ridcully/Weatherwax route rather then the Fool/Magrat. Who knows? Not
my characters, so I can't decide how they'll end up. I don't think
Tiffany Aching's story ends with Wintersmith, though.
Torak
> The time: 30 Sep 2006. The place: alt.books.pratchett. The
> speaker: dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>
>
>>The SF fan writer's critical term "Mary Sue" refers to a
>>character who is very obviously the author's
>>wish-fulfillment fantasy of being in _someone else's_
>>story. The archetypal version is Lieutenant Mary Sue,
>>fresh out of Starfleet Academy, being assigned to the
>>Starship Enterprise and taking on all the effective roles,
>>while the other characters stand around and applaud, all of
>>that being in a fanfic, an amateur story that is not
>>authorized by the owners of the copyright. Wesley Crusher
>>was not a male Mary Sue, because he wasn't a version of the
>>writer (as far as I know).
>
>
> While I agree that Tiff isn't a Mary-Sue[1], the term *has*
> been extended to include similar characters in original
> fiction.
>
> ISTR that in a previous discission of Mary-Sues I gave, yes,
> Wes Crusher as an example of a non-fanfic Marty-Stu, although
> he seemed to become *more* of one in the hands of writers
> other than Gene Wesley Roddenberry. I think I described that
> as "like a bizarre form of sycophancy".
>
> [1] If there's a MS on Discworld (and I'm not saying there is)
> it's probably Sam Vimes.
Probably the closest to author insertion, certainly. But he's far too
flawed to be a true Gary Stu.
Volker Hetzer
> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
>
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
>
>
>
>
> I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series, but I
> can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The Wee Free
> Men_ just fine (though I preferred _Maurice_), but _A Hatful of
> Sky_ was a disappointment: I thought it was too predictable, with
> too many familiar Discworld themes and motifs being revisited in
> ways that I just did not enjoy as much as I would have liked to.
>
> _Wintersmith_, alas, continues pretty much in the same vein. It's
> a pleasant enough read, but *again* we have endless ruminations
> on what it really means to be a witch, *again* we have an
> anthropomorphic personification trying (and failing) to become
> human, *again* we are told about the hard lives of the "plain
> folks", and so on. The Nac Mag Feegle are there, but bring
> nothing new to the party, and mainly show up to briefly repeat a
> few of their established tricks (follow Tiffany in her dreams,
> dress up as a human, etc.)
makes me think about what it means to be good too and I simply feel
like 100% in tune with the kind of ethics and general thinking Terry
puts into his novels, be it Jingo, Interesting Times or the more
humanly witch novels.
> Having said that, the pastoral focus of the series is by no means
> a bad thing. _Wintersmith_ reads as if it were one leisurely long
> folk tale itself (truly a "Story of Discworld"!), and the evoked
> atmosphere rings true.
Agree. In my humble opinion more true than in the wee free men.
> As usual with Terry, there is also very much to enjoy at the
> scene and paragraph level. I loved the section on Mrs Tick's
> _Magavenatio Obtusis_ (also enhanced by the memory of Terry
> reading this at DWCon), I enjoyed Tiffany's first victory over
> Granny with You the kitten (wonderful name!), and the big
> laugh-out-loud moment came when Tiffany delivered what I consider
> to be the best quote of the last five Discworld books or so: "I
> warn you! I've got a Cornucopia and I'm not afraid to use it!"
I almost fell out of my chair about the bit when they ship in
for the styx and got goosepimples about some of the dance of the
seasons stuff...
I think that's the other reason I love the Discworld stories. One
time the story is all "myffy" when suddenly you stumble across
the joke and your head hits the next available wall while at
another bit you laugh at a joke or situation and almost swallow
your tongue when you think about it for a second longer.
> (Final nitpicky complaint: I had considerable trouble buying the
> initial event that sets the whole plot in motion: Miss Treason
> must have known by then that Tiffany was the kind of girl who
> would have responded *far* better to an actual explanation of (a)
> what they were going to witness, and (b) why she should under no
> circumstance join the dance.
I put it down as a typical puberty thing, coupled with an old
hag what thought it had the kid under control.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Volker Hetzer
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:41:00 -0700, sian_shoe wrote:
>
>> That little 12 year
>> old girl loved that Tiffany also kissed a pretty boy trying to be
>> winter, and that Roland wrote her letters and blushed in her presense
>> and brought her a watercolour set. I think the technical word is:
>> SQUEE!
>
>
> I only recieved my copy this morning so I don't know that much about it,
> but if our young Roland turns up writing Tiffany love letters and buying
> her little love gifts, then is it meant to be just another cute love
> story, or is there a more solid story perhaps?
is too valuable for spoiling it with reading about it beforehand.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Joe Bednorz
>
>> I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series, but I
>> can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The Wee Free
>> Men_ just fine (though I preferred _Maurice_), but _A Hatful of
>> Sky_ was a disappointment: I thought it was too predictable, with
>> too many familiar Discworld themes and motifs being revisited in
>> ways that I just did not enjoy as much as I would have liked to.
And dragged out a little longer than really necessary. WFM was a
tight story. AHoF was somewhat bloated in a way that I do not
associate with the Discworld stories.
Not that I haven't re-read AHoF several times. (Just to be sure, you
understand. ;^) Reading a bad Discworld book is like making love badly.
Even at its worst it's still a wonderful experience.
That's why I still intend to get and read Wintersmith eventually. (I
didn't pre-order due to doubts raised by AHoS.)
>> _Wintersmith_, alas, continues pretty much in the same vein. It's
>> a pleasant enough read, but *again* we have endless ruminations
>> on what it really means to be a witch, *again* we have an
>> anthropomorphic personification trying (and failing) to become
>> human, *again* we are told about the hard lives of the "plain
>> folks", and so on. The Nac Mag Feegle are there, but bring
>> nothing new to the party, and mainly show up to briefly repeat a
>> few of their established tricks (follow Tiffany in her dreams,
>> dress up as a human, etc.)
>>
>
>...Yes, you're right. This doesn't mean it's a bad thing. It's a story
>about stories, remember.
And all story elements everywhere have been told over and over again
throughout the ages. It's how well it's done that matters.
>
>> As usual with Terry, there is also very much to enjoy at the
>> scene and paragraph level. I loved the section on Mrs Tick's
>> _Magavenatio Obtusis_ (also enhanced by the memory of Terry
>> reading this at DWCon), I enjoyed Tiffany's first victory over
>> Granny with You the kitten (wonderful name!), and the big
>> laugh-out-loud moment came when Tiffany delivered what I consider
>> to be the best quote of the last five Discworld books or so: "I
>> warn you! I've got a Cornucopia and I'm not afraid to use it!"
>>
>
>You the kitten is brilliant, and I can see several fluffy white cats
>being named You now;
Long the Garfield comic strip had a similar cat name: "Cat." "Why
bother to name something that won't come when you call it?"
>I like the fact that Tiffany is not a Granny
>Weatherwax clone, and will grow (maybe) to be her equal.
I don't think there are equals with Discworld witches. Witches have
circles, implying no top or bottom. Also implying no beginning or end.
(Contrast with the Universities of the Wizards with definite hierarchies
and dates of establishment.)
Witches seem to have more specialties. Remember, even Granny
Weatherwax, the first among equals, took the wounded girl in _Lords and
Ladies_ to Magrat for doctoring. Regardless of status. Regardless of
how she felt about Magrat.
>I wonder where
>Tiffany fits in the mould- Granny, Nanny or Agnes/Magrat?
I've posted before that all the witches on the Disc seem to be unique.
The only common denominator is the healing/medical talent. (Contrast
with the wizards who all seem to be the same mentally. Even Rincewind
*wants* to fight using magical blasts. He just can't.)
I've also posted that Granny is of the Ramtops and Tiffany is of the
Chalk. There's not a lot of overlap there. (Part of the reason they
can get along is they've so little in common.)
Yes, they still have conflicts. Compared to the conflicts Granny has
had with Nanny Ogg and Magrat the tiffs Granny's had with Tiffany seem
minor. (Bear in mind that I haven't read Wintersmith.)
Witches don't have places in a hierarchy, constantly struggling to
rise above everyone else. Witches have territories instead, both
geographically and in term of specialties.
Look at Granny's duel in _Lords and Ladies_. Who won depends on how
you look at it. Granny didn't win because of how she performed in the
duel. Granny won, in the opinion of the villagers, because of decades of
service to the community. That's what made Granny a better witch to the
villagers, not the outcome of some silly (but entertaining) contest.
(Again, compare with wizards' duels where the loser is the one who
used to be standing in that now empty pair of smoking boots.)
>
>
>> Nevertheless, I had been hoping for a bit more than what
>> _Wintersmith_ gave me. It's a good story, but there's just too
>> much comfortable familiarity in plot, characters, and events.
>
>I don't care, I want more breadcrumbs! More Aching, please Terry! I
>admit the Feegles are 2d, but- well, they're feegles; and as a Plot
>Device goes, it appears the focus is on Tiffany; feegles are just
>background, in Wintersmith.
>
As I hope I've made clear, I agree with both of you.
--
"I think that's the other reason I love the Discworld stories. One
time the story is all "myffy" when suddenly you stumble across the
joke and your head hits the next available wall while at another
bit you laugh at a joke or situation and almost swallow your tongue
when you think about it for a second longer." - Volker Hetzer in abp
All the Best, Joe Bednorz
Alec Cawley
> I don't think there are equals with Discworld witches. Witches have
> circles, implying no top or bottom. Also implying no beginning or end.
> (Contrast with the Universities of the Wizards with definite hierarchies
> and dates of establishment.)
That's a truth that should be more often repeated. It's not about
hierarchy, it is about Respect. And two witches can Respect each other
without one being superior to the other - as, for example, Nanny Ogg and
Granny Weatherwax. Neither would presume to be the other's superior _or_
inferior.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: Alec Cawley <al...@aleccawley.com>
Yeeah... but it's still a bit more complex than that. Granny Weatherwax
is "the most respected of the leaders [witches] didn't have" is WS, and
this basic idea gets reiterated in HFoS: "We don't have things like head
witches"..."Mistress Weatherwax would never allow that sort of thing".
(Petulia repeats this later with regard to Anagramma not being the leader
of the teen coven.)
anarchic_teapot
> On 30 Sep 2006 13:41:00 -0700, sian_shoe wrote:
>> You the kitten is brilliant, and I can see several fluffy white cats
>> being named You now;
>
> Long the Garfield comic strip had a similar cat name: "Cat." "Why
> bother to name something that won't come when you call it?"
The point with naming cats is not to get them to come when called, but
that they know when you wish them to gerroutterthereyabassa.
Which is why I was planning to name a putative new kitten "Hey you!"
I'll have to change it now, or be accused of plagiarism :(
Arthur Hagen
> Leo Breebaart wrote:
>> (Final nitpicky complaint: I had considerable trouble buying the
>> initial event that sets the whole plot in motion: Miss Treason
>> must have known by then that Tiffany was the kind of girl who
>> would have responded *far* better to an actual explanation of (a)
>> what they were going to witness, and (b) why she should under no
>> circumstance join the dance.
> I put it down as a typical puberty thing, coupled with an old
> hag what thought it had the kid under control.
Extraordinarily smart[ ] and sweet[ ] young teenager[ ] who's really to
young[ ] for his/her glamourous job[ ] disrespects authority[ ], gets away
with it[ ] and saves the world in the process[ ], winning the respect of
established characters[ ] who usually would have little patience for
impertinent adolescents[ ].
When is she going to marry Wesley Crusher?
--
*Art
Daibhid Ceanaideach
I'd dock one point from that, as the books make much of the
fact that witching *isn't* a glamourous job, it's bl**dy hard
work, and you don't get any thanks. (I'd probably also dock
the "sweet" point, but that's a judgement call. Then again,
there's ones you didn't mention that also apply.)
OTOH, let's look at Carrot. Extraordinarily smart[ ] and good
looking[ ] late teen/twentysomething[ ] orphan[ ] with an
unusual birthmark[ ] that reveals he's unknowingly royal[ ]
who was adopted by another species[ ] and has a hereditary
sword[ ], who is liked by everyone[ ] and fights without
gaining noticable scars[ ], who gets away with things most
people would be in serious trouble for[ ] and succeeds at
everything he tries[ ]. Oh, and there's a prophecy about him
[ ].
I ran them both through the Litmus Test[1], and while Tiff got
a score of 41 (start over) Carrot's was 54 (kill it dead).
In fact, if you do this long enough, I'm hard pushed to find a
Discworld character who *couldn't* be claimed as a Mary-Sue.
Even Rincewind gets a score of 47!
[1]http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm
Torak
I always thought a good name for a cat would be "Gerroff".
Daibhid Ceanaideach
One of the many names the average Real Cat is likely to
accumulate, according to TUC, is "Yahgerrofoutofityoubastard".
Others include "Wellyoushoudn'tofbeenstandingthere" and
"Mumtheressomethingorribleunderthebed".
Anery
> The time: 01 Oct 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: Alec Cawley <al...@aleccawley.com>
>
> > Joe Bednorz wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think there are equals with Discworld witches.
> >> Witches have
> >> circles, implying no top or bottom. Also implying no
> >> beginning or end. (Contrast with the Universities of the
> >> Wizards with definite hierarchies and dates of
> >> establishment.)
> >
> > That's a truth that should be more often repeated. It's not
> > about hierarchy, it is about Respect. And two witches can
> > Respect each other without one being superior to the other
> > - as, for example, Nanny Ogg and Granny Weatherwax. Neither
> > would presume to be the other's superior _or_ inferior.
>
> Yeeah... but it's still a bit more complex than that.
Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg do respect each other, but there still
is a constant duelling between them. It is best shown in Maskerade.
They need a third witch around to be able to get along with each other.
And on the other hand, I don't think Granny respects Magrat much. Or
Mrs.Earwig.
>Granny Weatherwax
> is "the most respected of the leaders [witches] didn't have" is WS, and
> this basic idea gets reiterated in HFoS: "We don't have things like head
> witches"..."Mistress Weatherwax would never allow that sort of thing".
> (Petulia repeats this later with regard to Anagramma not being the leader
> of the teen coven.)
>
Yes, and there are the Witch trials, the aim of which is to establish
which witch is the best.
Witches' duelling may not end with a pair of smoking boots, but then
again, nor do end wizards' duels nowadays.
Anery
anarchic_teapot
> Yes, and there are the Witch trials, the aim of which is to establish
> which witch is the best.
No, the point of the trials is to establish /who comes second to Granny
Weatherwax/.
Who never competes. Compare with Granny Aching and the sheep trials.
Arthur Hagen
>
> I ran them both through the Litmus Test[1], and while Tiff got
> a score of 41 (start over) Carrot's was 54 (kill it dead).
I got 62 for Tiffany, and that was with leaving the questions only the
author could answer blank...
Regards,
--
*Art
Joerg Neidig
> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
>
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
>
>
>
>
> I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series, but I
> can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The Wee Free
> Men_ just fine (though I preferred _Maurice_), but _A Hatful of
> Sky_ was a disappointment: I thought it was too predictable, with
> too many familiar Discworld themes and motifs being revisited in
> ways that I just did not enjoy as much as I would have liked to.
(snip)
I see your points. In fact I see the points of most of the posters in
this thread, but although I have not quite finished it I already love
it. Yes, the book does not have the novelty of the previous books which
introduced new discworld areas, live styles, and characters. Everything
has been established now and is reused in a new story which resembles
the old stories. So what.
In other posts Star Trek has been mentioned. I cannot count how many
episodes in ST are about malfunctioning transporters, or about an alien
overtaking a crew-member, or or or. That does not make all of these
episodes bad [1]. Why? Because we learn more about the characters and
get another glimpse at their life. Sometimes it is even quite amusing to
see that a character we know well reacts just how think it should.
I like the book, because it enriches the Discworld not with new facts,
but emotions.
Another point that I would like to state: I like to call books like W
the "feel-good-books". You can read them on a weekend and get a nice
comfortable feeling in your belly. It makes me walk around smiling. If
that is not a good reason for reading a book then I am at a loss.
Jogibaer
[1] OK, some of these were really bad.
Arthur Hagen
> Hi,
>
>> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
Actually, now it only contains a fairly minor spoiler, not related to the
plot.
>>
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>>
>>
>
> Another point that I would like to state: I like to call books like W
> the "feel-good-books". You can read them on a weekend and get a nice
> comfortable feeling in your belly. It makes me walk around smiling. If
> that is not a good reason for reading a book then I am at a loss.
I don't know about others, but any comfortable feeling I had in my belly
would have been lost when two pages from the end there was a plug for
"Where's my Cow" inside the text, without any plot lines justifying it
either. Yes, it gave me a feeling in my belly, alright.
Regards,
--
*Art
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>Joerg Neidig <wer...@joerg-neidig.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
>
>Actually, now it only contains a fairly minor spoiler, not related to the
>plot.
>
>>>
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>>
>>>
>
>I don't know about others, but any comfortable feeling I had in my belly
>would have been lost when two pages from the end there was a plug for
>"Where's my Cow" inside the text, without any plot lines justifying it
>either. Yes, it gave me a feeling in my belly, alright.
Be fair - it is a book that we know to be published _on_ Discworld,
and is an entirely appropriate text for a confidence-in-reading
session. An event that was foreshadowed in the text.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Okay, it works now. Or at least it malfunctions in all the expected ways.
-- Mark Edwards, asr
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: anarchic_teapot <the_peanu...@spamcop.net>
> Anery a écrit :
>
>> Yes, and there are the Witch trials, the aim of which is
>> to establish which witch is the best.
>
> No, the point of the trials is to establish /who comes
> second to Granny Weatherwax/.
Exactly.
> Who never competes. Compare with Granny Aching and the
> sheep trials.
Who didn't compete *that* *year*. Compare to what happened in
"The Sea and Little Fishes" when Mrs Earwig *suggested* she
shouldn't compete, because she always won.
In fact TS&LF gives the definitive lie to the idea that
witchcraft is entirely non-heirarchal, it's just not
*explicitly* heirarchal:
"And within this sisterhood - except that it wasn't a
sisterhood, it was a loose assortment of chronic non-joiners;
a group of witches wasn't a coven, it was a small war - there
was always this awareness of position. It had nothing to do
with anything the other world thought of as status. Nothing
was ever said. But if an elderly witch died, the local witches
would attend her funeral for a few last words, then go
solemnly home alone, with the little insistent thought at the
back of their minds /I've moved up one/."
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com>
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
Okay, I'm intrigued now. These are the ones I checked:
Part 1 - 2 6 9b 15 22 24 25 26 27[1] 29 36(1) 37 41 41a 42(2)
51 56 58 62 68 73 78 82 82b
Part 2 - 3 3d 6 6bce
Skip Parts 3 and 4, nothing in Part 5
This time I got a score of 49, but still nothing like the
score you got. What do you think I missed?
[1]I'm not actually sure about this one; I don't recall an age
limit for witchcraft ever being mentioned before.
Elin
>I ran them both through the Litmus Test[1], and while Tiff got
>a score of 41 (start over) Carrot's was 54 (kill it dead).
>
>In fact, if you do this long enough, I'm hard pushed to find a
>Discworld character who *couldn't* be claimed as a Mary-Sue.
>Even Rincewind gets a score of 47!
>
>[1]http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm
I ran a character I've created through it and got 47 too - despite not
really thinking she's much of a Mary-Sue.
It seems a little unfair that I get scored up just because I happen to
be writing about a young girl while being a woman myself - most worlds
need both men and women.
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
Joerg Ruedenauer
>>>> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for
>>>> _Wintersmith_.
>>> So does the commentary.
>>>>
>>>> ;
>>>> ;
>>>> ;
>>>> ;
>>>> ;
>>>> ;
>>>> ;
>>>> ;
>>>> ;
>>>> ;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> There's still 800 "equinoxes" (for lack of a better word) in an an
> agricultural year on the disc. Why just two dances?
>
> And why would the personifications of Summer and Winter lie dormant for
> half the year when it's "their" season on two eights on the disc at any
> given time?
>
Perhaps they are 'local' personifications, valid only for Lancre and the
Chalk. I don't think they are active on the Counterweight Continent or
on XXXX.
And even though the region where they are active may span several
'sectors' of the Disc, they don't need to dance once a day. The end of
summer needs not be exactly on a certain astronomical date, but would
rather depend on the climate, which is the same for a whole region.
Jörg
--
"Quoth the raven: Nevermore!" -- E.A.Poe
Joerg Ruedenauer
> Extraordinarily smart[X] and sweet[ ] young teenager[X] who's really to
> young[ ] for his/her glamourous job[ ] disrespects authority[ ], gets
> away with it[ ] and saves the world in the process[X], winning the
> respect of established characters[ ] who usually would have little
> patience for impertinent adolescents[X].
>
She didn't win respect, she already had that respect. I don't see her as
"sweet". Witching is not a glamourous job. She's not too young to be an
/apprentice/ witch, which /is/ her job. And I don't see her
disrespecting authority -- which would be Granny, Nanny and Miss Treason
-- either. (So the last X doesn't really count.)
Orjan Westin
No, it was a reference to a book that's already been established as existing
on the Disc.
Had it been a plug, it would have been named, possibly with a price and info
of where to buy it.
As it was, people who've read Thud! or WMC would recognise it and I think
most thought it vaguely amusing. It was an in-joke.
Those who weren't familiar with WMC would spot it as a generic children's
book, slightly harder to read than an ABC.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Daibhid Ceanaideach
I dunno; while I don't agree Tiffany's a Mary-Sue, the entire
plot of the book is that she doesn't listen to what Miss
Treason says (the first time's on impulse, but when she goes
out to collect the necklace she does so deliberately because
she thinks she knows better).
There's also the "you test me, I test you" attitude to Granny,
but I can imagine Granny secretly approving of that, and
seeing it as a kind of respect itself.
Joerg Ruedenauer
> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
>
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
> ;
>
>
>
>
> I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series, but I
> can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The Wee Free
> Men_ just fine (though I preferred _Maurice_), but _A Hatful of
> Sky_ was a disappointment: I thought it was too predictable, with
> too many familiar Discworld themes and motifs being revisited in
> ways that I just did not enjoy as much as I would have liked to.
>
is IMO the best in the Tiffany series.
> _Wintersmith_, alas, continues pretty much in the same vein. It's
> a pleasant enough read, but *again* we have endless ruminations
> on what it really means to be a witch,
>
I had the impression that by now Tiffany knows pretty well what it means.
> *again* we have an
> anthropomorphic personification trying (and failing) to become
> human,
>
But it was a new one, and I think it was the first time that it fell in
love with a human. I liked the whole Winter / Summer theme.
What I also liked was how Granny acted. It's new for her to solve
problems while staying almost completely in the background, isn't it?
And her plans were very well thought-out.
She's also getting softer, it seems -- in earlier times, I'd expected
her to give You to some other household to care for. It's been mentioned
several times that she's not a cat person, IIRC. Or was that just that
she's not a Greebo person?
> *again* we are told about the hard lives of the "plain
> folks", and so on. The Nac Mag Feegle are there, but bring
> nothing new to the party, and mainly show up to briefly repeat a
> few of their established tricks (follow Tiffany in her dreams,
> dress up as a human, etc.)
>
True. There was nothing really new there, and I groaned a bit inwardly
when they did that scarecrow trick. I'd have liked to see how Rob reacts
to being a father, for example.
> As usual with Terry, there is also very much to enjoy at the
> scene and paragraph level. I loved the section on Mrs Tick's
> _Magavenatio Obtusis_ (also enhanced by the memory of Terry
> reading this at DWCon), I enjoyed Tiffany's first victory over
> Granny with You the kitten (wonderful name!), and the big
> laugh-out-loud moment came when Tiffany delivered what I consider
> to be the best quote of the last five Discworld books or so: "I
> warn you! I've got a Cornucopia and I'm not afraid to use it!"
>
For me it was the "Tir Nani Ogg" joke. Once you've seen it, it seems so
obvious, but it never occured to me before.
While we're at it: since when do witch apprentices move around from one
'teacher' to the other? Always before, it seemed that one witch trains
one apprentice, who stays her apprentice until she's learned all that
the witch wants to teach her, and then becomes a full witch directly. As
it is the case with Annagramma still. So why didn't Tiffany stay with
Miss Level?
EvilBill
I got 33, although I'm not sure some of them really apply - for example, I
ticked that 1 major character falls for mine, although they're already
involved at the beginning of the story <g>
--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.
Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk
Emma Anne
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
> The time: 02 Oct 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com>
>
> > Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I ran them both through the Litmus Test[1], and while Tiff
> >> got a score of 41 (start over) Carrot's was 54 (kill it
> >> dead).
> >
> > I got 62 for Tiffany, and that was with leaving the
> > questions only the author could answer blank...
>
> Okay, I'm intrigued now. These are the ones I checked:
> Part 1 - 2 6 9b 15 22 24 25 26 27[1] 29 36(1) 37 41 41a 42(2)
> 51 56 58 62 68 73 78 82 82b
>
> Part 2 - 3 3d 6 6bce
>
> Skip Parts 3 and 4, nothing in Part 5
>
> This time I got a score of 49, but still nothing like the
> score you got. What do you think I missed?
>
> [1]I'm not actually sure about this one; I don't recall an age
> limit for witchcraft ever being mentioned before.
This sounded fun so I went and did it too. I only came up with 33, but
probably because I am forgetting details. The ones you marked and I
didn't:
9b - particular lengths/not attractive
I remember her being described as kind of funny looking in the first
book, but didn't remember it was at particular lengths.
15 - piercing or blank gaze
Don't remember this
26 - get away with defying authority
I think she gets natural consequences when she defies authority
27 - rules bent/far too young
Can't remember. She doesn't get the cottage anyway.
36 - animal companions
I can't remember - unless you mean the NMFs?
56 - bungle alomost everything but quickly forgiven
She is forgiven for some bungles, but I don't think she bungles almost
everything
68 - considers talents to be a curse
Don't remember this
I also had a few you didn't:
53 - speaks another language
Can automatically translate
55 - learns new skills unusually fast
Seems to me she does now, though she didn't at Miss Level's
83 - would like to be friends with
Just guessing. :-)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
There's about a paragraph about how girls with brown hair and
brown eyes don't get to be in stories, which I reckoned
qualified.
> 15 - piercing or blank gaze
> Don't remember this
It's mentioned in book 2 that she has a stare similar to
Granny's.
> 26 - get away with defying authority
> I think she gets natural consequences when she defies
> authority
>
> 27 - rules bent/far too young
> Can't remember. She doesn't get the cottage anyway.
Like I said, I wasn't sure about this either, but it seemed to
be Arthur's main point, so I thought it only fair to include
it.
> 36 - animal companions
> I can't remember - unless you mean the NMFs?
The toad in book one.
> 56 - bungle alomost everything but quickly forgiven
> She is forgiven for some bungles, but I don't think she
> bungles almost everything
She bungles some pretty major things, though. Try to avoid
causing ice ages, that kind of thing...
> 68 - considers talents to be a curse
> Don't remember this
She considers being a witch to be more work than she thought
it'd be. Maybe it's an overstatememt.
> I also had a few you didn't:
>
> 53 - speaks another language
> Can automatically translate
Oh, good catch. It says tick one for each; do we know how many
languages Dr Bustle knew?
> 55 - learns new skills unusually fast
> Seems to me she does now, though she didn't at Miss Level's
Not sure.
> 83 - would like to be friends with
> Just guessing. :-)
Like Arthur, I was ignoring the ones that required an insight
into Pterry's mind 8-)...
anarchic_teapot
> The time: 28 Sep 2006. The place: alt.books.pratchett. The
> speaker: Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
>> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
>>
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (Final nitpicky complaint: I had considerable trouble
>> buying the initial event that sets the whole plot in
>> motion: Miss Treason must have known by then that Tiffany
>> was the kind of girl who would have responded *far* better
>> to an actual explanation of (a) what they were going to
>> witness, and (b) why she should under no circumstance join
>> the dance. Seems to me the hand of the author is too
>> visible here: Terry needed a way to get Tiffany to do
>> something rather out of character, so deliberately
>> withholding crucial information from her and letting the
>> resulting teenage resentment cloud her judgement may have
>> seemed like a good solution, but I had trouble retaining my
>> willing suspension of disbelief at that point.)
>
> I dunno - I got the distinct impresstion that until Tiffany
> grabbed her attention by doing this Miss Treason hadn't given
> any thought to what sort of girl she was at all.
Just got the book, and having read the passage in question I think Leo
might have overlooked something.
I don't think it's got anything to do with teenage resentment: Tiffany
is drawn more or less involuntarily into the dance.
As for explanations, witches have always been portrayed as doing
something and then letting/helping the trainee witch work it out for
herself afterwards. So Miss Treason would expect Tiffany to watch, and
ask questions later, based on her observations and feelings. But Tiffany
has the "land in her bones", as has already been established in the
previous books, and is drawn into the dance in a near trance-like state
because it's all about Summer and Winter changing sway over the land.
She is is too inexperienced to realise what's happening; the older
witches don't understand what's going on until too late, because they
didn't know about the extraordinarily strong bond between Tiffany and
the Land. Possibly only Granny Weatherwax has the same bond (cf "Lord &
Ladies").
I have finished it yet (some time around 3am I expect), but so far it's
a book I would definitely recommend to young teenagers, although
actually getting my own two wee bizoms to read anything on my
recommendation is harder than getting a Feegle out of a pub.
anarchic_teapot
>>
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>> ;
>>
>>
>>
>>
> While we're at it: since when do witch apprentices move around from one
> 'teacher' to the other? Always before, it seemed that one witch trains
> one apprentice, who stays her apprentice until she's learned all that
> the witch wants to teach her, and then becomes a full witch directly. As
> it is the case with Annagramma still. So why didn't Tiffany stay with
> Miss Level?
Perhaps the tradition started with Granny Weatherwax, who at one point
in the DW series is spoken of as having gone through all the witches in
the area as an apprentice in record time... although Magrat appears to
have been trained by only one witch, Goodie Whemper maysherestinpeace
Richard Eney
anarchic_teapot <the_peanu...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Daibhid Ceanaideach a écrit :
>> Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
>>
>>> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
>>> (Final nitpicky complaint: I had considerable trouble
>>> buying the initial event that sets the whole plot in
>>> motion: Miss Treason must have known by then that Tiffany
>>> was the kind of girl who would have responded *far* better
>>> to an actual explanation of (a) what they were going to
>>> witness, and (b) why she should under no circumstance
>>> join the dance. Seems to me the hand of the author is
>>> too visible here: Terry needed a way to get Tiffany to
>>> do something rather out of character, so deliberately
>>> withholding crucial information from her and letting the
>>> resulting teenage resentment cloud her judgement may have
>>> seemed like a good solution, but I had trouble retaining
>>> my willing suspension of disbelief at that point.)
>>
>> I dunno - I got the distinct impresstion that until Tiffany
>> grabbed her attention by doing this Miss Treason hadn't given
>> any thought to what sort of girl she was at all.
>
>Just got the book, and having read the passage in question I think
>Leo might have overlooked something.
>
>I don't think it's got anything to do with teenage resentment:
>Tiffany is drawn more or less involuntarily into the dance.
I was surprised when that happened; Tiffany is so level-headed
most of the time that it seemed amazingly stupid of her, at the
time.
>As for explanations, witches have always been portrayed as doing
>something and then letting/helping the trainee witch work it out for
>herself afterwards. So Miss Treason would expect Tiffany to watch,
>ask questions later, based on her observations and feelings.
Which is what I expected, too.
> But Tiffany has the "land in her bones", as has already been established
>in the previous books, and is drawn into the dance in a near trance-like
>state because it's all about Summer and Winter changing sway over the land.
Thank you. That really helps, and it fits with the canon about Tiffany.
>She is is too inexperienced to realise what's happening; the older
>witches don't understand what's going on until too late, because they
>didn't know about the extraordinarily strong bond between Tiffany and
>the Land. Possibly only Granny Weatherwax has the same bond (cf "Lord &
>Ladies").
I wonder whether the other witches _do_ know, or at least suspect, and
were expecting Tiffany to have learned to resist the bond when necessary.
Otherwise she'd just be an appendage, and a witch must be able to choose.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
But, I suspect, also in the back of their minds is the knowledge
that not only have they moved up one in the unspoken hierarchy
(so very unlike the old UU system), they have also moved one
space in the Mayfly system - closer to the Great Circle on the
water where the Pike lurks.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
EvilBill <quake...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Elin wrote:
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I ran them both through the Litmus Test[1], and while Tiff got
>>> a score of 41 (start over) Carrot's was 54 (kill it dead).
>>>
>>> In fact, if you do this long enough, I'm hard pushed to find a
>>> Discworld character who *couldn't* be claimed as a Mary-Sue.
>>> Even Rincewind gets a score of 47!
The authors of the test seem to have confused "MarySue" with
a rather larger category, "literary protagonist".
>>> [1]http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm
>>
>> I ran a character I've created through it and got 47 too - despite not
>> really thinking she's much of a Mary-Sue.
>>
>> It seems a little unfair that I get scored up just because I happen to
>> be writing about a young girl while being a woman myself - most worlds
>> need both men and women.
Right.
>I got 33, although I'm not sure some of them really apply - for example,
>I ticked that 1 major character falls for mine, although they're already
>involved at the beginning of the story <g>
If a protagonist doesn't get involved with the anima/animus [choose one]
then it isn't a complete story. Since the anima/animus must be a major
character, the "test" labels every protagonist who isn't a total failure
as a Mary Sue. The "test" is useless.
=Tamar
Torak
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I ran them both through the Litmus Test[1], and while Tiff got
>>a score of 41 (start over) Carrot's was 54 (kill it dead).
>>
>>In fact, if you do this long enough, I'm hard pushed to find a
>>Discworld character who *couldn't* be claimed as a Mary-Sue.
>>Even Rincewind gets a score of 47!
>>
>>[1]http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm
>
> I ran a character I've created through it and got 47 too - despite not
> really thinking she's much of a Mary-Sue.
Yeah - I ran a character for one of my screenplays through it - anything
but a sue - and he scored 30.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
No it doesn't. If a character gets involved in a relationship
with one major character[1] that adds 3 to your score. Since
Mary-Sueness starts at 22, this may tip the balance, but is
obviously not going to be enough on its own.
(Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a complete
story, though 8-)...)
[1]In a fanfic setting, where the major character is a pre-
existing one. Otherwise a single relationship doesn't really
add to the score at all.
Emma Anne
Yeah, I think so.
>
> > 15 - piercing or blank gaze
> > Don't remember this
>
> It's mentioned in book 2 that she has a stare similar to
> Granny's.
Ah. I knew there were some things I just forgot.
>
> > 26 - get away with defying authority
> > I think she gets natural consequences when she defies
> > authority
> >
> > 27 - rules bent/far too young
> > Can't remember. She doesn't get the cottage anyway.
>
> Like I said, I wasn't sure about this either, but it seemed to
> be Arthur's main point, so I thought it only fair to include
> it.
>
> > 36 - animal companions
> > I can't remember - unless you mean the NMFs?
>
> The toad in book one.
Oh, duh. I had totally spaced that.
>
> > 56 - bungle alomost everything but quickly forgiven
> > She is forgiven for some bungles, but I don't think she
> > bungles almost everything
>
> She bungles some pretty major things, though. Try to avoid
> causing ice ages, that kind of thing...
>
> > 68 - considers talents to be a curse
> > Don't remember this
>
> She considers being a witch to be more work than she thought
> it'd be. Maybe it's an overstatememt.
>
> > I also had a few you didn't:
> >
> > 53 - speaks another language
> > Can automatically translate
>
> Oh, good catch. It says tick one for each; do we know how many
> languages Dr Bustle knew?
It sounds like he knows quite a few. I only gave it one tick, because
she doesn't really *know* other languages - she can only translate
specific passages. Judgment call. :-)
Emma Anne
Perhaps there are certain witches who apprentice with a variety of
teachers. I could see why both Granny Weatherwax and Tiffany would be
among them. And Magrat wouldn't.
Emma Anne
> In article <4od25nF...@individual.net>,
> EvilBill <quake...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Elin wrote:
> >> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I ran them both through the Litmus Test[1], and while Tiff got
> >>> a score of 41 (start over) Carrot's was 54 (kill it dead).
I kept thinking of Honor Harrington while looking it over (any other sci
fi fans here?). She is the poster child, I'm afraid. I think the
author is more in love with her than putting himself in the story,
though.
> >>>
> >>> In fact, if you do this long enough, I'm hard pushed to find a
> >>> Discworld character who *couldn't* be claimed as a Mary-Sue.
> >>> Even Rincewind gets a score of 47!
>
> The authors of the test seem to have confused "MarySue" with
> a rather larger category, "literary protagonist".
Or perhaps just "protagonist in the fantasy genre." Quite a few will
have magical powers and magical things happening to them, and discover
new abilities in a pinch.
I didn't find it *useless* though. I bet it helps a few new writers
avoid some really tiresome cliches. It could make you think.
Richard Eney
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>Joerg Ruedenauer <nos...@ruedenauer.net>
<snip>
>> I don't see her disrespecting authority --
>> which would be Granny, Nanny and Miss Treason -- either.
>> (So the last X doesn't really count.)
>
>I dunno; while I don't agree Tiffany's a Mary-Sue, the entire
>plot of the book is that she doesn't listen to what Miss
>Treason says (the first time's on impulse, but when she goes
>out to collect the necklace she does so deliberately because
>she thinks she knows better).
>
>There's also the "you test me, I test you" attitude to Granny,
>but I can imagine Granny secretly approving of that, and
>seeing it as a kind of respect itself.
Yes. That's at the heart of the matter.
The entire process of training includes a continual testing.
Granny does try to train Tiffany, but a lot of the training is
to simply watch and pick it up as you go along, which is a test
in itself. Not all witches pass it, either, even the ones who
genuinely have the talent; we see examples of those, too. Some
have to be told outright several times. They're still witches;
they're just the ones who have a different specialty.
There are two levels of training: the obvious, where techniques
are taught with specific instructions, and the subtle, where
the apprentice witch is expected to observe, guess, and work on
the basis of societal expectations in order to figure things
out for herself.
Tiffany's training in being responsible for the old and
unattractive poor is a major lesson in social work. She learns
that she is expected to care about all of the villagers in her
patch[1]. Everyone is expected to, but what a witch learns that
most people don't is that "everyone" includes herself in this
case. (Even though in WA Nanny Ogg said that witches don't
include themselves in "everybody", but that was about the
restrictive sort of "everybody knows you can't" statement.)
A witch who can't make decisions for herself will fail most
of her tests. It's the decision to take responsibility and
go out and do something that makes a witch. She has to disobey
Miss Treason[2] once she is convinced that she must do something.
Of course Tiffany is learning fast - she has to, she doesn't
have time to waste. She's learning on the job at home, with
occasional sabbaticals for more training.
[1] A witch's patch is like her garden: she has to tend it.
Otherwise, the weeds grow.
[2] I can't quite convince myself that I've solved her name.
Simple "Treason" sounds wrong; she doesn't seem to be a betrayer.
Is it a pun on "Missed Reason"? Does anybody have a better idea?
=Tamar
Len Oil
> Joerg Neidig <wer...@joerg-neidig.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_.
>
> Actually, now it only contains a fairly minor spoiler, not related to
> the plot.
>
>>>
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>> ;
>>>
>>>
>>
> would have been lost when two pages from the end there was a plug for
> "Where's my Cow" inside the text, without any plot lines justifying it
> either. Yes, it gave me a feeling in my belly, alright.
I guess I should start saving up for the _Principles of Accountancy_
spin-off, then... ;)
(Seriously, hardly a plug.)
Richard Eney
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
> dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>>>> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> [1]http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm
>>>I got 33, although I'm not sure some of them really apply -
>>>for example, I ticked that 1 major character falls for
>>>mine, although they're already involved at the beginning of
>>>the story <g>
>>
>> If a protagonist doesn't get involved with the anima/animus
>> [choose one] then it isn't a complete story. Since the
>> anima/animus must be a major character, the "test" labels
>> every protagonist who isn't a total failure as a Mary Sue.
>> The "test" is useless.
>
>No it doesn't. If a character gets involved in a relationship
>with one major character[1] that adds 3 to your score. Since
>Mary-Sueness starts at 22, this may tip the balance, but is
>obviously not going to be enough on its own.
>
>[1]In a fanfic setting, where the major character is a pre-
>existing one. Otherwise a single relationship doesn't really
>add to the score at all.
Since that element can only happen in a fanfic, then it won't
apply to Tiffany anyway.
<rearrange>
>(Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a complete
>story, though 8-)...)
He hasn't, not to the point that he becomes a complete
_protagonist_. He came very close with Conina, close enough to
be afraid for his wizard-ness. IMO that's the missing element
that keeps _him_ incomplete as a protagonist, and allows him
to be reused almost unchanged. (Note the "almost". Rincewind
has developed, just not fully. I could add a more specific
comment but it might prevent future development, so I won't.)
Rincewind acts more as a facilitator for a secondary
protagonist, who takes over the connection with the anima.
Thanks, by the way; this discussion is adding some new elements
to my way of looking at stories.
=Tamar
Torak
>>>If a protagonist doesn't get involved with the anima/animus
>>>[choose one] then it isn't a complete story. Since the
>>>anima/animus must be a major character, the "test" labels
>>>every protagonist who isn't a total failure as a Mary Sue.
>>>The "test" is useless.
>
>>story, though 8-)...)
>
> He hasn't, not to the point that he becomes a complete
> _protagonist_. He came very close with Conina, close enough to
> be afraid for his wizard-ness. IMO that's the missing element
> that keeps _him_ incomplete as a protagonist, and allows him
> to be reused almost unchanged. (Note the "almost". Rincewind
> has developed, just not fully. I could add a more specific
> comment but it might prevent future development, so I won't.)
But... a story doesn't need a love interest to be complete. Oh,
Hollywood seem to think so and do their best to shoehorn one in, but it
certainly isn't a necessity.
Unless you mean some form of anima equivalent?
Mike Stevens
Spoiler space
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
> I don't know about others, but any comfortable feeling I had in my
> belly would have been lost when two pages from the end there was a
> plug for "Where's my Cow" inside the text, without any plot lines
> justifying it either.
Both my wife and I found that a real "laugh out loud" joke. The build-up of
the problems for him reading a whole book from cover to cover was a
beautiful set-up for the bathos of it being a book for very young children.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
> In article <Xns9850DFA5...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>> dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>>> If a protagonist doesn't get involved with the
>>> anima/animus [choose one] then it isn't a complete story.
>>> Since the anima/animus must be a major character, the
>>> "test" labels every protagonist who isn't a total failure
>>> as a Mary Sue. The "test" is useless.
>>
>>No it doesn't. If a character gets involved in a
>>relationship with one major character[1] that adds 3 to
>>your score. Since Mary-Sueness starts at 22, this may tip
>>the balance, but is obviously not going to be enough on its
>>own.
>>
>>[1]In a fanfic setting, where the major character is a pre-
>>existing one. Otherwise a single relationship doesn't
>>really add to the score at all.
>
> Since that element can only happen in a fanfic, then it
> won't apply to Tiffany anyway.
Totally agreed, but Elin and EvilBill were talking about their
own characters.
>>(Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a complete
>>story, though 8-)...)
>
> He hasn't, not to the point that he becomes a complete
> _protagonist_. He came very close with Conina, close
> enough to be afraid for his wizard-ness. IMO that's the
> missing element that keeps _him_ incomplete as a
> protagonist, and allows him to be reused almost unchanged.
> (Note the "almost". Rincewind has developed, just not
> fully. I could add a more specific comment but it might
> prevent future development, so I won't.)
>
> Rincewind acts more as a facilitator for a secondary
> protagonist, who takes over the connection with the anima.
I can't think who that would be in any book except Sourcery.
BTW, is Granny Weatherwax also an incomplete protagonist? I
didn't mention the Witches novels before, because there's
romance in (most of) them, but it doesn't involve her. But I
would hesitate to suggest she's any less of a protagonist for
that.
I don't agree that this is a requirement for a complete story
with a complete protagonist (I'm not even sure what that
*means*).
Richard Eney
Torak <perr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Richard Eney wrote:
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>>>>
>>>>If a protagonist doesn't get involved with the anima/animus
>>>>[choose one] then it isn't a complete story. Since the
>>>>anima/animus must be a major character, the "test" labels
>>>>every protagonist who isn't a total failure as a Mary Sue.
>>>>The "test" is useless.
>>
>>>(Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a complete
>>>story, though 8-)...)
>>
>> He hasn't, not to the point that he becomes a complete
>> _protagonist_. He came very close with Conina, close enough to
>> be afraid for his wizard-ness. IMO that's the missing element
>> that keeps _him_ incomplete as a protagonist, and allows him
>> to be reused almost unchanged. (Note the "almost". Rincewind
>> has developed, just not fully. I could add a more specific
>> comment but it might prevent future development, so I won't.)
>
>But... a story doesn't need a love interest to be complete. Oh,
>Hollywood seem to think so and do their best to shoehorn one in, but it
>certainly isn't a necessity.
>
>Unless you mean some form of anima equivalent?
Well, yes, I did type "anima/animus" (allowing for a female protagonist).
They don't have to sleep together, but there has to be some connection.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
> dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>>>> If a protagonist doesn't get involved with the
>>>> anima/animus [choose one] then it isn't a complete story.
<snip>
>>>(Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a complete
>>>story, though 8-)...)
>>
>> He hasn't, not to the point that he becomes a complete
>> _protagonist_. He came very close with Conina, close
>> enough to be afraid for his wizard-ness. IMO that's the
>> missing element that keeps _him_ incomplete as a
>> protagonist, and allows him to be reused almost unchanged.
>> (Note the "almost". Rincewind has developed, just not
>> fully. I could add a more specific comment but it might
>> prevent future development, so I won't.)
>>
>> Rincewind acts more as a facilitator for a secondary
>> protagonist, who takes over the connection with the anima.
>
>I can't think who that would be in any book except Sourcery.
That's the one I was thinking of, and you're right, it's not
a consistent role for him. Sometimes the secondary protagonist
is another wizard making some kind of emotional connection to
the anima (TLC) more or less as a result of something Rincewind
did. A story can be complete in my terminology as long as
somebody makes the connection, but it doesn't feel right if
it isn't the protagonist.
Mind you, I'm not asking for Rincewind to be changed that way.
I'm just trying to see the structure.
>BTW, is Granny Weatherwax also an incomplete protagonist? I
>didn't mention the Witches novels before, because there's
>romance in (most of) them, but it doesn't involve her. But I
>would hesitate to suggest she's any less of a protagonist for
>that.
Granny has feelings for Ridcully even now, and there is some
evidence (trying to avoid spoilers) that they were very strong
in the past. That's close enough to have made the connection.
She just chose a different outcome.
>I don't agree that this is a requirement for a complete story
>with a complete protagonist (I'm not even sure what that
>*means*).
It probably doesn't mean much to anyone but me. Over 54 years
of reading, I have observed a set of patterns in stories,
slightly similar to but not identical to Campbell's myth stuff,
which I didn't know about until after I'd written mine down.
Since then I've been reading books by agents and authors,
and several of them have similar but not identical systems
of analysis for what they think is required to make a fully
realized story, so I think it's the kind of thing that anyone
who thinks about stories is likely to come up with.
I have found that a story that doesn't have certain elements in
it - character traits, scenes, etc - feels wrong, while other
elements are optional, and the focus can be shifted so that
what is the main element of one story will seem to be a minor
background detail in another. But if it isn't there somewhere,
the story or character feels incomplete. It all gets rather
too complex for a usenet post.
Here's a possible reinterpretation: Rincewind more commonly
has the role of the Good Magician; you know, the one who in
the typical extruded fantasy product is old and wise and has
a long white beard and so much power that he has to die or
be sealed in a tree to let the protagonist develop as an
individual. Rincewind confuses us because he is the viewpoint
character, which we expect to be the protagonist. But in
Sourcery he came very close to being the protagonist; since
as a wizard he isn't allowed (wouldn't allow himself) to form
a long-term relationship with Conina, that element was shifted
to another character and Rincewind returned to his usual role.
=Tamar
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
> In article <Xns9850E4D8...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>> dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>>> Rincewind acts more as a facilitator for a secondary
>>> protagonist, who takes over the connection with the
>>> anima.
>>
>>I can't think who that would be in any book except
>>Sourcery.
>
> That's the one I was thinking of, and you're right, it's
> not a consistent role for him. Sometimes the secondary
> protagonist is another wizard making some kind of emotional
> connection to the anima (TLC) more or less as a result of
> something Rincewind did. A story can be complete in my
> terminology as long as somebody makes the connection, but
> it doesn't feel right if it isn't the protagonist.
You're going to have to go into a bit more detail, I'm afraid.
I'm completely lost as to what the connection to the anima
would be in TLC.
<snip>
> Here's a possible reinterpretation: Rincewind more commonly
> has the role of the Good Magician; you know, the one who in
> the typical extruded fantasy product is old and wise and
> has a long white beard and so much power that he has to die
> or be sealed in a tree to let the protagonist develop as an
> individual. Rincewind confuses us because he is the
> viewpoint character, which we expect to be the protagonist.
> But in Sourcery he came very close to being the
> protagonist; since as a wizard he isn't allowed (wouldn't
> allow himself) to form a long-term relationship with
> Conina, that element was shifted to another character and
> Rincewind returned to his usual role.
Rincewind did, however, save the day, defeat the villain and
complete the story. As far as I'm concerned he's the
protagonist; Nijel (the guy whom, if I'm understanding you
correctly, made the connection) is the comic relief.
Torak
Then what about Black Hawk Down?
Die Hard 2?
Any Poirot story?
EvilBill
>
> No it doesn't. If a character gets involved in a relationship
> with one major character[1] that adds 3 to your score. Since
> Mary-Sueness starts at 22, this may tip the balance, but is
> obviously not going to be enough on its own.
>
> (Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a complete
> story, though 8-)...)
>
> [1]In a fanfic setting, where the major character is a pre-
> existing one. Otherwise a single relationship doesn't really
> add to the score at all.
It added to mine, even though both characters are original in an original
'universe', the story and character I was thinking of are a long way from
fanfic. <g>
Arthur Hagen
> In article <Xns9850DFA5...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> <rearrange>
>> (Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a complete
>> story, though 8-)...)
>
> He hasn't, not to the point that he becomes a complete
> _protagonist_. He came very close with Conina, close enough to
> be afraid for his wizard-ness.
Don't forget Interesting Times.
And I'm not sure that The Lady's interest in /him/ shouldn't count either.
--
*Art
8'FED
> If a protagonist doesn't get involved with the anima/animus [choose one]
> then it isn't a complete story. Since the anima/animus must be a major
> character,
I'm afraid I have to add myself to the list of people you've
completely lost in this thread.
Firstly, what the hell's an anima? The dictionary has a definition,
but not one relevant to fiction [1].
Secondly, whatever an anima might be, what the hell does one have to
do with the Discworld? I ask this noting that you have blatantly
implied that there *is* such a thing as an anima on the Discworld, by
stating that your test is applicable to Rincewind.
Thirdly, the notion that a story or its characters are not "complete"
unless the protagonist has a romantic relationship is monumentously
stupid. It's true only in a VERY limited range of genres (like, the
"romance" genre, obviously), and not at all beyond them.
That appears to be what you're saying, but it *can't* be, on the
grounds that you're not a complete idiot. Therefore I must be missing
something, some aspect of the context. I'm confused.
Adrian.
[1] Admittedly, Jungian psychology may be fiction, but fiction is
not Jungian psychology.
Mike Stevens
> [1] Admittedly, Jungian psychology may be fiction, but fiction is
> not Jungian psychology.
Although some of it possibly tries to be!
Anery
> The time: 02 Oct 2006. The place: alt.books.pratchett. The
> speaker: anarchic_teapot <the_peanu...@spamcop.net>
>
> > Anery a écrit :
> >
> >> Yes, and there are the Witch trials, the aim of which is
> >> to establish which witch is the best.
> >
> > No, the point of the trials is to establish /who comes
> > second to Granny Weatherwax/.
>
> Exactly.
>
doesn't exist.
> > Who never competes. Compare with Granny Aching and the
> > sheep trials.
>
> Who didn't compete *that* *year*. Compare to what happened in
> "The Sea and Little Fishes" when Mrs Earwig *suggested* she
> shouldn't compete, because she always won.
>
I think Granny is very competitive. In L&L, she cannot resist
Diamanda's challenge, although she knows that it is stupid. And it is
often stated that she hates to be beaten.
> In fact TS&LF gives the definitive lie to the idea that
> witchcraft is entirely non-heirarchal, it's just not
> *explicitly* heirarchal:
>
<snip>
Anery
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: "EvilBill" <quake...@gmail.com>
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>>
>> No it doesn't. If a character gets involved in a
>> relationship with one major character[1] that adds 3 to
>> your score. Since Mary-Sueness starts at 22, this may tip
>> the balance, but is obviously not going to be enough on
>> its own.
>>
>> (Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a
>> complete story, though 8-)...)
>>
>> [1]In a fanfic setting, where the major character is a
>> pre- existing one. Otherwise a single relationship doesn't
>> really add to the score at all.
>
> It added to mine, even though both characters are original
> in an original 'universe', the story and character I was
> thinking of are a long way from fanfic. <g>
Then I don't see where you checked it, if you skipped the
fanfic section.
Anery
> In article <Xns9850E4D8...@130.133.1.4>,
> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
> > dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
> >> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>
> >>>> If a protagonist doesn't get involved with the
> >>>> anima/animus [choose one] then it isn't a complete story.
> <snip>
>
> >didn't mention the Witches novels before, because there's
> >romance in (most of) them, but it doesn't involve her. But I
> >would hesitate to suggest she's any less of a protagonist for
> >that.
>
> Granny has feelings for Ridcully even now, and there is some
> evidence (trying to avoid spoilers) that they were very strong
> in the past. That's close enough to have made the connection.
> She just chose a different outcome.
>
somebody skips reading it, they will miss a good book, but they will
still gain a pretty good picture of Granny's personality from the rest
of the books. And I don't think it would make her less of a
protagonist.
<snip>
Anery
Richard Eney
Didn't see them.
>Any Poirot story?
Poirot is an incomplete character. That's part of what makes him
so irritating. Even Agatha Christie hated him at the end.
The connection to the anima was shifted to his younger companion.
Though, technically, IMO Poirot is not the protagonist, he's just
the detective. The protagonist is usually the innocent one who is
falsely accused, or the person in love with the innocent.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
> dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>
>>>> Rincewind acts more as a facilitator for a secondary
>>>> protagonist, who takes over the connection with the
>>>> anima.
>>>
>>>I can't think who that would be in any book except
>>>Sourcery.
>>
>> That's the one I was thinking of, and you're right, it's
>> not a consistent role for him. Sometimes the secondary
>> protagonist is another wizard making some kind of emotional
>> connection to the anima (TLC) more or less as a result of
>> something Rincewind did. A story can be complete in my
>> terminology as long as somebody makes the connection, but
>> it doesn't feel right if it isn't the protagonist.
>
>You're going to have to go into a bit more detail, I'm afraid.
>I'm completely lost as to what the connection to the anima
>would be in TLC.
The housekeeper, and the wizard who is clearly dotty over her
to the point that the other wizards are watching him closely.
><snip>
>
>> Here's a possible reinterpretation: Rincewind more commonly
>> has the role of the Good Magician; you know, the one who in
>> the typical extruded fantasy product is old and wise and
>> has a long white beard and so much power that he has to die
>> or be sealed in a tree to let the protagonist develop as an
>> individual. Rincewind confuses us because he is the
>> viewpoint character, which we expect to be the protagonist.
>> But in Sourcery he came very close to being the
>> protagonist; since as a wizard he isn't allowed (wouldn't
>> allow himself) to form a long-term relationship with
>> Conina, that element was shifted to another character and
>> Rincewind returned to his usual role.
>
>Rincewind did, however, save the day, defeat the villain and
>complete the story. As far as I'm concerned he's the
>protagonist; Nijel (the guy whom, if I'm understanding you
>correctly, made the connection) is the comic relief.
This gets into the problem of commonly associated character
traits. Normally there is a standard cluster of traits in
a protagonist: has the main adventure, connects with anima/animus,
gathers group of friends with certain types of personalities
(e.g., short-but-incredibly-brave, physical-strength-but-fearful,
thief, wise advisor, nurse, anima). But when those traits are assorted
in combinations that aren't the standard myffic ones, the effect
of the story is twisted out of the usual shape and the result can
be either comic or tragicomic, depending on all the other elements.
Nijel has all the bravado that Rincewind (wise advisor) lacks,
but no significant strength; he is inevitably paired with Conina,
who has the strength that Nijel lacks, but it is incongruous
for her to have the strength because she's the anima and that
role usually includes that of the "person who knows things and
supplies tools for the protagonist to use". She's also the thief.
Nijel is trying to be the warrior, but in my scheme of things
he seems more like an animus for Conina. (NB the anima/animus
is not a weak role, in fact it's vital.) Nijel is trying to be
a standard hero, and he manages to get into a heroic situation
while remaining fully aware of the real chances of success.
Sourcery is a great book for reminding us that every character
is the hero in his own internal story. Even Rincewind.
I'm more incoherent than usual. Is that the time? wow.
=Tamar
Torak
> 8'FED wrote:
>
>>[1] Admittedly, Jungian psychology may be fiction, but fiction is
>> not Jungian psychology.
>
> Although some of it possibly tries to be!
I've got a book - "The Psychology Of Screenwriting". It talks a lot
about Jungian and Freudian psychology and how it can be used in writing
stories. It's very helpful, as long as it's treated as suggestions and
hints for improving an already solid story, rather than automatic genius
injectors.
Richard Eney
Anery <vsp...@atlas.cz> wrote:
When dealing with a character who develops over more than one book,
it is a more complex situation to analyze. Granny is almost never
a protagonist, though she is important enough in most of the witch
books to be, oh I don't know, a co-protagonist. Mostly she plays
the role of Wise Woman/Good Witch (much as she may dislike it).
I don't think it has to be a love relationship to be an anima/animus
connection. In CJ I think Mightily Oates plays the role of animus to
Granny; he supports her, and they have some things in common in their
thought patterns. In WA Granny makes an odd sort of connection to the
man in the top hat (and the life he lacks is attached to the new form
that Greebo gains, for balance). Granny, like Magrat, goes to the
ball.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> <rearrange>
>>> (Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a complete
>>> story, though 8-)...)
>>
>> He hasn't, not to the point that he becomes a complete
>> _protagonist_. He came very close with Conina, close enough to
>> be afraid for his wizard-ness.
>
>Don't forget Interesting Times.
I don't recall Rincewind feeling any threat to his wizardness in IT.
Fear for his life, yes.
>And I'm not sure that The Lady's interest in /him/ shouldn't count either.
Interesting thought.
If The Lady's interest counts (and it probably ought to, if I'm counting
Granny's various encounters with Baron SamediNuitMort and DEATH as well as
Ridcully) - then that could qualify Rincewind as a protagonist over several
books.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
ABsolutely! Possibly the worst way to write a story is to take one
of these analytical frameworks and try to glue a story on to it.
But they can be used to get a story that has hit the doldrums moving
again, by suggesting possible characters or scenes.
=Tamar
Torak
>
> If The Lady's interest counts (and it probably ought to, if I'm counting
> Granny's various encounters with Baron SamediNuitMort
Is he a relative of Baron SamediNuitFièvre?
Sorry....
Torak
Yeah.
It's the same with a lot of those; Robert McKee's Story, for instance,
or the Monomyth, or even Syd Field's "Now, put your Act Two turning
point on page 90".
They're useful as an aid to structure, but they're guidelines and aids
rather than rules. If something else works better, you use that. :-)
Richard Eney
>Richard Eney wrote:
>
>> If a protagonist doesn't get involved with the anima/animus [choose one]
>> then it isn't a complete story. Since the anima/animus must be a major
>> character,
>
>I'm afraid I have to add myself to the list of people you've
>completely lost in this thread.
>
>Firstly, what the hell's an anima? The dictionary has a definition,
>but not one relevant to fiction [1].
>[1] Admittedly, Jungian psychology may be fiction, but fiction is
> not Jungian psychology.
You're right, I'm using a version of a Jungian concept as a label
for something I think I see in fiction.
>Secondly, whatever an anima might be, what the hell does one have to
>do with the Discworld? I ask this noting that you have blatantly
>implied that there *is* such a thing as an anima on the Discworld, by
>stating that your test is applicable to Rincewind.
I'm not surprised you're confused. I apologize for my lack of clarity.
I've been using a very rough explanation of a bunch of concepts I came up
with over about - gee, twenty years now - taking bits of terminology from
various books and articles and adding them to my own made up terms, in
order to sort out the patterns I was seeing in stories.
So the anima, as I (vaguely) understand it, is the female principle
represented by (usually) a woman in the story, which the (usually
male) protagonist must connect with as part of his development as
a human character. If the main character does not make some kind of
significant connection with a member of the opposite sex, I see that
main character as not having completed his development, thus he is
incompletely developed.
>Thirdly, the notion that a story or its characters are not "complete"
>unless the protagonist has a romantic relationship is monumentously
>stupid. It's true only in a VERY limited range of genres (like, the
>"romance" genre, obviously), and not at all beyond them.
>
>That appears to be what you're saying, but it *can't* be, on the
>grounds that you're not a complete idiot. Therefore I must be missing
>something, some aspect of the context. I'm confused.
As I currently understand story patterns, the connection to the opposite
sex (usually a male protagonist connecting with a female character) which
I label the anima character does not have to be a romance. It can be a
strong friendship, even a "buddy" relationship in which a woman friend
provides platonic emotional support for a male friend in a time of stress.
(That is probably not remotely like the Jungian definition.) But it
should be a strong connection, not a casual acquaintanceship or even
an average friendship. In TLF, Rincewind did not form that kind of
connection with Bethan. In Sourcery, though, he did feel very strong
if unexpressed feelings toward Conina, and she helped him rather a lot,
even giving him a haircut, which despite all the plot, parody, and character
related reasons for it, is a more personal service than just accompanying
him on the journey.
Art Hagen suggested that perhaps Rincewind's relationship with The Lady
would qualify; it's an interesting idea and I'll have to think about it
for a while.
I hope this has helped you understand some of the odder statements
I've been making.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Torak <perr...@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>I ran them both through the Litmus Test[1], and while Tiff got
>>>a score of 41 (start over) Carrot's was 54 (kill it dead).
>>>
>>>In fact, if you do this long enough, I'm hard pushed to find a
>>>Discworld character who *couldn't* be claimed as a Mary-Sue.
>>>Even Rincewind gets a score of 47!
>>>
>>>[1]http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htm
>>
>> I ran a character I've created through it and got 47 too - despite not
>> really thinking she's much of a Mary-Sue.
>
>Yeah - I ran a character for one of my screenplays through it - anything
>but a sue - and he scored 30.
Just for fun, I tried putting Dumbledore through it, based on what I've
read of JKR's interviews, and he scored 80.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
There seem to be some connections. ;-)
But I think he's a closer relative of Baron SamediNuitVivre.
=Tamar
Joe Bednorz
What I've seen of the questions in that litmus test it's not really
about Mary Sue characters. To see what I mean read the following paper,
the one that started all the buzz about Mary Sues:
<http://www.merrycoz.org/papers/MARYSUE.HTM>
--
"I think that's the other reason I love the Discworld stories. One
time the story is all "myffy" when suddenly you stumble across the
joke and your head hits the next available wall while at another
bit you laugh at a joke or situation and almost swallow your tongue
when you think about it for a second longer." - Volker Hetzer in abp
All the Best, Joe Bednorz
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
> In article <efs5ou$kmf$1...@tree.broomstick.com>,
> Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
>>> Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <rearrange>
>>>> (Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a
>>>> complete story, though 8-)...)
>>>
>>> He hasn't, not to the point that he becomes a complete
>>> _protagonist_. He came very close with Conina, close
>>> enough to be afraid for his wizard-ness.
>>
>>Don't forget Interesting Times.
>
> I don't recall Rincewind feeling any threat to his
> wizardness in IT. Fear for his life, yes.
Now someone mentions it, there's definitely *some* sort of
connection between Rinso and Pretty Butterfly. She makes him
think of potatoes, IIRC...
Torak
No more?
8'FED
> As I currently understand story patterns, the connection to the opposite
> sex (usually a male protagonist connecting with a female character) which
> I label the anima character does not have to be a romance. It can be a
> strong friendship, even a "buddy" relationship in which a woman friend
> provides platonic emotional support for a male friend in a time of stress.
I would say that a protagonist in a serious adult drama has to form
bonds with a reasonable variety of other characters (these characters,
being varied, cannot all be too like [him]self and must provide
contrasts, gender contrast being an obvious example), but I would also
say that the dimensions along which those characters are varied is the
author's choice. People *expect* one of those dimensions to be gender,
but defying expectations is not incompleteness, it's difference.
(Having said which, given that 50% of people *are* the opposite gender
to almost any given protagonist, the people the protagonist forms
bonds with can be predicted to include someone of the opposite gender
based on probability theory alone.)
I would not be particularly swayed by a hypothetical review which went
something like this:
"A complete amateur. Doesn't even write the protagonist a close
bond with a member of the opposite gender. Hasn't a clue."
> Art Hagen suggested that perhaps Rincewind's relationship with The Lady
> would qualify; it's an interesting idea and I'll have to think about it
> for a while.
What, he ignores her to the extent that his philosophy of life is
based on never expecting or acknowledging any luck other than bad, and
she likes that and treats him somewhat like a cute fluffy animal?
Adrian.
Alec Cawley
> I don't recall Rincewind feeling any threat to his wizardness in IT.
> Fear for his life, yes.
When he was running away several times he considered "hiding" by
removing his pointy hat, and recoiled in horror because that would make
him Not A Wizard - and hence nothing. He did do so eventually, int the
"willow pattern" scene.
Alec Cawley
Alec Cawley
>
> Poirot is an incomplete character. That's part of what makes him
> so irritating. Even Agatha Christie hated him at the end.
> The connection to the anima was shifted to his younger companion.
> Though, technically, IMO Poirot is not the protagonist, he's just
> the detective. The protagonist is usually the innocent one who is
> falsely accused, or the person in love with the innocent.
How do you define "protagonist"? I go back to the Greek - prot-agon,
first actor. I.e. to me the protagonist is, by definition, the actor
with the largest part, the one whom the "eye" of the action follows.
Which, in the Poirot books, is indubitably Poirot. We may see him
through the eyes of Hastings, but he is the focus of the tale telling.
There may be a name for the part you are describing, but it is not, IMO<
protagonist.
Alec Cawley
> I'm not surprised you're confused. I apologize for my lack of clarity.
>
> I've been using a very rough explanation of a bunch of concepts I came up
> with over about - gee, twenty years now - taking bits of terminology from
> various books and articles and adding them to my own made up terms, in
> order to sort out the patterns I was seeing in stories.
>
> So the anima, as I (vaguely) understand it, is the female principle
> represented by (usually) a woman in the story, which the (usually
> male) protagonist must connect with as part of his development as
> a human character. If the main character does not make some kind of
> significant connection with a member of the opposite sex, I see that
> main character as not having completed his development, thus he is
> incompletely developed.
I think that this is a common, but far from universal, pattern in
stories. By insisting that it exists for a character to be "complete",
you are condemning a large number of characters to "incompleteness", And
by searching for it, you will twist a number of stories out of their
natural shape.
For example, the only "anima" that I can find in Oliver Twist is his
grandfather, who provides the "happily ever after" conclusion to the
book. But to twist this relationship into the romantic and/or best buddy
relationship is, IMO, grossly to distort human relationships.
To go to the other end of the spectrum, in Ringworld, Lois Wu has a
sexual relationship with Teela Brown, but this is more of a "sleeping
with the enemy" type relationship: they are forced into proximity by
others, and change from enforced partners to enemies through the book.
IOW, I think you are trying to fit literature into a mould which,
extrapolated indefinitely, ends in Mills * Boone. While I agree that
this is a common pattern, and one into which a lot of good books fit, to
require it of a "good" book or a "complete" character is cast a very
monochrome light upon literature. And one which caused Hollywood to put
totally spurious "love interests" into otherwise good films. Sometimes a
war is just a war, not an opportunity for a bonding experience.
sian_shoe
EvilBill wrote:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> >
> > No it doesn't. If a character gets involved in a relationship
> > with one major character[1] that adds 3 to your score. Since
> > Mary-Sueness starts at 22, this may tip the balance, but is
> > obviously not going to be enough on its own.
> >
> > (Interesting to learn Rincewind has never been in a complete
> > story, though 8-)...)
> >
> > [1]In a fanfic setting, where the major character is a pre-
> > existing one. Otherwise a single relationship doesn't really
> > add to the score at all.
>
> It added to mine, even though both characters are original in an original
> 'universe', the story and character I was thinking of are a long way from
> fanfic. <g>
>
> --
> --
> * I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
> to expect the worst.
>
> Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
> Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk
Anastasia
> So the anima, as I (vaguely) understand it, is the female principle
> represented by (usually) a woman in the story, which the (usually
> male) protagonist must connect with as part of his development as
> a human character. If the main character does not make some kind of
> significant connection with a member of the opposite sex, I see that
> main character as not having completed his development, thus he is
> incompletely developed.
This is extremely problematic from a Queer Theory POV. It seems to make
heterosexual bonds (with or without sex) vital to "complete development."
--
Call for Papers: Representing the Other, Gender and Sexuality in the
Fantastic (International Association of the Fantastic in the Arts, Ft
Lauderdale, FL. March 14-18, 2007). GoH: Geoff Ryman, Melissa Scott,
Jane Donawerth. Details at: http://www.iafa.org
Blog: http://www.esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: "Anastasia" <house_d...@yahoo.com>
> Richard Eney wrote:
>
>> So the anima, as I (vaguely) understand it, is the female
>> principle represented by (usually) a woman in the story,
>> which the (usually male) protagonist must connect with as
>> part of his development as a human character. If the main
>> character does not make some kind of significant
>> connection with a member of the opposite sex, I see that
>> main character as not having completed his development,
>> thus he is incompletely developed.
>
> This is extremely problematic from a Queer Theory POV. It
> seems to make heterosexual bonds (with or without sex)
> vital to "complete development."
I admit I don't know anything about Queer Theory[1], but it
seems to me that this is not an obstacle. Consider the
television sitcom "Will & Grace" which is entirely about a
bond between a gay man and a straight woman.
[1]Except for what I picked up from your thesis on Greebo.
Sabremeister Brian
Richard Eney (dic...@radix.net) spake thusly:
I just tried Dumbledore, and got 54. Harry Potter though, got 71
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums."
- GK Chesterton
Emma Anne
> Richard Eney wrote:
>
> > So the anima, as I (vaguely) understand it, is the female principle
> > represented by (usually) a woman in the story, which the (usually
> > male) protagonist must connect with as part of his development as
> > a human character. If the main character does not make some kind of
> > significant connection with a member of the opposite sex, I see that
> > main character as not having completed his development, thus he is
> > incompletely developed.
>
> This is extremely problematic from a Queer Theory POV. It seems to make
> heterosexual bonds (with or without sex) vital to "complete development."
I actually think Tamar is on to something, though I don't agree that
opposite sex bonding is necessary. But it does feel like a protagonist
is somehow incomplete if he doesn't have some kind of transformative
relationship with *someone* during the course of the story.
Anastasia
> The time: 03 Oct 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: "Anastasia" <house_d...@yahoo.com>
>
>> Richard Eney wrote:
>>
>>> So the anima, as I (vaguely) understand it, is the female
>>> principle represented by (usually) a woman in the story,
>>> which the (usually male) protagonist must connect with as
>>> part of his development as a human character. If the main
>>> character does not make some kind of significant
>>> connection with a member of the opposite sex, I see that
>>> main character as not having completed his development,
>>> thus he is incompletely developed.
>>
>> This is extremely problematic from a Queer Theory POV. It
>> seems to make heterosexual bonds (with or without sex)
>> vital to "complete development."
>
> I admit I don't know anything about Queer Theory[1], but it
> seems to me that this is not an obstacle. Consider the
> television sitcom "Will & Grace" which is entirely about a
> bond between a gay man and a straight woman.
True, about the subject of the show. I admit that I am not a total expert on
QT, but let it stop at me saying that I sense that the people who *are*
deeply into QT would have some very pointed questions about that schema.
You know what I mean? I can't deeply analyze that theory about anima and
protagonist. Those aren't the usual ways I approach a text. But I know
enough to strongly suspect that different sorts of theorists would likely
consider some parts of it extremely problematic.
It's like "okay, I don't personally have anything against orange carpet, but
I just KNOW that <foo> would hate it."
> [1]Except for what I picked up from your thesis on Greebo.
Well, Will is a very stereotypical gay man. That's all. It's very sanitized,
very mainstream. Doesn't mean I'm commenting on the quality. I've seen some
episodes, but I don't follow it. From what I've seen, Will is a neat, polite
gay guy, not an in-your-face activist. Doesn't mean most gay people ARE
rowdy activists, just that there's a spectrum, and Will is at the far end of
it on the mainstream side.
Alec Cawley
> I actually think Tamar is on to something, though I don't agree that
> opposite sex bonding is necessary. But it does feel like a protagonist
> is somehow incomplete if he doesn't have some kind of transformative
> relationship with *someone* during the course of the story.
But doe that transformation have, for example, to be positive? Is not
escape from a harmful relationship also a valid transformation? Perpaps
coming out as gay and abandoning a heterosexual marriage is a reasonable
subject for a story - but where is the anima in that, of the protagonist
does not immediately fall into a new relationship?
If you grant that, then all you are saying is that a story in which
noone changes in any of their relationships is probably not a very good
story. But to insist that change has to be positive and has involve an
"anima" is, IMO, overly restrictive.
Anastasia
--
Anastasia
What about transformative experiences that don't involve other people?
It's certainly a way to look at some stories.
I'm not in favor of total alienation, but I am not sure I'm totally able to
buy into the necessity of having a transformative experience with another
person in order to be complete.
Just personally, I'm wrestling with the idea that you can be a complete
person by yourself. It's my life, not literature, but if transformative
experiences with other people are necessary for wholeness, I'm screwed.
CCA
> Not all Mary Sues are bad. Jane Eyre, anyone?
Good point.
I also remember reading books by an author called Maeve Binchy. (I
would like to point out that this was a *very* long time ago, when I
was a young teenager who hadn't discovered sci-fi, fantasy, or anything
else particularly good yet). Even as a thirteen-year-old, I noticed
that there always seemed to be a character who could do no wrong at
all, and who would dispense advice like a female Yoda. A different one
in each book, but there always was one. It's only looking back that
I've recognised them as MSs.
This may have been covered elsewhere in the thread, but I'm also
wondering how much of a MS Agatha Christie's Miss Marple was. I've
only seen the television adaptations, and couldn't really fairly say
without having read the books.
And HE Bates's Pop Larkin, in his 'Darling Buds of May' series of
books.
CCA
Paul Cooke
> sian_shoe wrote:
>
>> Not all Mary Sues are bad. Jane Eyre, anyone?
>
> Good point.
>
this might seem dense... but what the heck are you lot on about???
--
XP, unsafe on the information highway at any speed