Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
CCA
>I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
>I mean, I used
>to laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now
>is a grin/smirk/twitch.
It's not so much being lost, but changing, I think.
>I don't think I've ever revisited Monstrous Regiment .. but having just
>finished Going Postal, I think I may reread it ...
I've never reread MR *yet*. Going Postal, on the other hand, I've only read
the first one and a half chapters of, and I think it's going to be reread quite
a bit.
CCA:)
Family Bites Website and Sample Chapter at http://www.falboroughhall.co.uk
Live Journal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/ciciaye
Rick Nettleton
"Akshay" <aksha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1097869002.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I may be burned at the stake for heresy by raising this question, but
> here goes anyway:
>
> I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
> to laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now
> is a grin/smirk/twitch.
>
> contrast to my feelings about eg: Men at Arms, Eric, Soul Music, etc.
> ("Anytime!").
>
> Is it just me? Have I grown older and thus living in the past glories
> of Discworld books?
>
> Axe
>
Alec Cawley
Stacie Hanes <house_d...@yahoo.com> writes
>Group one: people who like all of the Discworld books, as well as all of his
>other books, equally.
>
>Group two: The books are moving away from this group's sense of humor. The
>earlier books were funnier and the new ones are darker.
>
>Group three: The books are moving closer to this group's sense of humor. The
>earlier books were okay, but the newer ones are funnier because the comedy
>is more mature.
>
>It's probably an oversimplification, but that's basically it. I'm in group
>three, myself..
>
Agreed. Me 2 (or rather, 3).
--
@lec Šawley
Design rule 1: Simplicate and add Lightness.
Slightly Used
> I may be burned at the stake for heresy by raising this question, but
> here goes anyway:
We don't do that sort of primitive violence here; we have a perfectly
good scorpion pit.
> I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
> (I live in New York, and spell American. Get over it.) I mean, I used
> to laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now
> is a grin/smirk/twitch.
I don't know; I certainly am not having this problem, but then, I
never did read Terry for the laughs-out-loud; I've always considered
them to be a side-benefit.
> I don't think I've ever revisited Monstrous Regiment .. but having just
> finished Going Postal, I think I may reread it ... this BTW is in stark
> contrast to my feelings about eg: Men at Arms, Eric, Soul Music, etc.
> ("Anytime!").
>
> Is it just me? Have I grown older and thus living in the past glories
> of Discworld books?
I doubt it, although I guess it's possible. I would be more apt to
think that since you live in New York, USA, it's harder to find
anything as funny as it used to be, especially with a national
election looming so close, based on lies, fraud and cheating, with two
nearly identical evil clone candidates, bent on further destroying the
sacred principles of a once great country for personal gain.
-More Than Slightly Disgusted http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com
--
Keep Your Newsgroup Vermin-Free: Use RAID Trollacide Once Daily
Andy Davison
> I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor? (I
> live in New York, and spell American. Get over it.) I mean, I used to
> laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now is a
> grin/smirk/twitch.
The style is maturing. The book that made me laugh out loud the most was
Interesting Times but my favourite is still Small Gods. GP is right up
there in the quality stakes and yes, I didi laugh out loud several times
reading GP (for instance the bit when Moist is talking to Saccharissa
about the rumpus/fracas). It seems to me that Terry's writing is more
satirical and cynical these days which is no bad thing.
--
Andy Davison
an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk
Sanity
> I may be burned at the stake for heresy by raising this question,
Oh, that's nice, it's been a while since the last lynch mob...
> but
> here goes anyway:
>
> I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
No, you're not. However, not everybody thinks so, as Stacie explained
pretty well.
The most neutral I could say is: the books are changing. Some like the
direction, some don't. Personally, I find that, with the occasional glitch
(ToT for example), the books are better now, and more funny. I am reading
Going Postal now and occasionaly laugh out loud, something I rarely do.
And if I don't, then it is because more than the earlier books, the story
really grips you. I am one of those "dark readers" who rates Nightwatch as
the best DW book so far. Not because it's funny (though it is), but
because the story sends shivers down my spine. As well as the occasional
laughter.
(retagged [R], because it is)
--
TTFN, | AFPChess, L-Files & more:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
Michel AKA Sanity | Now available on Jabber: michel @ jabber.xs4all.nl
Graycat
<house_d...@yahoo.com> jotted down:
>No, it's not just you. Fans can be divided into three parts. Collectively
>and metaphorically, that is; if you try it individually and literally, you
>may have trouble with the police.
>
>But I digress. Here, look:
>
>Group one: people who like all of the Discworld books, as well as all of his
>other books, equally.
>
>Group two: The books are moving away from this group's sense of humor. The
>earlier books were funnier and the new ones are darker.
>
>Group three: The books are moving closer to this group's sense of humor. The
>earlier books were okay, but the newer ones are funnier because the comedy
>is more mature.
>
>It's probably an oversimplification, but that's basically it. I'm in group
>three, myself..
I sort of agree, except for the one little thing. That word
"darker" there. I'm sort of in group 2, ie I don't
appreciate the new books quite as much as the earlier -
personally I think the high point was Maskerade - TFE - with
some exceptions. I liked WFM and TAMAHER a lot.
In discussions here that always seems to be put down to me
"not likning the darker tone" which I think is crap. I like
dark, I like many things that are a lot darker than the
latest DW books. But sobre and sombre moods isn't what I
read DW for, and that dissapoints me on first reading,
because it's not what I expected. I also think that the
occasional slapstick moment in the newer books clashes with
the rest of those books.
But finally, I think that there are two things that makes
the later books less enjoyable (for me). The first is that
each book now seems to deal with less ideas, they are more
focused. The downside to that is that if you don't care for
the thing it's focused on there isn't anything else to
concentrate on instead. The second thing is that the books
aren't so much about the foibles of humans any more but
about the mean, spiteful and really flawed sides. There's
less of a sense that humans are insane and you gotta love
'em for it, I feel that the later books are harder and less
hopeful. They seem written by a more cynikal person who
doesn't like people as much.
If you wish to call that dark, fine, but it's not the only
darkness available, so it seems to me to be a bit too large
of a lable.
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/index.html
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Orjan Westin
> But finally, I think that there are two things that makes
> the later books less enjoyable (for me). The first is that
> each book now seems to deal with less ideas, they are more
> focused. The downside to that is that if you don't care for
> the thing it's focused on there isn't anything else to
> concentrate on instead.
Well... I kinda see what you mean, but I'm not sure I agree. Small Gods and
Maskerade, for instance, are books I think are very focused.
> The second thing is that the books
> aren't so much about the foibles of humans any more but
> about the mean, spiteful and really flawed sides. There's
> less of a sense that humans are insane and you gotta love
> 'em for it, I feel that the later books are harder and less
> hopeful. They seem written by a more cynikal person who
> doesn't like people as much.
You'll like Going Postal, then. Without wanting to spoil anything, it's full
of hope. I'll have to write a longer post about that, at some point.
Orjan
Graycat
<nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> jotted down:
>Graycat wrote:
Spoilers within
For Maskerade and Monstrous Regiment
>> But finally, I think that there are two things that makes
>> the later books less enjoyable (for me). The first is that
>> each book now seems to deal with less ideas, they are more
>> focused. The downside to that is that if you don't care for
>> the thing it's focused on there isn't anything else to
>> concentrate on instead.
>
>Well... I kinda see what you mean, but I'm not sure I agree. Small Gods and
>Maskerade, for instance, are books I think are very focused.
Perhaps. Maskerade is read one way a parody of the phantom
of the opera, but it's a also a discussion on what reality
and sanity is, whether that's important and the usefulness
of talent versus looks. And if you don't care about that
there's a fat opera singing man from genua who isn't really,
a lot of humorous food, a morphically challenged cat in a
high speed carriage chase, two bickering old ladies and some
problems with a publisher etc etc etc.
Part of it is the fact that many of the older books have
several viewpojnts and storylines going on at the same time,
if you're not that interested in one of them then maybe you
are in the other. Part is that before I think the action
proceeded through a series of funny events and the serious
discussion was sort of bubbling away beneath that humorous
surface. Now the occasional funny episode just feels like a
diversion.
>> The second thing is that the books
>> aren't so much about the foibles of humans any more but
>> about the mean, spiteful and really flawed sides. There's
>> less of a sense that humans are insane and you gotta love
>> 'em for it, I feel that the later books are harder and less
>> hopeful. They seem written by a more cynikal person who
>> doesn't like people as much.
>
>You'll like Going Postal, then. Without wanting to spoil anything, it's full
>of hope. I'll have to write a longer post about that, at some point.
Quite possible. I like MR [1] a lot more than some of the
others, and NW is good enough that I don't dislike it. But
TT and ToT I wouldn't have been sorry had I never read them.
[1] except for the unveiling of all the women at the end.
Did anyone else feel that was a bit overdone?
Sarah Warren
>
>
>
>
>
> Spoilers within
> For Maskerade and Monstrous Regiment
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >You'll like Going Postal, then. Without wanting to spoil anything, it's
full
> >of hope. I'll have to write a longer post about that, at some point.
>
> Quite possible. I like MR [1] a lot more than some of the
> others, and NW is good enough that I don't dislike it. But
> TT and ToT I wouldn't have been sorry had I never read them.
It's funny, ToT is one of my absolute favourites, and MR, well I've
only read it once and it was good, but for me it doesn't feel like it's
going to be a favourite.... we'll see! I loved NW... thought it was
extremely clever and I've reread it several times.
>
> [1] except for the unveiling of all the women at the end.
> Did anyone else feel that was a bit overdone?
I did... The fact that so many of the top dogs were in fact top, um,
bitches I guess, was quite funny... but for me Sgt Jackrum being
one was almost a letdown, I'm not sure why (I guess I kinda liked
the idea that it was a man who thought women made good soldiers
anyway) and I could've lived without Maladict becoming Maladicta.
I can't wait to read GP... :-)
Stacie Hanes
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:29:32 GMT, "Stacie Hanes"
> <house_d...@yahoo.com> jotted down:
>
>
>> No, it's not just you. Fans can be divided into three parts.
>> Collectively and metaphorically, that is; if you try it individually
>> and literally, you may have trouble with the police.
>>
>> But I digress. Here, look:
>>
>> Group one: people who like all of the Discworld books, as well as
>> all of his other books, equally.
>>
>> Group two: The books are moving away from this group's sense of
>> humor. The earlier books were funnier and the new ones are darker.
>>
>> Group three: The books are moving closer to this group's sense of
>> humor. The earlier books were okay, but the newer ones are funnier
>> because the comedy is more mature.
>>
>> It's probably an oversimplification, but that's basically it. I'm in
>> group three, myself..
>
> I sort of agree, except for the one little thing. That word
> "darker" there. I'm sort of in group 2, ie I don't
> appreciate the new books quite as much as the earlier -
> personally I think the high point was Maskerade - TFE - with
> some exceptions. I liked WFM and TAMAHER a lot.
<snip>
> If you wish to call that dark, fine, but it's not the only
> darkness available, so it seems to me to be a bit too large
> of a lable.
Yes, it's very general. But I was tying to get a large concept into a few
lines, very quickly. It wouldn't have survived a rewrite or expansion into a
real paper, but I used the words that are most typically used when this
comes up here, as it does from time to time.
Although I don't agree with every microscopic point, everything you say at
least makes sense. This is bound to be unclear, but I *do* think you're
100% right about all of it--for you. Given the impossibility of writing a
book, let alone an entire series, that precisely fits every fan's taste, we
(and a few others thrown in besides) can both/all be 100% right about the
tone.
Groan. I mean, I suppose, that your analysis is absolutely spot-on, but I
consider it one of several equally valid ways of seeing the question. And
not "equally valid" in "you're wrong, wrong, wrong, but this is literature,
so I can't prove it" sense.
Actually I *do* agree with you, but my personal taste differs.
Dear god, and I making any sense at all today?
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
"swordswomen of the afpocalypse" copyright Jon of afp, 2004.
Stacie Hanes
> "Graycat" <gra...@passagen.se> wrote
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Spoilers within
>> For Maskerade and Monstrous Regiment
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] except for the unveiling of all the women at the end.
>> Did anyone else feel that was a bit overdone?
>
> I did... The fact that so many of the top dogs were in fact top, um,
> bitches I guess, was quite funny... but for me Sgt Jackrum being
> one was almost a letdown, I'm not sure why (I guess I kinda liked
> the idea that it was a man who thought women made good soldiers
> anyway) and I could've lived without Maladict becoming Maladicta.
>
> I can't wait to read GP... :-)
I liked it okay, but I think I'm with Sarah. A couple of enlightened boys
would have been even better.
Graycat
<house_d...@yahoo.com> jotted down:
>Although I don't agree with every microscopic point, everything you say at
>least makes sense. This is bound to be unclear, but I *do* think you're
>100% right about all of it--for you. Given the impossibility of writing a
>book, let alone an entire series, that precisely fits every fan's taste, we
>(and a few others thrown in besides) can both/all be 100% right about the
>tone.
>
>Groan. I mean, I suppose, that your analysis is absolutely spot-on, but I
>consider it one of several equally valid ways of seeing the question. And
>not "equally valid" in "you're wrong, wrong, wrong, but this is literature,
>so I can't prove it" sense.
>
>Actually I *do* agree with you, but my personal taste differs.
>
>Dear god, and I making any sense at all today?
I think it all made perfect sense.
Slightly Used
> [1] except for the unveiling of all the women at the end.
> Did anyone else feel that was a bit overdone?
I feel just a little bit like I would if a famous movie star were
sitting with me at table while those around us were discussing whether
her butt was getting too big: embarrassed and uncomfortable,
especially if I personally though her butt was nothing less than
delightful.
Butt that's just me, I guess.
-Slightly Nonplussed http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com
--
Keep Your Newsgroup Vermin-Free: Use Safeway Trollaway Once Daily
grahamafforda...@hotmail.com
On 15 Oct 2004 12:36:42 -0700, "Akshay" <aksha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
Probably not, but it doesn't mean it's true.
Personally I think GP was hilarious, I've read it three times now and
I was still chuckling away through out the third reading.
It could be argued that it's *you* who's losing their sense of humour,
but that's another matter entirely.
Cheers,
Graham.
Richard Bos
> Akshay wrote:
> > I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
> > (I live in New York, and spell American. Get over it.) I mean, I used
> > to laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now
> > is a grin/smirk/twitch.
> No, it's not just you. Fans can be divided into three parts. Collectively
> and metaphorically, that is; if you try it individually and literally, you
> may have trouble with the police.
>
> But I digress. Here, look:
>
> Group one: people who like all of the Discworld books, as well as all of his
> other books, equally.
>
> Group two: The books are moving away from this group's sense of humor. The
> earlier books were funnier and the new ones are darker.
>
> Group three: The books are moving closer to this group's sense of humor. The
> earlier books were okay, but the newer ones are funnier because the comedy
> is more mature.
>
> It's probably an oversimplification,
It's certainly an oversimplification, because I'm in group two-and-a-
half. Or maybe one-and-a-half. For me, the books are moving away from my
sense of chuckle-worthy humour; I get fewer laughs, on average, out of
the more recent books. However, I'm also getting more out of the stories
recently; the books are moving closer to my sense of mild parody.
Where the earlier books were more overt, and mocked the sillier habits
of humanity so that I'd get a lot of laughs, now they are getting more
subtle, and they move me more. In the end, I don't think I want to
choose between the various styles; the only thing is that the extremes
on either side, as shown in TCoM and MR respectively, don't do it for me
as much as the usual, more held-back ones.
Richard
Lesley Weston
That's true, although it could be seen the other way round - it doesn't
matter which clone wins, nothing will change, for the better or the worse
... no, that doesn't really work as comforting words, does it?. Either way,
outside of the US itself both of my countries are likely to be the most
affected (aside from whichever countries Bushy or Kerr decide to invade
during the coming term); already, the Evil Twins are both planning to
prevent Canada from receiving pharmaceuticals made by American companies.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't
actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley
att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
Arthur Hagen
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:52:36 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
> <nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> jotted down:
>
>> Graycat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Spoilers within
> For Maskerade and Monstrous Regiment
>
>
>
>
>
>
> others, and NW is good enough that I don't dislike it. But
> TT and ToT I wouldn't have been sorry had I never read them.
>
> [1] except for the unveiling of all the women at the end.
> Did anyone else feel that was a bit overdone?
Yeah, I kind of wondered whether I was reading David Eddings, when the book
ended with lots of pages to go, and the rest was just wrapping up -- or in
this case unwrapping. It was also very very transparent that this would
happen from less than a third into the book. Compared to the two other war
books (Interesting Times and Jingo), it lacked depth. There were far fewer
plots, much more transparency and less twisted wit. With the lack of a
foundation (all new characters and setting), it fell down for me. I'd
probably have liked it better when I was a kid, but for the bitter old man I
am now, I'd give it 3 out of 10. That's just my personal opinion, and I'm
sure that plenty of people loved (and will love) it.
Regards,
--
*Art
Slightly Used
> That's true, although it could be seen the other way round - it doesn't
> matter which clone wins, nothing will change, for the better or the worse
> ... no, that doesn't really work as comforting words, does it?. Either way,
> outside of the US itself both of my countries are likely to be the most
> affected (aside from whichever countries Bushy or Kerr decide to invade
> during the coming term); already, the Evil Twins are both planning to
> prevent Canada from receiving pharmaceuticals made by American companies.
Links on following page possibly worth perusal (excuse reiteration):
http://www.commission-on-fake-presidential-debates.us/
The US of A is going rapidly *very* evil and it's mostly at the door
of the two "major" political parties.
-Slightly Used http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com
Lesley Weston
slightly-u...@liberty-in-our-time.com wrote on 15/10/2004 4:34 PM:
> Akshay wrote:
<snip>
>> Is it just me? Have I grown older and thus living in the past glories
>> of Discworld books?
>
> I doubt it, although I guess it's possible. I would be more apt to
> think that since you live in New York, USA, it's harder to find
> anything as funny as it used to be, especially with a national
> election looming so close, based on lies, fraud and cheating, with two
> nearly identical evil clone candidates, bent on further destroying the
> sacred principles of a once great country for personal gain.
I got so involved with answering the political part of this that I forgot to
say that IMO all of TP's work is equally enjoyable, but the later books are
so completely different from the earlier ones that they could be placed in a
different genre. They could almost have been written by a different, equally
talented, author. I think TP himself said something like this about TCOM and
TLF, though I got the impression that he's not as fond of those two as he is
of the others.
Lesley Weston
gra...@passagen.se wrote on 16/10/2004 8:25 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> Spoilers within
> For Maskerade and Monstrous Regiment
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quite possible. I like MR [1] a lot more than some of the
> others, and NW is good enough that I don't dislike it. But
> TT and ToT I wouldn't have been sorry had I never read them.
>
> [1] except for the unveiling of all the women at the end.
> Did anyone else feel that was a bit overdone?
But I would say that that was essential for the joke, as well as to make the
point that this was the only way a woman could have any kind of a life in
that society, which (oddly enough) is not unlike our own not that long ago.
Torak
> "Graycat" <gra...@passagen.se> wrote
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoilers within
>>For Maskerade and Monstrous Regiment
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>You'll like Going Postal, then. Without wanting to spoil anything, it's
>
> full
>
>>>of hope. I'll have to write a longer post about that, at some point.
>>
>>Quite possible. I like MR [1] a lot more than some of the
>>others, and NW is good enough that I don't dislike it. But
>>TT and ToT I wouldn't have been sorry had I never read them.
>
>
> It's funny, ToT is one of my absolute favourites, and MR, well I've
> only read it once and it was good, but for me it doesn't feel like it's
> going to be a favourite.... we'll see! I loved NW... thought it was
> extremely clever and I've reread it several times.
The Truth is probably my all-time favourite, although Interesting Times
and Going Postal come very close.
>>[1] except for the unveiling of all the women at the end.
>>Did anyone else feel that was a bit overdone?
>
> I did... The fact that so many of the top dogs were in fact top, um,
> bitches I guess, was quite funny... but for me Sgt Jackrum being
> one was almost a letdown, I'm not sure why (I guess I kinda liked
> the idea that it was a man who thought women made good soldiers
> anyway) and I could've lived without Maladict becoming Maladicta.
I thought it was overdone, yeah. I mean, I've served with several women
- we had a total of seven in our company at any one time, with some
transferring to their "proper" jobs after boot camp, and they were
bloody brilliant. But I did think the all-female angle could have done
with some modification.
Torak
I think my main problem with MR was that, compared to the satirical
scalpel of the other books, it was a rather clumsy bludgeon. It just
wasn't as clever and subtle as the rest.
I didn't like TCOM or TLF much, but MR - while more polished - just
wasn't up to the standard we'd become spoiled by.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
I'm pretty much with you Richard. Although it's interesting that you considers
MR to be the extreme of the "darker" side, since Trevor Marsh, possibly the
strongest complainer against "darkness" in recent books, hailed it as a return
to form. It surprised me too...
(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
brilliant?)
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
In life, as in breakfast cereal, it is always best to read the instructions on
the box.
-Thief of Time, Terry Pratchett
Rhiannon S
>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
>brilliant?)
Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting with her
grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
--
Rhiannon
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/
"The trick is to commit crimes so confusing that police feel too stupid to even
write a crime report about them."
Aubrey on remaining at liberty
www.somethingpositive.net
Sarah Warren
> (BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
> brilliant?)
Nope, I'm with you, it's not my favourite but it's right up there... I
thought it
was very clever and I've reread it several times with much enjoyment :-)
Mark Gallagher
a mechanical chaos merchant from Mars, they'd say...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:52:36 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
> <nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> jotted down:
> >Graycat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Spoilers within
> For Maskerade and Monstrous Regiment
>
>
>
>
>
>
<snip />
> Part of it is the fact that many of the older books have
> several viewpojnts and storylines going on at the same time,
> if you're not that interested in one of them then maybe you
> are in the other. Part is that before I think the action
> proceeded through a series of funny events and the serious
> discussion was sort of bubbling away beneath that humorous
> surface. Now the occasional funny episode just feels like a
> diversion.
Someone suggested that the ginger beer incident in NW was very funny.
While I didn't find it so myself, I recognised that there *was* a joke
there (I just didn't get it... happens occasionally), and it just
annoyed me. The early books (pre-L&L) were bloody funny books which
happened to have good stories. The later books are better stories, and
thumping good reads, but the rare jokes either fall flat, or are pretty
good but seem to distract from the narrative. Let's not go into books
without good stories *or* good jokes (L&L, ToT).
'Course, our standards our undoubtedly too high. I'm sure most authors
would kill to have their fans dissing books like MR because they're
(the books) not the same as they (the fans) have come to expect.
> >> The second thing is that the books
> >> aren't so much about the foibles of humans any more but
> >> about the mean, spiteful and really flawed sides. There's
> >> less of a sense that humans are insane and you gotta love
> >> 'em for it, I feel that the later books are harder and less
> >> hopeful. They seem written by a more cynikal person who
> >> doesn't like people as much.
> >
> >You'll like Going Postal, then. Without wanting to spoil anything, it's full
> >of hope. I'll have to write a longer post about that, at some point.
>
> Quite possible. I like MR [1] a lot more than some of the
> others, and NW is good enough that I don't dislike it. But
> TT and ToT I wouldn't have been sorry had I never read them.
I liked TT, but had I known I wouldn't enjoy ToT I... well, I still
would've bought it. That's kinda sad, isn't it?
> [1] except for the unveiling of all the women at the end.
> Did anyone else feel that was a bit overdone?
Yes. Having the whole MR (except Maledict) as women worked well
enough, I suppose, and while I was a little iffy on the whole "high
command is one-third women[0]" it made sense, if you considered the
influence of Jackrum and Froc to be extensive enough. But there was no
need for Maledict to turn out not to be who she said she was, nor the
JAG fellow (Christine Whatsername). Given the sexist bias of the army,
it was stretching credibility a helluvalot to have *everyone* female;
especially having all the sympathetic characters turning out to be
pulling a JoA, as if to say that men aren't capable of commonsense
ourselves with such matters.
[0] With half the brass at the keep being female, to boot.
--
Don't you smile at me like that! That's not even a real smile! It's
just a bunch of teeth playing with my mind!
-- "Face", /The A-Team/
Web: http://donotuselifts.net/
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] student [dot] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
Mark Gallagher
>
> > [1] except for the unveiling of all the women at the end.
> > Did anyone else feel that was a bit overdone?
>
> I feel just a little bit like I would if a famous movie star were
> sitting with me at table while those around us were discussing whether
> her butt was getting too big: embarrassed and uncomfortable,
> especially if I personally though her butt was nothing less than
> delightful.
The difference being, I reckon, that if you were to put your hand on
the movie star's arm and say "don't worry about those philistines,
dear, I think your butt looks gorgeous" she'd probably take offence.
> Butt that's just me, I guess.
<cough />
Mark Gallagher
> >From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
> >Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>
> >(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
> >brilliant?)
>
> Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>
> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting with her
> grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
I like Susan, though she was better in /Hogfather/, I thought, than SM
or ToT. Thing is, she's so damn sensible and knowing (especially in
ToT), that there's a danger she may one day have to change her name to
"Mary Sue"...
Matthew Seaman
> >Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
> >From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
> >Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>
> >(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
> >brilliant?)
>
> Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>
> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting with her
> grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
I never really understood why Susan was up to her eyeballs in kiddie
pee being a teacher in A-M when she should have been off Duchessing in
Sto-Helit. SM -- yes, that made sense because she was still at
school, and presumably there would have been some sort of regency (if
that's the right word -- do Duchies have regents, or is it just
Kingdoms?) keeping the seat warm for her. H ducked the question
really, apart from making it clear she didn't want to be a useless
aristocrat. But as far as we know, the Sto plains have been and still
are united under the rule of Queen Kelirehenna I: ie. the aristocracy
is still very much in charge and doing the day to day ruling bit,
unlike in A-M where they have largely been supplanted by the Patrician
and the Guilds.
Seems like a no brainer to me: after all, if she can control a class
of 5 year olds, she's clearly a natural for high executive office.
Queen Keli would be sending round very pointed notes expressing her
displeasure that her good and loyal vassal was neglecting her duties.
Oh and by the way, better come quietly or the next note won't just be
pointed, but accompanied by a company of burly men bearing pointed
implements.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks
Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK
Flesh-eating Dragon
> I never really understood why Susan was up to her eyeballs in kiddie
> pee being a teacher in A-M when she should have been off Duchessing in
> Sto-Helit.
Because Pterry really, really, wanted it this way.
As revealed here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6SyB7KAauJm2EwHo%40unseen.demon.co.uk
Adrian.
Graycat
(Rhiannon S) jotted down:
>>Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
>>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>
>>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
>>brilliant?)
>
>Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
I disgree, the flaw was chocolate.
Werehatrack
>I may be burned at the stake for heresy by raising this question, but
>here goes anyway:
>
>I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
>(I live in New York, and spell American. Get over it.) I mean, I used
>to laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now
>is a grin/smirk/twitch.
>
>I don't think I've ever revisited Monstrous Regiment .. but having just
>finished Going Postal, I think I may reread it ... this BTW is in stark
>contrast to my feelings about eg: Men at Arms, Eric, Soul Music, etc.
>("Anytime!").
>
>Is it just me? Have I grown older and thus living in the past glories
>of Discworld books?
Maybe NYC is getting to you instead. While I agree that MR seemed a
bit grim, Going Postal was, IMO, a romp; the new characters were back
to the usual standard, the pacing was fast and furious, and the ending
was upbeat. All authors have their hits and misses; it's far more
surprising that pTerry so routinely manages to excel than it is that
he has the occasional volume that some would rank below a prior
effort.
Now, if I could just get my SO to forget that she ever tried to read
COM, and persuade her to try one of the later ones...
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Stacie Hanes
<snip>
>
> I'm pretty much with you Richard. Although it's interesting that you
> considers MR to be the extreme of the "darker" side, since Trevor
> Marsh, possibly the strongest complainer against "darkness" in recent
> books, hailed it as a return to form. It surprised me too...
>
> (BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought
> ToT was brilliant?)
When I was writing the Death chapter of my thesis, I was trying hard to
avoid writing about ToT. My director commented on what I already knew,
namely that the chapter dropped off a cliff at the end because I's spent
pages and pages on all the other Death books, but gave ToT about half a
page. Thus did not go unnoticed by the publishers, either, but in the
meantime I had already fixed it.
When my director told me this, I went back and read ToT again, and wrote
more. By the time I was done, I appreciated ToT a whole hell of a lot more.
I'd gone in thinking that there wasn't much useful information there, but it
ended with me thinking that what I got out of ToT really makes the chapter.
As a reader, I liked it when I read it the first time, but it was never a
favorite. Now it still isn't a favorite rereader, but I think it's a really
good book.
Make sense?
Stacie Hanes
>> Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
>> From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>> Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
>> Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>
>> (BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought
>> ToT was brilliant?)
>
> Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>
> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting with her
> grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
Oy, some of us like Susan.
Peachy Ashie Passion
> Rhiannon S wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
>>>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>>>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>>
>>>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought
>>>ToT was brilliant?)
>>
>>Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>>
>> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting with her
>>grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
>
>
> Oy, some of us like Susan.
>
Some of us like Susan a great deal.
--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler
Rocky Frisco
> (BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
> brilliant?)
My own carefully considered personal opinion is that Terry don't write
no non-brilliant books. That's coming from a very hard-to-please old
curmudgeon who doesn't care for Isaac Asimov, Piers Anthony, David
Eddings, Terry Brooks and most of the other popular authors in this
and the neighboring genres. Just about the only writers I will bother
with these days are those who write the books I buy the first day they
are available: Terry Pratchett, Iain (M) Banks and Jack Vance (and I
suspect Jack may not be around much longer, since he must be quite old).
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
Rocky Frisco's LIBERTY website: http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com/
World's best free News Service: http://www.rationalreview.com/news/
Rocky Frisco
>>Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
>>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
>>brilliant?)
> Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>
> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting with her
> grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
I can guarantee you that you will have that eventually.
Elin Isberg
"Peachy Ashie Passion" <res1...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:1Axcd.614$EP4.259@trnddc06...
> Stacie Hanes wrote:
>
> > Rhiannon S wrote:
> >
> >>>Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
> >>>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
> >>>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
> >>>Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
> >>
> >>>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who
thought
> >>>ToT was brilliant?)
> >>
> >>Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
> >>
> >> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting
with her
> >>grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
> >
> >
> > Oy, some of us like Susan.
> >
>
> Some of us like Susan a great deal.
>
say, any one of the witches?
--
Rubescia
"Remember - that which does not kill us can only make us
stronger."
"And that which *does* kill us leaves us *dead*!"
(Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum)
Rhiannon S
>Date: 17/10/2004 18:09 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2tfnv0F...@uni-berlin.de>
>
>
>"Peachy Ashie Passion" <res1...@invalid.net> wrote in message
>news:1Axcd.614$EP4.259@trnddc06...
>> Stacie Hanes wrote:
>>
>> > Rhiannon S wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
>> >>>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>> >>>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
>> >>>Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>> >>
>> >>>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who
>thought
>> >>>ToT was brilliant?)
>> >>
>> >>Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>> >>
>> >> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting
>with her
>> >>grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
>> >
>> >
>> > Oy, some of us like Susan.
>> >
>>
>> Some of us like Susan a great deal.
>>
>Indeed. What exactly makes Susan any less likably than,
>say, any one of the witches?
>
I'm not sure. To me Susan is the most irritating character in the entire
series. I think that it's that she never seems to show an weaknesses (except
self indulgent sniveling). All of the witches have their own weaknesses even
Granny. Especially Granny, I think, who is constantly working hard to overcome
them. With those weaknesses and bits of humanity come good characters. And
Susan doesn't have any of that, she doesn't have any warmth or empathy either,
she seems to constantly moan about how alone she is, then she uses her
arrogance to set herself above everyone else.
Frankly, if there is any character who is guilty of treating others as things,
it's her.
And, I just don't like her so there:op
Rocky Frisco
> I'm not sure. To me Susan is the most irritating character in the entire
> series. I think that it's that she never seems to show an weaknesses (except
> self indulgent sniveling). All of the witches have their own weaknesses even
> Granny. Especially Granny, I think, who is constantly working hard to overcome
> them. With those weaknesses and bits of humanity come good characters. And
> Susan doesn't have any of that, she doesn't have any warmth or empathy either,
> she seems to constantly moan about how alone she is, then she uses her
> arrogance to set herself above everyone else.
>
> Frankly, if there is any character who is guilty of treating others as things,
> it's her.
>
> And, I just don't like her so there :op
I think she is very attractive, especially when rendered by the most
excellent Graham Higgins.
Possible Spoiler for Soul Music Space
de
dum
de
dum
de
dum
de
dum
de
dum
de
dum
de
dum
de
dum
She rather fell in love with Imp in SM, which, in my opinion, is all
the foibles anybody needs.
I tend to be very forgiving with groupies, being a rock star meself.
Curried Goat
i really like ToT, i keep re-reading it, mainly for Lu-Tze and the
chocolate war, but i think my current fave is MR or NW, because i like
the way the humour has evolved, but still stayed the same. and if that
makes sense, you've spent too much time around the alchemist's guild.
insofar as that's possible
marcus
Lesley Weston
linni...@hotmail.com wrote on 17/10/2004 10:09 AM:
>
> "Peachy Ashie Passion" <res1...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:1Axcd.614$EP4.259@trnddc06...
>> Stacie Hanes wrote:
>>
>>> Rhiannon S wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
>>>>> From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>>>>> Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
>>>>> Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>>>>
>>>>> (BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who
> thought
>>>>> ToT was brilliant?)
>>>>
>>>> Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>>>>
>>>> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting
> with her
>>>> grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oy, some of us like Susan.
>>>
>>
>> Some of us like Susan a great deal.
>>
> Indeed. What exactly makes Susan any less likably than,
> say, any one of the witches?
Some of us think that the Susan series is one of the highlights of DW. I
like people who solve problems by lateral thinking, and Susan's thinking is
sometimes as lateral as it gets.
BriD
No you're not. I reread it just before I got GP and enjoyed it much
more as a second, and slower, reading. However as a relative newcomer
I would like to give my viewpoint. I enjoy all the books but for
different reasons. Maskerade, CoM and TLF were,to me, pure
satire/parody. NW and GF bloody good *stories/dramas* Eric and MP good
for belly laughs and most of the rest a mixture of at least the last
two and sometimes all three! I know I've probably oversimplified but
what I am trying to say is that my tastes are pretty widespread (I was
going to say eclectic but I can't spell it) and I can get something
from most books I pick up. And EVERY book of Pterrys I have read I
have enjoyed. If I have a favourite I think it is GO with NW and ToT
joint second.
BriD
Eric Jarvis
> On 17 Oct 2004 13:43:19 GMT, mdde...@aol.comlemon
> (Rhiannon S) jotted down:
>
> >>Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
> >>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
> >>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
> >
> >>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
> >>brilliant?)
> >
> >Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>
> I disgree, the flaw was chocolate.
>
I disagree with both of you...the "flaw" is that it takes several reads
through to really get to grips with the story...I thought it was the
weakest for many years on the first reading, four times through and I now
think it's one of the better books...it didn't seem to have much depth,
but actually it's just that there's a wider "gap" between the surface an
the subtext than usual
the other flaw being (in common with all the books) is that it took too
long to write and costs too much...what I'd rather have is a new book of
the same standard or better every month or so at a cost of 59p...I'd also
like peace on earth and an end to poverty (my weight in 90% cocoa content
chocolate wouldn't go amiss either)
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
> Stacie Hanes wrote:
>
> > Rhiannon S wrote:
> >
> >>>Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
> >>>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
> >>>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
> >>>Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
> >>
> >>>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought
> >>>ToT was brilliant?)
> >>
> >>Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
> >>
> >> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting with her
> >>grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
> >
> >
> > Oy, some of us like Susan.
> >
>
> Some of us like Susan a great deal.
>
but just as a friend mind you...anything else wouldn't work...she's
fictional and I'm English, think of the children [1]
[1] with apologies to W.Allen Esq.
Mark Gallagher
> long to write and costs too much...what I'd rather have is a new book of
> the same standard or better every month or so at a cost of 59p...I'd also
> like peace on earth and an end to poverty (my weight in 90% cocoa content
> chocolate wouldn't go amiss either)
Peas on Earth could go a long way towards solving two of your three
"also"s.
But weight in chocolate wouldn't work; as you eat, you'd get more
massive, so you'd need even more chocolate, so...
Sarah Warren
"Rocky Frisco" <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in message
news:yYycd.2828$lp6.2717@okepread01...
> Possible Spoiler for Soul Music Space
>
> de
>
> dum
>
> de
>
> dum
>
> de
>
> dum
>
> de
>
> dum
>
> de
>
> dum
>
> de
>
> dum
>
> de
>
> dum
>
> de
>
> dum
>
> She rather fell in love with Imp in SM, which, in my opinion, is all
> the foibles anybody needs.
And rather fell in love with Lobsang, too, I think, or at least felt she'd
finally found someone who was Not Entirely Human and was
attracted to. The poor girl's been a bit crossed in love, hasn't she?
I like Susan, for no good reason that I can explain except that I
just do.
Richard Bos
>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>
> >(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
> >brilliant?)
Well... not brilliant. TT was brilliant (I may be prejudiced, here). CJ
was brilliant. ToT was "merely" very good.
> Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>
> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting with her
> grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
Hey! Susan is one of my favourite characters... probably even because
of, not despite, her rather cold character.
Richard
Sarah Warren
> But weight in chocolate wouldn't work; as you eat, you'd get more
> massive, so you'd need even more chocolate, so...
and that's a problem because...??? ;-)
Stacie Hanes
I've been called cold so many times that I know for certain that it's what
most people think of me until they get to know me, which generally takes
months, if not years.
But I do have empathy, quite a lot of it--I just like to keep it modestly
concealed.
Eric Jarvis
>
> But weight in chocolate wouldn't work; as you eat, you'd get more
> massive, so you'd need even more chocolate, so...
>
and the problem with that is?
Matthew Seaman
Eric Jarvis
> "Sarah Warren" <kass...@yahoo.dk> writes:
>
> > "Mark Gallagher" wrote
> > > But weight in chocolate wouldn't work; as you eat, you'd get more
> > > massive, so you'd need even more chocolate, so...
> >
> > and that's a problem because...??? ;-)
>
> Chandrasekha's limit. That's why.
>
Chandrasekhar can get his own chocolate.
Darin Johnson
> I disagree with both of you...the "flaw" is that it takes several reads
> through to really get to grips with the story...
I thought the Thief of Time was meant to be read backwards.
--
Darin Johnson
I'm not a well adjusted person, but I play one on the net.
Rocky Frisco
> I disagree with both of you...the "flaw" is that it takes several reads
> through to really get to grips with the story...I thought it was the
> weakest for many years on the first reading, four times through and I now
> think it's one of the better books...it didn't seem to have much depth,
> but actually it's just that there's a wider "gap" between the surface an
> the subtext than usual
I am SO glad you said this.
I have been biting my lip trying to not make the following comment,
since I can't see any advantage or good result coming from being
thought to have insulted half the people here again. On the other
hand, might as well be honest, dammit.
Here's my personal comment on the entire thread about whether Terry
Pratchett's books are spotty, some being good and some not so good, or
whether he is losing his "touch:"
*****************************************************
Terry Pratchett's Books are all flawlessly excellent.
*****************************************************
Some people lack the erudition, intellect or life experience required
to fully comprehend or enjoy all of the books. Some of them post here.
**********************************************************************
Terry Pratchett's *readers* are spotty, some are good and some are not
so good. This is not something Terry has any control over.
**********************************************************************
Put any blame where it belongs.
A perfect work of art will contain something everybody will get, even
a dull child, and something perhaps only one person in the whole world
will get and lots of stuff in between.
True art is like a magic spiritual intelligence test; what you get out
of it has everything to do with what you bring to it.
Now please stop pretending to be literary critics and stop trying to
deconstruct Terry Pratchett's art before you do some sort of
irreparable harm.
Please.
Sorry if I have offended anybody; it was not my intention this time,
but I, personally, find the whole thread to be very offensive and
simply had to comment.
Rocky Frisco
When you consider what she's had to overcome to get where she is, I
consider her one of the most heroic ladies in fantasy and science
fiction. Any fool human can be cold and selfish and aloof; for her to
not entirely be those is real heroism, genuine character. The fact
that some folk dislike her because they don't think she's warm and
squishy enough to be likable just speaks of Terry's ability to know
his characters and never construct them out of cardboard.
I really enjoy the Harry Potter stuff, but I see this as the main
difference between Rowling's people and Terry's: you could take almost
any of her characters and plug in a replacement boy or girl or wizard
or gentle giant and there wouldn't really be much difference. Her
characters act in predictable ways, unlike Terry's. Terry's people are
as different and interesting and quirky as the real people you know at
work or in your neighborhood. Few authors of popular fiction can do
this, or bother to even if they could.
Rocky Frisco
> Richard Bos wrote:
>
>>mdde...@aol.comlemon (Rhiannon S) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>>>
>>>
>>>>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought
>>>>ToT was brilliant?)
>>
>>Well... not brilliant. TT was brilliant (I may be prejudiced, here).
>>CJ was brilliant. ToT was "merely" very good.
>>
>>
>>>Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>>>
>>> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting with
>>>her grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
>>
>>Hey! Susan is one of my favourite characters... probably even because
>>of, not despite, her rather cold character.
>
>
> I've been called cold so many times that I know for certain that it's what
> most people think of me until they get to know me, which generally takes
> months, if not years.
>
> But I do have empathy, quite a lot of it--I just like to keep it modestly
> concealed.
Susan is the sort of woman I like to meet and interact with.
Stacie Hanes
Again I leap to the defense of my profession. :-/
To be a literary critic is not to smash things for the sake of smashing
them, just because you like the sound it makes.
I haven't disliked a single Pratchett book, ever. On the other hand, I like
the Rincewind books less than the others. As a general (terribly, terribly
general) trend, I like what people usually call the "darker" works a bit
more than I like some of the others.
Let me use something you just wrote:
> True art is like a magic spiritual intelligence test; what you get out
> of it has everything to do with what you bring to it.
Yes. You, friend, are a critic. What you just said was that readers make
meaning. I have to say that sometimes, uncharitably, don't have that much to
contribute, vis a vis making any kind of meaning, but that's just me.
But, while I like all his books (the Discworld ones, anyway--I've not read
some of the others), the "darker" ones make it easier for me to use my
experiences to make meaning for myself.
I think all of them are carefully constructed, and I don't shrink from
calling him one of the best of our lifetime. But, as he said himself, he's
gotten better at it as time has passed. As a writing teacher, I'd say
something was hideously wrong if he hadn't honed his craft after this long.
And yes, it's just possible that some parts of some of the books might be
subject to the tiniest smidgen of a suggestion that there might have been a
better way to handle something; an author doesn't have to agree, that's his
prerogative, but god save us all from the ones who think they're perfect.
In defense of fans and critics, once a work is out there, it's fair game. If
your skin is too thin, you don't publish, or you "go Anne Rice on" your
fans. And give fans a break. It took me a while to like ToT as much as the
other Death novels; I don't know why--but in the end, it proved to have as
much to say as any of them.
Point is (one of them) that some people may never think past what they
*already* think if there is no discussion. I have to accept this even if I
personally like all the books, in what might be called a relatively
uncritical, indiscriminate fashion.
Stacie Hanes
I hinted elsewhere, but here's why I like Susan:
People dislike her for many of the same reasons people dislike me. I don't
consider myself a hero, but I lost a parent, had a lot of grief, I'm aloof,
reserved, smart, pragmatic, dominant. Or to others, perhaps, I'm cold,
standoffish, condescending (or whatever the nasty side of smart might be),
cruel, and bossy. It isn't a cuddly package, but it's me.
Susan's a chance to see myself in a more positive light than I'm often able
to do.
Paul E. Jamison
> Daibhid Ceannaideach wrote:
>
> > (BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT
was
> > brilliant?)
>
> My own carefully considered personal opinion is that Terry don't write
> no non-brilliant books. That's coming from a very hard-to-please old
> curmudgeon who doesn't care for Isaac Asimov, Piers Anthony, David
> Eddings, Terry Brooks and most of the other popular authors in this
> and the neighboring genres. Just about the only writers I will bother
> with these days are those who write the books I buy the first day they
> are available: Terry Pratchett, Iain (M) Banks and Jack Vance (and I
> suspect Jack may not be around much longer, since he must be quite old).
>
Right, this is probably as good a point to jump in as any...
I agree with you, Rocky, that Terry don't write no non-brilliant books (tsk,
tsk, us Yankees and our mangling of the English language). Some may be
better than others, but that's just comparative. Terry is one of three
authors I will automatically buy on the assumption that I will not be
disappointed. The other two are George MacDonald Fraser and Carl Hiaasen. My
assumption has yet to be proven wrong. I may not read them the first day
they become available, nor will I read them the very day that I buy a copy;
that's because I'm usually reading something else at the time and I prefer
to finish what I start. But they're next.
And Fraser and Hiaasen happen to be on Terry's must-buy list as well. What a
coincidence.
Paul
--
"Who reads, learns, lives the Ferret Way becomes keeper
of light, ennobling outer worlds from one within."
- a prophecy from the Ancients
Akshay
Groups!
OK, let me add my own two cents worth to this conversation (that's a
little over one penny to the Brits) . Before I do, let me just say that
I'm using Google Groups, not a newsreader, so I'm just hitting "reply"
to the last posting. I apologize for not maintaining the thread from a
more relevant conversation.
OK ... re: politics. Don't care about it. I'm Indian (note to the
PC-minded. I'm from India), so I don't vote. I also watch The Daily
Show with Jon Stewart for most political news and analysis, as I belive
it to be the most equally-biased commentary out there today. That
shoudl give you a clue as to my level of cynicism. So ... long story
short, I don't think it's ME (grammer check?) that's changed so much.
I recognize that pTerry himself has changed over the years, but find
the change odd. Someone mentioned earlier about the change in subject
of his earlier books. I feel that his earlier books focussed on parody
and poking fun at human nature. Whereas his more recent books are about
highlighting and exposing flaws. For example, I loved the earlier City
Watch books, which while dealing with obviously serious material, went
about it with lots of humor ... light humor (sorry, I couldn't come up
with a good antonym for "dark humor"!). The Fifth Elephant & Nightwatch
were like the literary equivalent to someone donning a hard hat and
going into the sewers to see what the worst he could find.
My favorite book is Soul Music, with Moving Pictures coming in a close
second. I thought those two books had a lot of "Wow, cool!" factor when
you worked out the clues and the annotations. It showed (to me, at
least) that pTerry researched the material, and obviously had fun doing
it (as he was able to translate his findings into something uniquely
Discworld-ish). I just kind of think that the joy seems to have gone
out of his books.
Note - having said all that, I loved Going Postal - more than Monstrous
Regiment. It looks like pTerry's having fun again. I just hope he hit
rock-bottom on Monstrous Regiment, cos it's all up from there!
Axe
Bonzai Kitten
> Graycat gra...@passagen.se wrote:
> > On 17 Oct 2004 13:43:19 GMT, mdde...@aol.comlemon
> > (Rhiannon S) jotted down:
> >
> > >>Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
> > >>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
> > >>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
> > >>Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>
> > >>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who thought ToT was
> > >>brilliant?)
> > >
> > >Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
> >
> > I disgree, the flaw was chocolate.
> >
>
> I disagree with both of you...the "flaw" is that it takes several reads
> through to really get to grips with the story...I thought it was the
> weakest for many years on the first reading, four times through and I now
> think it's one of the better books...it didn't seem to have much depth,
> but actually it's just that there's a wider "gap" between the surface an
> the subtext than usual
Just to keep it going...
I disagree. The flaw was the fact the auditors never really got to
enjoy their chocolate.
Though I can certainly think of worse ways to go.
>
> the other flaw being (in common with all the books) is that it took too
> long to write and costs too much...what I'd rather have is a new book of
> the same standard or better every month or so at a cost of 59p...I'd also
> like peace on earth and an end to poverty (my weight in 90% cocoa content
> chocolate wouldn't go amiss either)
Maybe when they can inscribe texts onto four dimensional and
completely re-usable hydrogen crystals instead of all this wasteful
paper it will happen. Just think about it, all those deadly dull books
that everyone is sure they have read, generally classics, like
wuthering heights and war and peace (and of course my least favourite
book, the grapes of wrath -kill that damned tortoise already!) could
be reborn. Of course, there is always the chance of contamination from
the previous stories. Does anyone want to see the showdown between
Susan and Heathcliff ala celebrity deathmatch?
Or the Librarian vs. Arkayla?
Damien R. Sullivan
>My own carefully considered personal opinion is that Terry don't write
>no non-brilliant books. That's coming from a very hard-to-please old
>curmudgeon who doesn't care for Isaac Asimov, Piers Anthony, David
>Eddings, Terry Brooks and most of the other popular authors in this
Hrm. Isaac Asimov is one of the Big Three of science fiction, along with
Arthur Clarke and Robert Heinlein; Big Three in terms of ideas an influence,
that is, with Asimov's characterization generally considered inferior. The
others you name, though, are generally considered leading examplars of
Extruded Fantasy Product and/or blatant Tolkien ripoffs. They're popular,
yes, but kind of like romance novels: buy, read once, dump, buy another.
When I ran a science fiction library, living largely on donations, we had
Piers Anthony in triplicate and Eddings donated in hardcover. Authors I
thought were good tended to get stolen (not by me).
So, I'm not disagreeing with you, except that to say your tastes aren't
particularly odd, except for the Asimov.
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien R. Sullivan
>Hi there,
>
>On 15 Oct 2004 12:36:42 -0700, "Akshay" <aksha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
>
>Probably not, but it doesn't mean it's true.
>
>Personally I think GP was hilarious, I've read it three times now and
>I was still chuckling away through out the third reading.
"That is why he has walked off with your pencil."
I just love that paragraph.
-xx- Damien X-)
Terry Pratchett
Akshay <aksha...@gmail.com> writes
>I may be burned at the stake for heresy by raising this question, but
>here goes anyway:
>
>I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
>to laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now
>is a grin/smirk/twitch.
>
I'm responding to the seed message simple as a way of talking to the
thread as a whole...
{annericemode: OFF}
My sense of humour is alive and well, thank you, although the world is
getting harder to laugh at.
What am I to make of all this? If I'm to believe my feedback as a
whole, Night Watch was the most popular DW book ever, except maybe for
Mort. I'm not interested at this point in cries of 'no, no!' -- I'm
relaying what has got to me. And yet it was far and away the most
sombre of the series. Other 'fave' books tend to be ToT, G!G!, M@A and
Small Gods. By and large, the first three books do not figure hugely.
Oh, and I know that any book that doesn't spin on one of the major
character 'sets' is, now, severely, handicapped.
Mort, G!G! and Night Watch figured, in that order in the BBC Big Read;
TCoM was the fourth DW title, but I'm suspicious of it because, I
believe, if someone voted for a *series* by name were handed to the
first book in the series.
The Watch books are by far the most popular, but it's not for this
reason that Thud! is going to be a Watch-intensive story.
I've made public my view: Discworld survives because it changes; can
anyone imagine the what a 30th volume of HHGTTG would be like?
The gags of TCom were fun, but you can't carry a story by gags alone.
Personally, I think that Going Postal hits somewhere in the right level.
--
Terry Pratchett
Peter Ellis
> <aksha...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
>> (I live in New York, and spell American. Get over it.) I mean, I used
>> to laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now
>> is a grin/smirk/twitch.
I'm wary of attempting to discern trends in the series as a whole for the
simple reason that the person I am now is not the person I was then when I
first read Pyramids and thought it was the funniest damn thing I'd ever
seen.
And it's not like I can go back and test it again using older-me, because
firstly I'd be bringing to the earlier books all the responses I've
developed based on the later books, and secondly the patina of familarity
from re-reading very much changes what you get from a book.
As personal preferences go, I'd say I'm laughing less, and at different
things, for the new books. But hey, I'm laughing less, and at different
things *anyway* - it's part of growing up. I'm not 13 any more, and my
tastes have changed immeasurably over time.
>
> I'm responding to the seed message simple as a way of talking to the thread as
> a whole...
>
> {annericemode: OFF}
>
> My sense of humour is alive and well, thank you, although the world is getting
> harder to laugh at.
Indeed. Despite my above protestations about the difficulty of making
dogmatic statements, I'd say there very definitely is a trend away
from *silly* humour (not intended as a derogatory term) in the newer as
compared to the older books. For fans of the silly, this will smart.
>
> Oh, and I know that any book that doesn't spin on
> one of the major character 'sets' is, now, severely, handicapped.
I'm sad to hear this, not only because I'm in the outgroup that prefers
the ones with fewer old characters, but because this must be a right pain
in the arse for you. I hope it doesn't feel like the dead weight of the
fans is cramping your creativity. If your muse calls you to rain fire on
Ankh-Morpork and lose Vimes, or have Granny meet the bony guy for one last
time, I don't want to think I/we'd be holding you back from that, no
matter how much we'd miss them.
>
> The gags of TCom were fun, but you can't carry a story by gags alone.
> Personally, I think that Going Postal hits somewhere in the right level.
Personally, I agree. It's the "best" for a long time - where "best"
simply indicates that what you want to write and what I want to read are
more than usually closely aligned.
Peter
Jenny Radcliffe
Spoilers for Monstrous Regiment
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
> Quite possible. I like MR [1] a lot more than some of the
> others, and NW is good enough that I don't dislike it. But
> TT and ToT I wouldn't have been sorry had I never read them.
> [1] except for the unveiling of all the women at the end.
> Did anyone else feel that was a bit overdone?
Not really. Do remember that it was only about a third of the "top brass" -
the other two thirds were made to leave the room.
I *do* have qualms about Mal being female. I *think* this is because my
hopelessly romantic mind - which I don't normally *have* - thinks that he
and Polly make a great couple. Which (a) they could be, y'know, even if
they're both female, and (b) is naturally somewhat hampered by the whole
vampirism thing anyway.
But as far as the others, and particularly as far as Jackrum, goes, I think
it's good. And amusing. Jackrum's a very convincing woman in some ways.
Actually, I suspect that Jackrum's the Discworld character I most resemble.
Or maybe I'm just affected by it being this time of year, and my taking
Freshers under my wing and things - "You are my little lads, and I will look
after you". It's just as well I will, given the - um - social graces some of
them possess.
Anyway. No, I didn't find it over-done. Silly, yes, in a way - but not in a
bad way.
Jenny, possibly gibbering
Peachy Ashie Passion
> In message <1097869002.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Akshay <aksha...@gmail.com> writes
>
>> I may be burned at the stake for heresy by raising this question, but
>> here goes anyway:
>>
>> I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
>> (I live in New York, and spell American. Get over it.) I mean, I used
>> to laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now
>> is a grin/smirk/twitch.
>>
>
> I'm responding to the seed message simple as a way of talking to the
> thread as a whole...
>
> {annericemode: OFF}
>
> My sense of humour is alive and well, thank you, although the world is
> getting harder to laugh at.
>
> What am I to make of all this? If I'm to believe my feedback as a
> whole, Night Watch was the most popular DW book ever, except maybe for
> Mort. I'm not interested at this point in cries of 'no, no!' -- I'm
> relaying what has got to me. And yet it was far and away the most
> sombre of the series. Other 'fave' books tend to be ToT, G!G!, M@A and
> Small Gods. By and large, the first three books do not figure hugely.
> Oh, and I know that any book that doesn't spin on one of the major
> character 'sets' is, now, severely, handicapped.
I hate this. I desperately hate to even have to wonder if creative
genius is being stifled by that very subtle pressure.
What are we, 4 year olds that insist on reading the same book the
same way over and over ?
And when an author does that, we don't exactly shower them with
praise, do we?
I _love_ exploring new places and meeting new people on the Disc.
I just don't get those that want nothing more than to revisit the
same people and same situations over and over. Well, I do. That's
what rereading is for - not new books!
--
The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
God created sex. Priests created marriage. -- Voltaire
Rgemini
<snip>>
> My sense of humour is alive and well, thank you, although the world is
> getting harder to laugh at.
>
> What am I to make of all this? If I'm to believe my feedback as a
> whole, Night Watch was the most popular DW book ever, except maybe for
> Mort. I'm not interested at this point in cries of 'no, no!' -- I'm
> relaying what has got to me. And yet it was far and away the most
> sombre of the series. Other 'fave' books tend to be ToT, G!G!, M@A
> and Small Gods. By and large, the first three books do not figure
> hugely. Oh, and I know that any book that doesn't spin on one of the
> major character 'sets' is, now, severely, handicapped.
>
> Mort, G!G! and Night Watch figured, in that order in the BBC Big Read;
> TCoM was the fourth DW title, but I'm suspicious of it because, I
> believe, if someone voted for a *series* by name were handed to the
> first book in the series.
>
> The Watch books are by far the most popular, but it's not for this
> reason that Thud! is going to be a Watch-intensive story.
>
> I've made public my view: Discworld survives because it changes; can
> anyone imagine the what a 30th volume of HHGTTG would be like?
>
> The gags of TCom were fun, but you can't carry a story by gags alone.
> Personally, I think that Going Postal hits somewhere in the right
> level.
Terry - I don't think I've ever addressed a post directly to The Author
before ...
I first started reading your books whenTCoM and TLF were new and recent. I
agonised over whether to write to The Author because I liked them so much,
but I never did, because he was An Author and I was just a reader. Now I
know better - it would have been better to write then than now, but I can't
do that then and I can do it now.
These days I buy them all in hardback because I want to keep them and
re-read them, which I do frequently. I don't know if it's possible to have
gentle satire, or if its called something else, but your books have it in a
way that few others do. You can highlight things about the world that
everyone takes for granted and make them look at them anew, without ever
preaching. And you can construct agonisingly funny puns and include a huge
variety of references to books, films and events. And do all this while
constructing characters and a storyline that are totally believable, even
when the characters are animated rocks. I don't know how you do it, but I am
very, very glad that you can and do.
Personally, I know I will buy and read anything you care to write whether
set on DW or elsewhere, and I actively hope for books with new characters
and settings. You got me laughing out loud in Going Postal several times, by
the way.
Thank you,
Roy Ayres
aka Rgemini, who shall remain sigless
Lister
alt.fan.pratchett . Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
chose this moment to say the following
>I'm responding to the seed message simple as a way of talking to the
>thread as a whole...
>
>{annericemode: OFF}
>
>My sense of humour is alive and well, thank you, although the world is
>getting harder to laugh at.
>
Yes, I agree with this. If only there wasn't so much happening right
now.
>What am I to make of all this? If I'm to believe my feedback as a
>whole, Night Watch was the most popular DW book ever, except maybe for
>Mort.
Both superb books, not sure about best ever though.
>I'm not interested at this point in cries of 'no, no!' -- I'm
>relaying what has got to me. And yet it was far and away the most
>sombre of the series. Other 'fave' books tend to be ToT, G!G!, M@A and
>Small Gods.
Agreed. Which reminds me, I really must read SG again.
>By and large, the first three books do not figure hugely.
>Oh, and I know that any book that doesn't spin on one of the major
>character 'sets' is, now, severely, handicapped.
>
Well, Polly Perks seems like a good regular character, and she's quite
new
>Mort, G!G! and Night Watch figured, in that order in the BBC Big Read;
Ahh, that's what it was called.
> The gags of TCom were fun, but you can't carry a story by gags alone.
>Personally, I think that Going Postal hits somewhere in the right level.
I've not got round to reading that yet, must do it soon.
--
Bring back Your Sinclair, sign the petition
Luna
"Rgemini" <roy.OMITTH...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
There are two classic forms of satire, Horatian and Juevanalian. Horatian
is the gentler type.
> You can highlight things about the world that
> everyone takes for granted and make them look at them anew, without ever
> preaching. And you can construct agonisingly funny puns and include a huge
> variety of references to books, films and events. And do all this while
> constructing characters and a storyline that are totally believable, even
> when the characters are animated rocks. I don't know how you do it, but I am
> very, very glad that you can and do.
>
> Personally, I know I will buy and read anything you care to write whether
> set on DW or elsewhere, and I actively hope for books with new characters
> and settings. You got me laughing out loud in Going Postal several times, by
> the way.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Roy Ayres
> aka Rgemini, who shall remain sigless
>
>
>
--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
Rocky Frisco
I was a big Asimov fan when I was a kid, but as I learned more about
writing, it got to where trying to read his stuff was painful. I also
was disappointed by his inability to comprehend epistemology,
resulting in a very limited, very materialistic view of reality, one
that obviously didn't serve him very well toward the end of his life.
Rocky Frisco
> I hate this. I desperately hate to even have to wonder if creative
> genius is being stifled by that very subtle pressure.
That's exactly why I begged for this thread to die.
> What are we, 4 year olds that insist on reading the same book the same
> way over and over ?
I don't know. I hope not. I'm not.
> And when an author does that, we don't exactly shower them with
> praise, do we?
Sometimes. JKR.
> I _love_ exploring new places and meeting new people on the Disc.
Yes. Me too, but mainly, I love to read what Terry writes, period.
> I just don't get those that want nothing more than to revisit the same
> people and same situations over and over. Well, I do. That's what
> rereading is for - not new books!
Otherwise, it's all just "The Young and the Restless," and endless
interminable recycling.
Akshay
changed your style of writing from book to book? A sort of experiment
to see what works and what wouldn't in a Discworld setting?
I mean, there are differences (to me, at least) between the way the
Watch series is written, and say the way the Rincewind series is
written. And even within the Watch series, Nightwatch reads differently
than say Men At Arms.
Or is the change in style indicative of a natural evolution of personal
styles/tastes?
Re: Major character sets - I think the older, more establish character
sets should be used as a foundation to newer ones. I personally would
like to read about how Vetinari became Patrician (against a backdrop of
a Watch book, perhaps?). Or another thrilling detective story featuring
the folks at The Times. I read somewhere that a story was in the works
featuring elephant hunters in Howandaland?
Akshay
Luna
Rocky Frisco <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote:
> Peachy Ashie Passion wrote:
>
> > I hate this. I desperately hate to even have to wonder if creative
> > genius is being stifled by that very subtle pressure.
>
> That's exactly why I begged for this thread to die.
>
> > What are we, 4 year olds that insist on reading the same book the same
> > way over and over ?
>
> I don't know. I hope not. I'm not.
>
> > And when an author does that, we don't exactly shower them with
> > praise, do we?
>
> Sometimes. JKR.
>
> > I _love_ exploring new places and meeting new people on the Disc.
>
> Yes. Me too, but mainly, I love to read what Terry writes, period.
>
> > I just don't get those that want nothing more than to revisit the same
> > people and same situations over and over. Well, I do. That's what
> > rereading is for - not new books!
>
> Otherwise, it's all just "The Young and the Restless," and endless
> interminable recycling.
>
I don't think wanting to know what happens next with one's favorite
character is wanting to read the same book over and over. After all, the
Discworld books are all set on the same planet, so you could argue that
wanting more Discworld books is also wanting the same book. I also love
exploring new places and meeting new people, but every once in a while it's
nice to check in on old friends and see what they've been up to. And I'm
perfectly happy when Terry experiments with his writing style, because he
never takes it to such an extreme that I can't recognize him. It's like the
difference between a friend trying a new hairstyle vs. getting plastic
surgery to the point where he's totally unrecognizable.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 18/10/04 02:24 GMT Daylight Time
>Terry Pratchett's *readers* are spotty, some are good and some are not
>so good. This is not something Terry has any control over.
Although Clearasil, antiseptics and tea-tree oil might help with the first
bit...
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
In life, as in breakfast cereal, it is always best to read the instructions on
the box.
-Thief of Time, Terry Pratchett
Lesley Weston
n...@spam.INVALID wrote on 17/10/2004 1:41 PM:
> If Eric Jarvis (of <MPG.1bdce65c9...@news.individual.net>
> fame) were a mechanical chaos merchant from Mars, they'd say...
>> the other flaw being (in common with all the books) is that it took too
>> long to write and costs too much...what I'd rather have is a new book of
>> the same standard or better every month or so at a cost of 59p...I'd also
>> like peace on earth and an end to poverty (my weight in 90% cocoa content
>> chocolate wouldn't go amiss either)
>
> Peas on Earth could go a long way towards solving two of your three
> "also"s.
>
>
> But weight in chocolate wouldn't work; as you eat, you'd get more
> massive, so you'd need even more chocolate, so...
Like the never-ending fries in some fast-food places. What's wrong with
that?
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't
actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley
att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
Andrew Gray
>
> Again I leap to the defense of my profession. :-/
>
> To be a literary critic is not to smash things for the sake of smashing
> them, just because you like the sound it makes.
I now have a wonderful image of lit-crit using particle accelerators...
--
-Andrew Gray
andre...@dunelm.org.uk
Lesley Weston
tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk wrote on 18/10/2004 5:21 AM:
> In message <1097869002.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Akshay <aksha...@gmail.com> writes
>> I may be burned at the stake for heresy by raising this question, but
>> here goes anyway:
>>
>> I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
>> (I live in New York, and spell American. Get over it.) I mean, I used
>> to laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now
>> is a grin/smirk/twitch.
>>
>
> I'm responding to the seed message simple as a way of talking to the
> thread as a whole...
>
> {annericemode: OFF}
>
> My sense of humour is alive and well, thank you, although the world is
> getting harder to laugh at.
No doubt about that - both things.
>
> What am I to make of all this? If I'm to believe my feedback as a
> whole, Night Watch was the most popular DW book ever, except maybe for
> Mort. I'm not interested at this point in cries of 'no, no!' -- I'm
> relaying what has got to me. And yet it was far and away the most
> sombre of the series. Other 'fave' books tend to be ToT, G!G!, M@A and
> Small Gods. By and large, the first three books do not figure hugely.
> Oh, and I know that any book that doesn't spin on one of the major
> character 'sets' is, now, severely, handicapped.
But WFM went down very well, judging by the comments here and on abp. Now
it's started a series in its own right [1], but in WFM itself everybody was
new apart from the witches' fleeting appearance at the end.
[1]Which is fine by me - I think its the best thing you've done so far,
though I haven't read GP yet.
seanna watson
> in article 2tfnv0F...@uni-berlin.de, Elin Isberg at
> linni...@hotmail.com wrote on 17/10/2004 10:09 AM:
>
>
>>"Peachy Ashie Passion" <res1...@invalid.net> wrote in message
>>news:1Axcd.614$EP4.259@trnddc06...
>>
>>>Stacie Hanes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rhiannon S wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
>>>>>>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
>>>>>>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
>>>>>>Message-id: <20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person who
>>
>>thought
>>
>>>>>>ToT was brilliant?)
>>>>>
>>>>>Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
>>>>>
>>
>>with her
>>
>>>>>grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Some of us like Susan a great deal.
>>>
>>
>>Indeed. What exactly makes Susan any less likably than,
>>say, any one of the witches?
>
>
> Some of us think that the Susan series is one of the highlights of DW. I
> like people who solve problems by lateral thinking, and Susan's thinking is
> sometimes as lateral as it gets.
>
I think there are (at least) 2 different approaches to "liking" a
fictional character. One is appreciating the artistry of
characterization and how the character hangs together as a person, and
fits into their part of the universe - ie how far does the reader need
to stretch their "willing suspension of disbelief". Then there is the
other question about whether one would enjoy meeting such a person IRL
for a cup of tea/drink in the pub, and whether one would consider them
suitable for ones son/daughter to marry.
Some characters are wonderful people that I would love to meet.
Conversely, I have read books by authors who are good at characters but
not so good with plots, leaving me to idly speculate as to what book
would provide a good home for this well-crafted but misplaced character.
And there are are many very well-done characters whom I despise, or who
terrify me to the extent that I wouldn't even want to meet them at noon
on a busy street let alone midnight in a back alley, but they *belong*
in the story.
Anyway, I would like to add my self to the people that like Susan, both
in the sense of thinking that she fits well into the books (at least the
ones I have read, which I must confess isn't all of them yet), and also
as someone I would like to meet. (Though I'm not sure about the DIL bit.)
Elin Isberg
"Rhiannon S" <mdde...@aol.comlemon> wrote in message
news:20041017140928...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
> >Date: 17/10/2004 18:09 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <2tfnv0F...@uni-berlin.de>
> >
> >
> >"Peachy Ashie Passion" <res1...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> >news:1Axcd.614$EP4.259@trnddc06...
> >> Stacie Hanes wrote:
> >>
> >> > Rhiannon S wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>Subject: Re: [I?] Losing Sense of Humor?
> >> >>>From: daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid Ceannaideach)
> >> >>>Date: 17/10/2004 14:37 GMT Daylight Time
> >> >>>Message-id:
<20041017093738...@mb-m01.aol.com>
> >> >>
> >> >>>(BTW, reading others' comments, am I the *only* person
who
> >thought
> >> >>>ToT was brilliant?)
> >> >>
> >> >>Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final
meeting
> >with her
> >> >>grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Oy, some of us like Susan.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Some of us like Susan a great deal.
> >>
> >Indeed. What exactly makes Susan any less likably than,
> >say, any one of the witches?
> >
>
the entire
> series. I think that it's that she never seems to show an
weaknesses (except
> self indulgent sniveling). All of the witches have their own
weaknesses even
> Granny. Especially Granny, I think, who is constantly working
hard to overcome
> them. With those weaknesses and bits of humanity come good
characters. And
> Susan doesn't have any of that, she doesn't have any warmth or
empathy either,
> she seems to constantly moan about how alone she is, then she
uses her
> arrogance to set herself above everyone else.
>
I don't see her like that at all. I think she does
care about others sometimes a lot, even if she
rarely lets it show. And there really is noone
who quite understands her. Well,come to think
of it, (SPOILER) from ToT might, but we won't
find that out until the next Susan book.
> Frankly, if there is any character who is guilty of treating
> others as things, it's her.
>
I wouldn't say that. Remember that she knows just
how little one life *really* matters in the perspective
of the entire universe, and even so is humane towards
the children she teaches, for instance.
I think it's quite understandable if she is frustrated
about being given so much responsibility that she
never asked for, without ever really being prepared
for it.
Throughout her childhood, Susan has learned to
hide from teachers and others trying to tell her what
to do and and what to be. Withdrawing is simply
her way of coping with things. She only gets
involved if she absolutely has to, or if directly
called upon (usually by the Death of Rats).
As for being 'cold', I can't see Susan opening up
or relaxing much, except possibly in her teaching
role. Whenever she tries to confide in her
grandfather (who so far has been the only one
she *can* talk to), it usually goes less-than-well,
probably because of the way their world-views
clash. Death is a traditionalist who will stick to
the rules (although he might bend them if he
*really* thinks it is motivated), while Susan is
an idealist at heart who really wishes she could
change things, but knows she *cannot*.[1]
> And, I just don't like her so there:op
>
And you don't have to - but don't call her
cold or unfeeling, because she reminds me
way too much of myself and people I care
deeply about to allow that. ;-)
[1] I hope I'm getting my point, or point*s*,
across here. I suspect I could have put that
entire paragraph somewhat better, but it's
getting late and I've already taken too long
with this reply. In other words: if I'm being
incoherent, feel free to point it out. =)
--
Rubescia
"Remember - that which does not kill us can only make us
stronger."
"And that which *does* kill us leaves us *dead*!"
(Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum)
Adrian Ogden
> The gags of TCom were fun, but you can't carry a story by gags alone.
>Personally, I think that Going Postal hits somewhere in the right level.
There is no overall 'right level', there's only 'what a given story needs'.
There've been several DW books that weren't what I expected or wanted, until
after I'd read them. Sometimes you have to read it once to find out what it
*isn't*. But there's never been one that I didn't feel was worth reading.
And I'll hold up my hand in favour of the 'standalone' books; TT & GP
are both among my favourites in their own right, but in enriching
Ankh-Morpork they also serve to keep the rest of the series fresh.
That way, everybody benefits.
--
<< Adrian Ogden -- "Sic Biscuitus Disintegrat" -- www.rdg.ac.uk/~sssogadr/ >>
"That gun had a hold over me! It made me feel powerful,
like God must feel when he's holding a gun!"
Stacie Hanes
<snip>
>
> I _love_ exploring new places and meeting new people on the Disc.
>
> I just don't get those that want nothing more than to revisit the
> same people and same situations over and over. Well, I do. That's
> what rereading is for - not new books!
No one came to confiscate my copy of _Witches Abroad_ when _Going Postal_
was published.
Make of it what you will.
Eric Jarvis
>
> I've made public my view: Discworld survives because it changes; can
> anyone imagine the what a 30th volume of HHGTTG would be like?
>
There are undoubtedly some people who prefer to read some familiar riffs
on some favourite characters and situations. There are some writers who
prefer to write that sort of thing (or who can't write anything else). I'd
have thought that by now the former might have twigged hat you aren't the
latter.
Actually the first thing about a 30th volume of HHGTTG is that it would
have to have been written by somebody like <insert name of author of
interminable formulaic fantasy series here> because there's no way DNA was
going to keep writing the same thing until it collapsed beyond the boredom
horizon through sheer weight of cliche. He had enough difficulty getting
around to writing stuff he found new and exciting.
Discworld books are what they are. There might be some things that any
particular reader might want done differently, however what counts is
whether the books are worth reading, and that boils down largely to
whether they seem like they are worth writing. Without that it would, I'd
have thought, be very hard not to start churning out something soulless
and repetitive.
Anyway. At present they work. The proof is that we keep buying them,
reading them, and forcing other people to read them too. I think the one
thing most likely to kill the series would be if they were to be written
primarily as an exercise in marketing rather than as funny and interesting
stories.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Carol Hague
> I'm pretty much with you Richard. Although it's interesting that you considers
> MR to be the extreme of the "darker" side, since Trevor Marsh, possibly the
> strongest complainer against "darkness" in recent books, hailed it as a return
> to form. It surprised me too...
Am I the only one who's laughed out loud at bits of MR then? I mean,
yes, the book has a sombre atmosphere, but some of the actual events are
quite hilarious.
The tone actually reminds me [1] of Spike Milligan's war diaries - a
fine mixture of the tragic and the ludicrous.
[1] I'm reading it aloud to my husband, so we haven't finished the book
yet.
--
Carol
"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
- Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).
Mark Bark
>I may be burned at the stake for heresy by raising this question, but
>here goes anyway:
>
>I am the only one who thinks that pTerry's losing his sense of humor?
>(I live in New York, and spell American. Get over it.) I mean, I used
>to laugh out loud at his earlier books, but the best I can manage now
>is a grin/smirk/twitch.
>
>I don't think I've ever revisited Monstrous Regiment .. but having just
>finished Going Postal, I think I may reread it ... this BTW is in stark
>contrast to my feelings about eg: Men at Arms, Eric, Soul Music, etc.
>("Anytime!").
>
>Is it just me? Have I grown older and thus living in the past glories
>of Discworld books?
>
>Axe
Speaking personally, and calling it as I read them, in the order I
read them, I thought that Equal Rites wasn't funny compared with TCOM
and TLF but looking back now TCOM seems TOO funny. To many gags...
Pterrry got better and better as far as long term re-reading goes,
MORT was a milestone. Loved Pyramids, SG, etc, etc...only recent duds
for me was Rincewinds return in Interesting Times and the Last
Continent. I think I had moved on.
Night Watch was the best book I had read in years, of any kind,
absolutely brilliant. Never read a mystery novel before in my life but
this was excellent, the humor was in the dialog and characters, not
slapstick. Right up there with it was Carpe Jugulum and the Fifth
Elephant, loved those.
I'm a fan, I love it all, but some of it lasts multiple re-readings
better than others. But no sense of humor decline trend I can spot,
just different flavors, some of which appeal to me more than others.
TCOM will always be special but I wouldn't want another clone of it to
be written.
BTW, even though it is a different topic all together, I still love
and re-read Good Omens, in some ways a glimpse of what was to come...
Alec Cawley
<ro...@rocky-frisco.com> writes
>Here's my personal comment on the entire thread about whether Terry
>Pratchett's books are spotty, some being good and some not so good, or
>whether he is losing his "touch:"
>
>*****************************************************
>Terry Pratchett's Books are all flawlessly excellent.
>*****************************************************
I think that is a level of uncriticality that amounts to sycophancy.
Certainly, I agree that all Terry's books are excellent - even if the
standard were to fall to that of the books I like least, they would
still be must-buys. I am delighted that the standard is regularly much
higher than that. But "flawless" - I don't believe anything in the world
is flawless. And I, personally, find my enjoyment of the best is
enhanced by teasing out what makes it the best - which has the
inevitable side effect of teasing out what makes the less good to be
lesser. I find that sum total is to enhance my enjoyment of the best,
*and* of the good bits of the second best: the occasional failings no
longer mar the good bits.
>Some people lack the erudition, intellect or life experience required
>to fully comprehend or enjoy all of the books. Some of them post here.
>
>**********************************************************************
>Terry Pratchett's *readers* are spotty, some are good and some are not
>so good. This is not something Terry has any control over.
>**********************************************************************
This *is* Usenet, you know. By Sturgeon's law, 90% of everything is
crap. That applies to Terry's readers as well.
>Put any blame where it belongs.
>
>A perfect work of art will contain something everybody will get, even a
>dull child, and something perhaps only one person in the whole world
>will get and lots of stuff in between.
>
>True art is like a magic spiritual intelligence test; what you get out
>of it has everything to do with what you bring to it.
>
>Now please stop pretending to be literary critics and stop trying to
>deconstruct Terry Pratchett's art before you do some sort of
>irreparable harm.
You mean stop explaining those things which we bring to it that make it,
to us, true art? Attempt to lock up our enjoyment lest others may have
as much of it as we do?
Does a musician enjoy music less because he knows how it is done? Does
the conductor see a symphony as a bore because he can see how all the
parts make the whole? I think not. But apparently we can destroy
literature by knowing too much about it.
We are not literary critics. We are not professional musicians, either.
What you are saying is the equivalent of asking us not to strum our
guitars badly amongst friends lest the composer pass by and be so
traumatised that he never writes again.
>Please.
>
>Sorry if I have offended anybody; it was not my intention this time,
>but I, personally, find the whole thread to be very offensive and
>simply had to comment.
As I say, this is Usenet. You won't stop people commenting in one forum
or another. All you will do is drive them out from afp into some other
forum. And afp's standards of politeness and self-restraint are, for
Usenet, stellar. In another forum, people would be more aggressive and
less retrained.
Terry is a Big Boy now. I am sure he gets much worse flak in other media
that from afp at its worst ("doesn't write in chapters..."). The real
literary critics have been viciously unkind about him, particularly when
he first started getting visibly popular, and he has soaked it up pretty
well. I don't think Terry will change what he writes because of afp is
rude about it - or because afp begs for it (neither of which it is
showing any signs of doing with any coherence). The worst that can
happen is that Terry will stop reading and posting to afp. A sad
outcome, undoubtedly. But posting to afp without Terry is only the same
as posting to a.n.othergroup that Terry doesn't read.
If you don't like then thread, kill it. Terry, should he want to, can do
the same.
--
@lec Šawley
Design rule 1: Simplicate and add Lightness.
Eric Jarvis
no
Stacie Hanes
<snip>
> The real literary critics have been viciously unkind about him,
> particularly when he first started getting visibly popular, and he
<cough>
Some of them. Maybe most. But the academics around me have been more
tolerant than I expected. I almost don't feel like a rebel anymore. There is
a very strong minority in the field that takes fantasy and sf seriously, if
not solemnly--in fact, the last bit was the theme of the last conference I
attended.
The only reason I speak up this time is that I think lumping all criticism
together is along the same lines as lumping all fantasy together.
CCA
>Spoilers for Monstrous Regiment
>20
>
>18
>
>16
>
>14
>
>12
>
>10
>
>8
>
>6
>
>4
>
>2
>
>I *do* have qualms about Mal being female. I *think* this is because my
>hopelessly romantic mind - which I don't normally *have* - thinks that he
>and Polly make a great couple. Which (a) they could be, y'know, even if
>they're both female, and (b) is naturally somewhat hampered by the whole
>vampirism thing anyway.
Hampered, maybe, but not impossible. I preferred Mal as a male, but that may
be because she was unveiled as a woman quite a lot later than the others, so
maybe we weren't given time to get used to her as a woman.
Or maybe I liked the idea of 'plucky military woman with handsome military
vampire'. Maybe.
CCA:)
Family Bites Website and Sample Chapter at http://www.falboroughhall.co.uk
Live Journal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/ciciaye
CCA
>I like Susan, though she was better in /Hogfather/, I thought, than SM
>or ToT. Thing is, she's so damn sensible and knowing (especially in
>ToT), that there's a danger she may one day have to change her name to
>"Mary Sue"...
I thought a Mary Sue was somewhat the opposite of that?
Or maybe I don't understand what one is.
Elin Isberg
"Carol Hague" <ca...@wrhpv.com> wrote in message
news:1glvd7w.17dqk2of8bx1hN%ca...@wrhpv.com...
> Daibhid Ceannaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm pretty much with you Richard. Although it's interesting
that you considers
> > MR to be the extreme of the "darker" side, since Trevor
Marsh, possibly the
> > strongest complainer against "darkness" in recent books,
hailed it as a return
> > to form. It surprised me too...
>
> Am I the only one who's laughed out loud at bits of MR then? I
mean,
> yes, the book has a sombre atmosphere, but some of the actual
events are
> quite hilarious.
>
away that caused me to laugh out loud and my mother
to give me strange looks...
Sessifet
> {annericemode: OFF}
>
> My sense of humour is alive and well, thank you, although the world is
> getting harder to laugh at.
But we have to. If we don't, we'll all go stark raving mad...
> What am I to make of all this? If I'm to believe my feedback as a
> whole, Night Watch was the most popular DW book ever, except maybe for
> Mort. I'm not interested at this point in cries of 'no, no!' -- I'm
> relaying what has got to me. And yet it was far and away the most
> sombre of the series.
Only in the sense of 'more real'. Yes, set on Discworld, dealing with
fictional people but it could easily have been a real historical
(isn't that a contradiction in terms?) novel on Roundworld. Which says
a lot about our history as humans, I think.
> Other 'fave' books tend to be ToT, G!G!, M@A and
> Small Gods. By and large, the first three books do not figure hugely.
> Oh, and I know that any book that doesn't spin on one of the major
> character 'sets' is, now, severely, handicapped.
Fnaah?
Yes, for some people they might be, but for just as many they aren't.
I for one belong to the latter.
My favourite book depends on mood and how the world appears to me at
that moment in time. That sometimes means that Discworld isn't even on
the 'current favourites list' (Is that even allowed, or will I now be
excommunicated?)
I love Monstrous Regiment, Night Watch and Going Postal because
they're more serious and mature. I love the Rincewind books because he
makes me giggle uncontrollably. Small Gods to me is one of the most
thoughtful books on religion I've read. When I'm feeling particularly
feminist Monstrous Regiment is my first choice :P. And I can go on and
on about that, and others will disagree and we'll have a lovely new
thread...
> The gags of TCom were fun, but you can't carry a story by gags alone.
> Personally, I think that Going Postal hits somewhere in the right level.
'Personally' is the keyword here. Yes, you have fans, it's lovely that
they're all reading and buying your books (and assorted
memorabililia), but the moment *you* stop having fun writing the
books, that all means diddly squat. Because we'll know when you're not
having fun anymore, and then we won't either. Bugger, I'm being
patronising, aren't I? Sorry.
My point is, I'd rather you take the Discworld where *you* want it to
go, than dictate to you where *I* want it to go. For one thing, you
have more imagination than me :P
Cheers
Karen
(who's never been any good at concluding an article...)
Richard Bos
> I have been biting my lip trying to not make the following comment,
> since I can't see any advantage or good result coming from being
> thought to have insulted half the people here again. On the other
> hand, might as well be honest, dammit.
>
> Here's my personal comment on the entire thread about whether Terry
> Pratchett's books are spotty, some being good and some not so good, or
> whether he is losing his "touch:"
>
> *****************************************************
> Terry Pratchett's Books are all flawlessly excellent.
Mr. Pratchett is the pope now, all infallible and godly? No, I don't
think so. He's probably one of my top five favourite authors. He's
definitely my favourite living author, since even Marten Toonder can be
a little too preachy at times. But flawless? Of course not! And just as
well, btw - flawless is untouchable, is predictable, is inevitably
repetitive, is boring. All of which, Terry Pratchett is happily not. And
I must say, I'm surprised to see such unthinking hero-worship in a fan
of, of all people, the very human-focused, un-absolute Pratchett.
Richard
Richard Bos
> Richard Bos wrote:
> > mdde...@aol.comlemon (Rhiannon S) wrote:
> >
> >> Flawed brilliance. The flaw being Susan.
> >>
> >> Please sir, your majesty, your Pterryness, one final meeting with
> >> her grandfather, for business purposes as it were.
> >
> > Hey! Susan is one of my favourite characters... probably even because
> > of, not despite, her rather cold character.
>
> I've been called cold so many times that I know for certain that it's what
> most people think of me until they get to know me, which generally takes
> months, if not years.
Hah, yes. Ditto here. Another part of it being that I think she'd
actually be interesting company. Maybe not comfortable company; not what
is known in Dutch as "gezellig"; but certainly someone whom one could
have a decent conversation with.
Richard
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 18/10/04 20:41 GMT Daylight Time
>Daibhid Ceannaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty much with you Richard. Although it's interesting that you
>considers
>> MR to be the extreme of the "darker" side, since Trevor Marsh, possibly the
>> strongest complainer against "darkness" in recent books, hailed it as a
>return
>> to form. It surprised me too...
>
>Am I the only one who's laughed out loud at bits of MR then? I mean,
>yes, the book has a sombre atmosphere, but some of the actual events are
>quite hilarious.
I agree. So I was surprised by both Richard's reaction (that it was the extreme
of the Dark Side; I think that's NW, which I also like) and Trevor's (that it
was a return to the light - I mean, Trevor found *WFM* dark, for heaven's
sake!). I found it to be comfortably in the middle.
Peter Ellis
>Mark Gallagher wrote
>
>>I like Susan, though she was better in /Hogfather/, I thought, than SM
>>or ToT. Thing is, she's so damn sensible and knowing (especially in
>>ToT), that there's a danger she may one day have to change her name to
>>"Mary Sue"...
>
>I thought a Mary Sue was somewhat the opposite of that?
>Or maybe I don't understand what one is.
A Mary Sue is an authorial self-insertion - I.e. a character that
embodies and exemplifies all the characteristics the author would like
to flatter themselves that they possess. Usually gets off with someone
gorgeous.
Peter