Can someone tell me what the normal series is?
Willem-Jan van Strien
I know what the first 8 books are:
01 - The Colour of Magic
02 - The Light Fantastic
03 - Equal Rites
04 - Mort
05 - Sourcery
06 - Wyrd Sisters
07 - Pyramids
08 - Guards! Guards!
But beyond those 8, I think I'm mixing up the children's books with the
other ones.
For instance: I'm not sure if Eric is a children's book or not, although it
still is the 'conclusion' to Sourcery.
Can someone give me a list of the remaining normal books?
Or post a link to a site where it is given in a clear fashion?
Thx.
PleegWat
--
PleegWat
Remove caps to reply
Willem-Jan van Strien
WJ
"PleegWat" <Plee...@PLEEGWAT.leegwater-68.demon.nl.INVALID> schreef in
bericht news:10slo9u...@corp.supernews.com...
Mark Gallagher
feels...
> So Eric really 'is' number 9?
Yuppers. The one 7's treated so badly, in other words. I think it got
a different publisher or something, but it *is* the 9th book, and it's
an adult book, too (erm, just ignore the illustrations, if you've got
'em).
--
"But honestly, astrology is crap, just ask the I Ching."
(Stig M. Valstad, <4tvqtu$n...@hasle.sn.no>)
Web: http://donotuselifts.net/
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] student [dot] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
Jim McCormick
"Willem-Jan van Strien" <wj...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:41cabbb2$0$183$e4fe...@dreader11.news.xs4all.nl...
The list in the Annotated Pratchett File is in order. Look in:
http://www.ie.lspace.org/books/apf/index.html
Werehatrack
<wj...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>I'm a bit confused.
>
>I know what the first 8 books are:
>
>01 - The Colour of Magic
>02 - The Light Fantastic
>03 - Equal Rites
>04 - Mort
>05 - Sourcery
>06 - Wyrd Sisters
>07 - Pyramids
>08 - Guards! Guards!
>
>But beyond those 8, I think I'm mixing up the children's books with the
>other ones.
>For instance: I'm not sure if Eric is a children's book or not, although it
>still is the 'conclusion' to Sourcery.
The order of writing and the order of story chronology within the Disc
universe is not the same. Indeed, there are some anomalies that can
only be handled by temporal bilocation, as is hinted in Thief of Time
and elsewhere. Try www.lspace.org for clarification, but expect to
take a while making sense of it all. (Better yet, just don't worry
about the chronology.)
As for classifying PTerry's books into "adult" and "children's" tales,
I like the description which holds that he writes some books which
deal with serious issues, and the rest are for adults. (I will note,
however, that two acquaintances who have read "A Hat Full Of Sky" both
were of the opinion that is was the first of his which *reads* like a
book for children; the actions of an overzealous editor are suspected,
as one of these two was a person under the age of 12. She found
Maurice and Wee Free Men to be better.)
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Richard Eney
>
>I know what the first 8 books are:
>
>01 - The Colour of Magic
>02 - The Light Fantastic
>03 - Equal Rites
>04 - Mort
>05 - Sourcery
>06 - Wyrd Sisters
>07 - Pyramids
>08 - Guards! Guards!
>
>But beyond those 8, I think I'm mixing up the children's books with the
>other ones.
>For instance: I'm not sure if Eric is a children's book or not, although it
>still is the 'conclusion' to Sourcery.
There aren't very many Discworld "children's" books.
The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents is more of a YA book.
The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky are officially children's books.
All three can be read by adults.
All the other Discworld books so far are officially adult books.
Eric and The Last Hero are both adult books which are heavily
illustrated. Though Eric has been issued in a thin mass-market
paperback format without the full-page illustrations, and works
fine that way, this would not work well for The Last Hero, because
IMO some of the illustrations indicate certain things about the
story that are not in the text.
=Tamar
William Black
"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:10smbib...@corp.supernews.com...
> The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky are officially children's books.
> All three can be read by adults.
'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's book.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
bewtifulfreak
> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
> news:10smbib...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky are officially children's
>> books. All three can be read by adults.
>
> 'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's book.
So's Wee Free Men, for that matter, but then, the world is a bit dark for
children today, and I think they're able to digest a lot more than we often
give them credit for.
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Cliff
"Willem-Jan van Strien" <wj...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:41cabbb2$0$183$e4fe...@dreader11.news.xs4all.nl...
More than you probably want is posted at
http://www.co.uk.lspace.org/books/index.html
I, Cliff, do hereby certify Terry Pratchett's books to be
suitable and safe for children and adults of all ages.
This is result of rigorous scientific study. Namely, I've
been reading the Terry Pratchett books to my children,
grandchildren or having them read them to me for over 20
years. There's nothing in them that will do harm to
developing young minds, bodies or spirits.
This is in stark contrast to my opinion of so-called
children's books.
Then, again, excused absences from school as they steal and
finish the book may be necessary. Pratchett is so good to
reread that this causes no problem.
The most grievous string of excused absences ocurred not
from a Pratchett novel, but from Moby Dick. The plan was a
chapter or half each night as our bedtime reading. This was
whem my daughters were still small enough for me to boss
them around. (That's a joke.) They spent the week reading
Moby Dick and whatever else it took for them to understand
it; which meant they learned about sailing ships,
impressment, riggings, whale oil trade, hull speeds, and
lots of other things. It also got me in trouble as they were
often in the library though, according to me, they were too
sick to go to school. Yes, I explained, they were sick of
boring old school and learning much more outside it.
--
Cliff
"Classic." A book which people praise and don't
read....Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar
Cliff
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqffag$lcs$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
> news:10smbib...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky are officially
>> children's books.
>> All three can be read by adults.
>
> 'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's book.
>
I disagree. I disagree that 'A Hat Full of Sky' is dark. I
disagree that it is anything but a splendid, upbeat and
positive book.
spoiler space...
The scene with Tiffany arguing nose-to-nose with Granny
Weatherwax is worth the price by itself. You want your girls
to be able to stand up for themselves just like that.
I suppose it is the lambing that disturbs. Girls need to
know about this stuff young. I doubt if any of my daughters
can remember seeing a birthing; we were often on a farm and
never concealed that stuff. Small hands can be useful in
difficult cases.
--
Cliff
Let's be thankful for fools. But for them the rest of us
could not succeed....Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar
Cliff
"bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:330ubaF...@individual.net...
> William Black wrote:
>> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
>> news:10smbib...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky are officially
>>> children's
>>> books. All three can be read by adults.
>>
>> 'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's book.
>
> So's Wee Free Men, for that matter, but then, the world is
> a bit dark for
> children today, and I think they're able to digest a lot
> more than we often
> give them credit for.
>
How is _The Wee Free Men_ a dark book?
I'm mystified by this characterization. Dark means splendid,
exciting, upbeat and positive?
--
Cliff
"The older we get, the fewer things seem worth waiting in
line for." - Will Rogers
bewtifulfreak
> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:330ubaF...@individual.net...
>> William Black wrote:
>>> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
>>> news:10smbib...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky are officially
>>>> children's
>>>> books. All three can be read by adults.
>>>
>>> 'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's book.
>>
>> So's Wee Free Men, for that matter, but then, the world is
>> a bit dark for
>> children today, and I think they're able to digest a lot
>> more than we often
>> give them credit for.
>>
>
> How is _The Wee Free Men_ a dark book?
>
> I'm mystified by this characterization. Dark means splendid,
> exciting, upbeat and positive?
Actually, let me clarify that, overall, I think the book was definitely
exciting, inspiring, and uplifting, but that there were certainly dark bits
(spoiler space):
Just off the top of my head, the woman (witch) being left to die and her cat
being stoned to death is one particularly dark bit that stands out in my
memory, and there were certainly dark bits in the Queen's world as well.
But again, I agree with your assessment, and don't actually consider it a
dark book overall (A Hat Full of Sky is next on the reading list; we're a
bit behind, just finishing Monsterous Regiment). :) Besides, most of the
best childrens' books have at least some darkness that is overcome or dealt
with, as do most childhoods.
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Richard Adams
Give to me ein break! I thought WFM was some great light reading and
certainly something I wouldn't mind my own (if/when I get some) kids
reading. I've seen any number of 8-10 year olds poring over Harry
Potter and don't tell me that isn't dark. Better to prepare them for
some of the hard stuff to come than sugarcoat it all with books like The
Six Bunny Wunnies Go To Walmart.
Cliff
> Cliff wrote:
>> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@notmail.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:330ubaF...@individual.net...
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:10smbib...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky are officially
>>>>> children's
>>>>> books. All three can be read by adults.
>>>>
>>>> 'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's
>>>> book.
>>>
>>> So's Wee Free Men, for that matter, but then, the world
>>> is
>>> a bit dark for
>>> children today, and I think they're able to digest a lot
>>> more than we often
>>> give them credit for.
>>>
>>
>> How is _The Wee Free Men_ a dark book?
>>
>> I'm mystified by this characterization. Dark means
>> splendid,
>> exciting, upbeat and positive?
>
> (spoiler space):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just off the top of my head, the woman (witch) being left
> to die and her cat
> being stoned to death is one particularly dark bit that
> stands out in my
> memory, and there were certainly dark bits in the Queen's
> world as well.
[snip]
Ok. Thanks. That does explain it.
I guess either it's all hugs and fluffy bunnies or it is
dark. I prefer more realistic worlds where sad things do
happen and mean things are done, but the goodness muddles
through. As I think about it, I think that's better for
children, too. Explaining that idea would take too long.
Certainly, my children prefered Pratchett novels to kittens
that lose their mittens.
--
Cliff
"I think it's a difficult, brainwracking, and thoroughly
ungrateful office, and the main bulk of its wages is
a sore heart and a bruised spirit" - Twain
Pudde Fjord
> So Eric really 'is' number 9?
Eric is one of the main stream books. Like *The Last Hero" this was an
illustrated book, and the "text only" editions are a bit thin because of
that. The first softcover edition was large and illustrated, and the
regular sized edition came a while later.
Pudde.
PS: Happy Hogwatch to all of you!
bewtifulfreak
Um, look, you seem to be totally misreading me. Someone said A Hat Full of
Sky was dark, and I was just saying, yeah, there are some dark bits to the
book, but if you read my original statement, I don't know where you see me
saying that's a bad thing, or that Terry would have done better to sugarcoat
it. I think the fact that the books talk about real issues faced by real
kids (taking place in a fantasy world, o'course) is only a good thing. That
doesn't change the fact that there *are*, indeed, some dark bits, as well as
some light, just as in life; that's what makes them such powerful books. So
"give *me* ein break", and please don't read something into my statements
that weren't even remotely there.
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
bewtifulfreak
Oh, I agree. I mean, there's probably a place in children's life for fluffy
bunnies when they're very young, but yes, I, too, prefer more realistic
worlds, and I think most children probably do, too. I thought Wee Free Men
had a lot of great lessons for kids about valuing who they are and finding
their inner-strength and being true to themselves. One thing that's always
been mentioned is how Terry doesn't talk down to kids, and I think that's
what makes his books such valuable reading for them.
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
bewtifulfreak
Er, some dark bits to Wee Free Men as well....as mentioned, I haven't gotten
to A Hat Full of Sky yet, but I can imagine it being as rife with the
various shades of life as Wee Free Men.
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Willem-Jan van Strien
news:41cabbb2$0$183$e4fe...@dreader11.news.xs4all.nl...
Well, I have to say that I've now ordered the remainder of the Discworld
Books.
I had The Colour Of Magic through Guards! Guards! and then Reaper Man,
Moving Pictures and Witches Abroad. So that's 11 books.
I've now ordered the remaining 22 books.
The only thing that now confuses me is that I have Going Postal as Discworld
book 33, but it's listed as 29 on a lot of pages.
As far as I know, the list should be as follows:
01 - The Colour of Magic
02 - The Light Fantastic
03 - Equal Rites
04 - Mort
05 - Sourcery
06 - Wyrd Sisters
07 - Pyramids
08 - Guards! Guards!
09 - Eric
10 - Reaper Man
11 - Moving Pictures
12 - Witches Abroad
13 - Small Gods
14 - Lords and Ladies
15 - Men at Arms
16 - Soul Music
17 - Interesting Times
18 - Maskerade
19 - Feet of Clay
20 - Hogfather
21 - Jingo
22 - The Last Continent
23 - Carpe Jugulum
24 - The Fifth Elephant
25 - The Truth
26 - Thief of Time
27 - The Last Hero
28 - The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents
29 - Night Watch
30 - The Wee Free Men
31 - Monstrous Regiment
32 - A Hat Full of Sky
33 - Going Postal
To be published:
34 - Wintersmith
WJ
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 24/12/04 16:06 GMT Standard Time
>The only thing that now confuses me is that I have Going Postal as Discworld
>book 33, but it's listed as 29 on a lot of pages.
It's 29 if you count TLH and the kids' books seperately, and 33 if you don't.
OTOH, it's 35 if you count Science of Discworld I and II, which it would
therefore appear nobody
does.
--
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
Sanity
> The only thing that now confuses me is that I have Going Postal as Discworld
> book 33, but it's listed as 29 on a lot of pages.
That's because not all Discworld books are Discworld books:
> 27 - The Last Hero
This is not part of the "mainline" DW books. It's a graphic novel.
> 28 - The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents
> 30 - The Wee Free Men
> 32 - A Hat Full of Sky
These are children's DW books and though they are DW books, they don't
really count in the "adult series". They're seperate on my shelf, and
they're listed seperate in my copy of GP in the front pages.
That explains the difference of 4 books.
--
TTFN, | AFPChess, L-Files & more:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
Michel AKA Sanity | Now available on Jabber: michel @ jabber.xs4all.nl
Arthur Hagen
>
> I, Cliff, do hereby certify Terry Pratchett's books to be
> suitable and safe for children and adults of all ages.
>
> This is result of rigorous scientific study. Namely, I've
> been reading the Terry Pratchett books to my children,
> grandchildren or having them read them to me for over 20
> years. There's nothing in them that will do harm to
> developing young minds, bodies or spirits.
You know, sooner or later some concerned leftpondian parent is going to sue
Harper Collins because their kids stuffed borax up their nose and ran around
saying "-ing".
*Good* parents would never let things get that far in the first place, as
they've already "purified" the library from evil books like these, and
written letters of protest to the local K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Dairy-Mart and
congressman. There's *witches* in them books, for singing out loud, and
y'all know what the Bible says about witches! A good concerned parent would
not let her child -- nor your child -- anywhere near books like that!
Regards,
--
*Art
Arthur Hagen
> In alt.books.pratchett Willem-Jan van Strien <wj...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> The only thing that now confuses me is that I have Going Postal as
>> Discworld book 33, but it's listed as 29 on a lot of pages.
>
> That's because not all Discworld books are Discworld books:
>> 27 - The Last Hero
>
> This is not part of the "mainline" DW books. It's a graphic novel.
>
>> 28 - The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents
>> 30 - The Wee Free Men
>> 32 - A Hat Full of Sky
>
> These are children's DW books and though they are DW books, they don't
> really count in the "adult series". They're seperate on my shelf, and
> they're listed seperate in my copy of GP in the front pages.
>
> That explains the difference of 4 books.
There's also the 0th Discworld book -- Strata. And confusion whether Eric
should be counted as one of the regular Discworld books, or placed with the
illustrated ones, like The Last Hero.
Then there's all the AFAHM spinoffs, which probably fit a shelf of their
own, with illustration books, mappes, recipe booklets and by now, possibly
even "Discworlde Tantric Sex, the Illustrated Prymer by Lu-Tse".
Regards,
--
*Art
Akshay
>This is not part of the "mainline" DW books. It's a graphic novel.
I wouldn't say it's a graphic novel. For graphic novels, peruse the
comics section of your local bookstore. I think The Last Hero is a
"proper" DW book - albeit an unconventional format.
BTW, WJ: Number 34 ... I thought the next DW book was Thud? It's been a
while since I read up on the happenings with the group, so I'm kinda
out of it.
Axe
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>In alt.books.pratchett Willem-Jan van Strien <wj...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> The only thing that now confuses me is that I have Going Postal as Discworld
>> book 33, but it's listed as 29 on a lot of pages.
>
>That's because not all Discworld books are Discworld books:
>> 27 - The Last Hero
>
>This is not part of the "mainline" DW books. It's a graphic novel.
Nah, it's "illustrated mainline" like the original Eric was. Graphic
novels are another art form entirely.
Not that I understand this need to categorise. Just read the lot, eh?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
the Complete Works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know
this is not true." - Robert Wilensky, University of California
bewtifulfreak
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:28:12 +0100, Sanity
> <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In alt.books.pratchett Willem-Jan van Strien <wj...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> The only thing that now confuses me is that I have Going Postal as
>>> Discworld book 33, but it's listed as 29 on a lot of pages.
>>
>> That's because not all Discworld books are Discworld books:
>>> 27 - The Last Hero
>>
>> This is not part of the "mainline" DW books. It's a graphic novel.
>
> Nah, it's "illustrated mainline" like the original Eric was. Graphic
> novels are another art form entirely.
Indeed....there are graphic novels that accompany The Color of Magic, The
Light Fantastic, Mort, and Guards! Guards! (that I know of), but they're
independant of the original books. Whereas The Last Hero, while extensively
and beautifully illustrated, is not a graphic adaption of the novel, but the
novel itself accompanied by pictures.
> Not that I understand this need to categorise. Just read the lot, eh?
Agreed. :)
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Richard Eney
Cliff <jc...@nomindspringspam.com> wrote:
>"bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@notmail.com> wrote in message
>> Cliff wrote:
>>> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@notmail.com> wrote
>>>>> 'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's
>>>>> book.
>>>>
>>>> So's Wee Free Men, for that matter, but then, the world
>>>> is a bit dark for children today,
>>>> and I think they're able to digest a lot
>>>> more than we often give them credit for.
>>>
>>> How is _The Wee Free Men_ a dark book?
>>>
>>> I'm mystified by this characterization. Dark means
>>> splendid, exciting, upbeat and positive?
>> (spoiler space) for WFM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just off the top of my head, the woman (witch) being left
>> to die and her cat being stoned to death is one particularly
>> dark bit that stands out in my memory, and there were
>> certainly dark bits in the Queen's world as well.
>Ok. Thanks. That does explain it.
>
>I guess either it's all hugs and fluffy bunnies or it is
>dark. I prefer more realistic worlds where sad things do
>happen and mean things are done, but the goodness muddles
>through. As I think about it, I think that's better for
>children, too. Explaining that idea would take too long.
>
>Certainly, my children prefered Pratchett novels to kittens
>that lose their mittens.
There are levels of dark between those extremes. Consider
a story about ordinary people working hard and not getting
treated considerately by other ordinary people who are
having problems of their own - that story offers examples
of unfairness, problems being worked through (or not),
the world not being fair, but still offering hope, some
inspirational examples, and muddling through being
something that can work. It doesn't have people being
murdered by bigots, nor is it entirely fluffy. (By the way,
it's a fair paraphrase of a children's book I read a long
time ago.)
WFM doesn't go to extremes in its darkness, in that the
various things that move Tiffany to want to become a
witch are all things that not only have happened, they
are similar to things that still happen in some parts
of the world. But they aren't as light as the type of
story that has "I have to work after school because the
family can't quite get along without my wages since
[PARENT] died" as its major problem.
By the standard of children's literature (not YA, which is
a whole different ball of wax), WFM is a trifle dark.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Cliff <jc...@nomindspringspam.com> wrote:
>"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote
>>
>>> The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky are officially
>>> children's books.
>>> All three can be read by adults.
>>
>> 'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's book.
>
>I disagree. I disagree that 'A Hat Full of Sky' is dark. I
>disagree that it is anything but a splendid, upbeat and
>positive book.
>
>spoiler space...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The scene with Tiffany arguing nose-to-nose with Granny
>Weatherwax is worth the price by itself. You want your girls
>to be able to stand up for themselves just like that.
Those are wonderful, yes.
>I suppose it is the lambing that disturbs. Girls need to
>know about this stuff young. I doubt if any of my daughters
>can remember seeing a birthing; we were often on a farm and
>never concealed that stuff. Small hands can be useful in
>difficult cases.
No, actually, I think what disturbs people more is the scene
where "Tiffany+hiver" kills Miss Level, and later on, the
scene where Tiffany (for real) insists that it wasn't _just_
the hiver that did it - part of what did it was in fact part
of her real self. It's an important lesson, that we do have
a dark side that is all our own, and that part of growing up
is learning to control it, but the circumstances are darker
than, say, learning not to say mean things to girls who
haven't got sparkly clothes and lots of jewelry.
=Tamar
Boyd Bottorff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The scene with Tiffany arguing nose-to-nose with Granny
> Weatherwax is worth the price by itself. You want your girls
> to be able to stand up for themselves just like that.
Only when they're right. Otherwise, they come off more like Desdemonda,
arguing just because they can.
Richard Eney
Daibhid Ceannaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>From: "Willem-Jan van Strien" wj...@xs4all.nl
>Date: 24/12/04 16:06 GMT Standard Time
>
>>The only thing that now confuses me is that I have Going Postal as Discworld
>>book 33, but it's listed as 29 on a lot of pages.
>
>It's 29 if you count TLH and the kids' books seperately, and 33 if you don't.
>OTOH, it's 35 if you count Science of Discworld I and II, which it would
>therefore appear nobody does.
Except Terry himself, who said in print somewhere recently that the
Rincewind stories in those books are canon.
=Tamar
Sanity
> And confusion whether Eric
> should be counted as one of the regular Discworld books, or placed with the
> illustrated ones, like The Last Hero.
The difference is that the paperback of TLH is also illustrated (and
another format), while Eric in paperback is thinner, but the same size and
not illustrated at all.
Sanity
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:28:12 +0100, Sanity
> <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In alt.books.pratchett Willem-Jan van Strien <wj...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> The only thing that now confuses me is that I have Going Postal as Discworld
>>> book 33, but it's listed as 29 on a lot of pages.
>>
>>That's because not all Discworld books are Discworld books:
>>> 27 - The Last Hero
>>
>>This is not part of the "mainline" DW books. It's a graphic novel.
>
> Nah, it's "illustrated mainline" like the original Eric was. Graphic
> novels are another art form entirely.
I meant that, just didn't say it :) You're right, it's illustrated.
> Not that I understand this need to categorise. Just read the lot, eh?
Of course! But it helps to know what to read in order to get a maximum
pleasure and understanding, probably.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 27/12/04 05:23 GMT Standard Time
Well, I wasn't really meaning that. Just that they don't get counted as
"Discworld novels". I presume this is because they're not exactly novels,
rather than not exactly Discworld. I've certainly always thought they were
canonical.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>"Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>> And confusion whether Eric
>> should be counted as one of the regular Discworld books, or placed with the
>> illustrated ones, like The Last Hero.
>
>The difference is that the paperback of TLH is also illustrated (and
>another format), while Eric in paperback is thinner, but the same size and
>not illustrated at all.
Ah, except for the _illustrated_ large format paperback Eric, like wot
I've got. Which is internally identical to the illustrated hardback.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
In most timelines, the many-worlds hypothesis is held to be obviously false
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> Not that I understand this need to categorise. Just read the lot, eh?
>
>Of course! But it helps to know what to read in order to get a maximum
>pleasure and understanding, probably.
Publication order seems adequate, for anyone who's going to read the
lot anyway... optionally skip the non-DW books, though I'd definitely
recommend Strata and Dark Side of the Sun and Carpet People even so.
And Good Omens is superb. The Unadulterated Cat is great too. Er.
Bromeliad is also good, but the Johnny books I don't enjoy so much.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
- Groucho Marx
bewtifulfreak
<discussion of the Tiffany books being 'dark' snipped>
> WFM doesn't go to extremes in its darkness, in that the
> various things that move Tiffany to want to become a
> witch are all things that not only have happened, they
> are similar to things that still happen in some parts
> of the world. But they aren't as light as the type of
> story that has "I have to work after school because the
> family can't quite get along without my wages since
> [PARENT] died" as its major problem.
>
> By the standard of children's literature (not YA, which is
> a whole different ball of wax), WFM is a trifle dark.
Thank you for offering that eloquent elaboration, as that's exactly what I
meant, and all I meant; it was certainly not intended as a criticism by any
means.
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
bewtifulfreak
"Sanity" <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.27....@news.affordable-prawns.co.uk...
> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
> > And confusion whether Eric
> > should be counted as one of the regular Discworld books, or placed with
the
> > illustrated ones, like The Last Hero.
>
> The difference is that the paperback of TLH is also illustrated (and
> another format), while Eric in paperback is thinner, but the same size and
> not illustrated at all.
Now you mention it, I joined in this discussion without it ever clicking
that I'd not seen any illustrations for Eric - this must be remedied! :)
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Len Oil
> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk> wrote:
> > In alt.books.pratchett Willem-Jan van Strien <wj...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> The only thing that now confuses me is that I have Going Postal as
> >> Discworld book 33, but it's listed as 29 on a lot of pages.
> >
> > That's because not all Discworld books are Discworld books:
> >> 27 - The Last Hero
> >
> > This is not part of the "mainline" DW books. It's a graphic novel.
> >
> >> 28 - The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents
> >> 30 - The Wee Free Men
> >> 32 - A Hat Full of Sky
> >
> > These are children's DW books and though they are DW books, they
don't
> > really count in the "adult series". They're seperate on my shelf,
and
> > they're listed seperate in my copy of GP in the front pages.
In my case, I seperately shelve them /purely/ due to book size (e.g. TLH
alongside the Graphic Novel versions of G! G!, etc, the Illustrated
Screenplays, the GURPS stuff and Kidby's/Kirby's
portfolio-type-thingies) but in all the lists I ever make to keep track
of something, my list is as above (I think, without going through it
again). (In fact, essentially as per the main section of the LSpace
bibliography, except for OMWF which I find strangely placed in the midst
of the 'pure' Discworld canon list, but I can see why.)
> > That explains the difference of 4 books.
>
> There's also the 0th Discworld book -- Strata. And confusion whether
Eric
> should be counted as one of the regular Discworld books, or placed
with the
> illustrated ones, like The Last Hero.
I have the non-illustrated standard paperback of Eric in with the other
paperbacks. The larger illustrated version has to be stored in with
like-sized volumes (but it a suitable relative position). The Strata
paperback sits at the beginning of the paperbacks, alongside DSOTS, but
then so does TUC and the Nome/Johnny series sit together at that end
too. (The shelf seems to be getting shorter and shorter, I may have to
rearrange one day soon... I've got MR sitting on the computer desk at
the moment, and I think that there'll be a bit of a strain to jam that
in when I return it.)
> Then there's all the AFAHM spinoffs, which probably fit a shelf of
their
> own, with illustration books, mappes, recipe booklets and by now,
possibly
> even "Discworlde Tantric Sex, the Illustrated Prymer by Lu-Tse".
*grin*
Also plays, diaries, an almanac, calendars, SODs, Compendiums, audio
tapes/CDs, computer games, ornaments, mugs, glasses, posters,
tea-towels, convention accoutrements, clothing, etc... There isn't
enough time to appreciate it all, but I hope I've got the balance about
right. :)
Duke of Url
> In article <zoOyd.8781$9j5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Cliff <jc...@nomindspringspam.com> wrote:
>> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@notmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Cliff wrote:
>>>> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@notmail.com> wrote
>>>>> William Black wrote:
>
>>>>>> 'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's
>>>>>> book.
>>>>>
>>>>> So's Wee Free Men, for that matter, but then, the world
>>>>> is a bit dark for children today, and I think they're able to digest a
>>>>> lot more than we often give them credit for.
[spoiler]
>>> Just off the top of my head, the woman (witch) being left
>>> to die and her cat being stoned to death is one particularly
>>> dark bit that stands out in my memory, and there were
>>> certainly dark bits in the Queen's world as well.
Dark? Not appropriate for childern? Bafflegabbing horsepuckey! I read
"Treasure Island" (the real one) when I was ten.
Richard Adams
Hansel and Gretel shove a witch into her oven.
The wolf in Little Red Ridinghood eats her grandmother (all on one
piece, though, which seems quite unusual) before the woodsman comes
along and hacks it open.
It's horror of a sort, but usually sugar coated in some way, by leaving
out the grim bits. Mostly it seems to be a habit adopted in the 20th
century, to protect children from being traumatized.
bewtifulfreak
Yet again, I never said it wasn't appropriate for children, merely that
parts of it were a bit on the dark side.
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Graycat
wrote:
>
>Hansel and Gretel shove a witch into her oven.
>
>The wolf in Little Red Ridinghood eats her grandmother (all on one
>piece, though, which seems quite unusual) before the woodsman comes
>along and hacks it open.
>
>It's horror of a sort, but usually sugar coated in some way, by leaving
>out the grim bits. Mostly it seems to be a habit adopted in the 20th
>century, to protect children from being traumatized.
>
Why do you use the words sugar coated? That makes it sound like a bad
thing. Would the story of Hansel and Gretel have been improved by
several pages of description of skin charring and blistering, hair
burning, screaming, the smell of burning flesh? The whole point is to
say that people who do evil things come to an evil end. Which it does
perfecly well without the gore.
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/index.html
The Oswalds - premier Discworld casting awards
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Paul Arthur
mumbled:
>On 28 Dec 2004 00:34:05 EST, Richard Adams <ack...@concentric.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Hansel and Gretel shove a witch into her oven.
>>
>>The wolf in Little Red Ridinghood eats her grandmother (all on one
>>piece, though, which seems quite unusual) before the woodsman comes
>>along and hacks it open.
>>
>>It's horror of a sort, but usually sugar coated in some way, by leaving
>>out the grim bits. Mostly it seems to be a habit adopted in the 20th
>>century, to protect children from being traumatized.
>>
>
>Why do you use the words sugar coated? That makes it sound like a bad
>thing. Would the story of Hansel and Gretel have been improved by
>several pages of description of skin charring and blistering, hair
>burning, screaming, the smell of burning flesh? The whole point is to
>say that people who do evil things come to an evil end. Which it does
>perfecly well without the gore.
See, that would be the opposite of sugar coating. We don't need extra
detail on the dark parts, neither should we ignore them.
The sugar coating of fairy-tales has to do with the removal of
elements that parents find distasteful. Take the Cinderella story,
for instance. Most children are familiar with it, many of them
throught the Disney version. What happens to the people who did evil
things, in this retelling of the story? Do they come to an evil end?
No. In older versions of the story, however, they do come to an evil
end. The stepsisters mutilate their feet in their attempts to get the
glass slipper to fit, and then have their eyeballs plucked out. The
stepmother comes to an equally nasty end. And this is how the story
goes. It is not sufficient for the good people to end up happy; in
addition, the evil need to end up miserable.
Diane L.
> Richard Eney wrote:
>> In article <zoOyd.8781$9j5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Cliff <jc...@nomindspringspam.com> wrote:
>>> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@notmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Cliff wrote:
>>>>> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@notmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> William Black wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> 'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's
>>>>>>> book.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So's Wee Free Men, for that matter, but then, the world
>>>>>> is a bit dark for children today, and I think they're able to
>>>>>> digest a lot more than we often give them credit for.
>
> [spoiler]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> Just off the top of my head, the woman (witch) being left
>>>> to die and her cat being stoned to death is one particularly
>>>> dark bit that stands out in my memory, and there were
>>>> certainly dark bits in the Queen's world as well.
>
>
> Dark?
Yes.
>Not appropriate for childern?
No.
Ann didn't say that. Someone asked her what the dark parts
were in AHFOS and she pointed one out. Why so many people
have jumped on her as though she'd said that it was a bad thing or
that children's books shouldn't be dark I don't understand. In fact,
she specifically said the opposite: "but then, the world is a bit dark
for children today, and I think they're able to digest a lot more than
we often give them credit for."
>Bafflegabbing horsepuckey!
Any suggestion that the book isn't appropriate for children certainly
fits that description. Saying that it has dark elements does not, IMO.
>I read "Treasure Island" (the real one) when I was ten.
That's nice. Presumably you would agree that that has "dark"
moments as well, then?
Diane L.
Duke of Url
a] I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that she said that.
b] No, I do not agree that any moments of TI are "dark" - some are shocking
and some are tension-filled, but I reject the idea that realism is "dark".
Lesley Weston
I do actually agree with you here (I read TI when I was nine or ten, too -
didn't everyone?), but I still want to question the idea that TI exhibited
realism. Even when it was written, most English children's lives did not
include getting kidnapped by pirates and all the rest of it, and now it's
pretty much unheard of. I also agree with the OP that if you (generic) want
seriously dark children's stories, the brothers Grimm will be happy to
oblige.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use lesley att vancouverbc
dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
Richard Eney
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Duke of Url
>> Diane L. wrote:
>>> Ann didn't say that. Someone asked her what the dark parts
>>> were in AHFOS and she pointed one out.
In TWFM, actually, but both of them have dark, scary elements.
>>> Why so many people
>>> have jumped on her as though she'd said that it was a bad thing or
>>> that children's books shouldn't be dark I don't understand. In fact,
>>> she specifically said the opposite: "but then, the world is a bit dark
>>> for children today, and I think they're able to digest a lot more than
>>> we often give them credit for."
<snip>
>> a] I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that she said that.
>> b] No, I do not agree that any moments of TI are "dark" - some
>> are shocking and some are tension-filled, but I reject the idea
>> that realism is "dark".
>
>I do actually agree with you here (I read TI when I was nine or ten, too -
>didn't everyone?), but I still want to question the idea that TI exhibited
>realism. Even when it was written, most English children's lives did not
>include getting kidnapped by pirates and all the rest of it, and now it's
>pretty much unheard of. I also agree with the OP that if you (generic) want
>seriously dark children's stories, the brothers Grimm will be happy to
>oblige.
But does "realism" have to be tied to the average experience?
I don't think so.
Something can be absolutely real, as in describing a historic event
that really happened exactly as it happened, yet the event is something
that almost nobody has ever experienced. That's part of the point of
reading narratives of travel, exploration, and adventure, not to mention
biographies and autobiographies of famous people. It's also the point of
reading first-person experience articles in magazines: to experience
vicariously what someone else has experience in reality, in order to
(possibly) learn something (even if it's "don't do this") or at least
to feel some of the excitement or imagine the beauty of a place you'll
never be able to go yourself.
Treasure Island was not intended to be true to the average 19th century
English child's experience (somehow I thought it was set in Scotland, not
that it reflects the average Scottish child's experience either). It was
an adventure story, primarily intended to provide vicarious thrills of a
sort that nobody would want to have in reality, yet to be as realistic as
possible in the description of the adventure so as to help the suspension
of disbelief. I believe it is a very realistic depiction of the average
pirate of a time shortly before it was written. It is perhaps less
realistic in its treatment of Old Pew, but not necessarily so.
The story in TI is a fantasy. The style is realism.
=Tamar
Cliff
"Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
in message
news:BDF6D295.314C7%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk...
Cliff
Diane L. wrote:
> Ann didn't say that.
True. She never even implied Wee Free Men or Hat Full Of Sky
were unsuitable for children.
> Someone asked her what the dark parts
> were in AHFOS and she pointed one out. Why so many people
> have jumped on her as though she'd said that it was a bad
> thing or
> that children's books shouldn't be dark I don't
> understand. In fact,
> she specifically said the opposite: "but then, the world
> is a bit dark
> for children today, and I think they're able to digest a
> lot more than
> we often give them credit for."
>
All my fault for misunderstanding 'dark' in this context.
Sorry, Ann, and all.
--
Cliff
"looking about as lively as a fighting kangaroo in London in
fog-fime." - Henry Lawson, "Stiffner and Jim"
bewtifulfreak
> Diane L. wrote:
>
>> Ann didn't say that.
>
> True. She never even implied Wee Free Men or Hat Full Of Sky
> were unsuitable for children.
>
>> Someone asked her what the dark parts
>> were in AHFOS and she pointed one out. Why so many people
>> have jumped on her as though she'd said that it was a bad
>> thing or
>> that children's books shouldn't be dark I don't
>> understand. In fact,
>> she specifically said the opposite: "but then, the world
>> is a bit dark
>> for children today, and I think they're able to digest a
>> lot more than
>> we often give them credit for."
>>
>
> All my fault for misunderstanding 'dark' in this context.
> Sorry, Ann, and all.
Not a problem....as far as I was concerned, we already cleared up any
misunderstanding about my comments several posts ago. :)
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
bewtifulfreak
Thank you, Diane for reiterating that; his wasn't the first response that I
felt entirely misinterpreted my post!
Duke of URL wrote:
> a] I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that she said that.
Well, you were basically arguing a point which presumably you thought
someone had made, and as it was right below my quoted text, it *was*
actually implied, if indirectly. I'm glad to hear that wasn't the
intention, however; I see now that the 'inappropriate' bit could have been
in response to the comment above mine, that said AHFOS was "a bit dark for a
childrens' book."
Diane L. wrote:
>> Bafflegabbing horsepuckey!
>
> Any suggestion that the book isn't appropriate for children certainly
> fits that description. Saying that it has dark elements does not, IMO.
Indeed. And as I pointed out in response to another comment, that's not to
say that the whole book is dark, just that it does have some dark moments
here and there.
Glad to know I'm not speaking an entirely alien language as I was beginning
to suspect! :)
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
bewtifulfreak
Do you not think realism *can* be dark? If someone is murdered or left to
die, that is realistic, but is not also 'dark'? Some reality is light, some
of it dark, but to say that realism is never dark suggests that you and I
have a very different meaning of the word 'dark' in this context. [1]
[1] Mine being along the lines of the following selection from
Merriam-Webster -
3 a : arising from or showing evil traits or desires : EVIL <the dark powers
that lead to war> b : DISMAL, GLOOMY <had a dark view of the future>
- which I think would certainly apply to the sections of WFM I mentioned.
Of course, I think an old woman being persecuted is as much a case of
ignorance as actual evil, but people causing the death of a woman and her
pet out of sheer bigotry is, in my opinion, quite gloomy, and thus, 'dark'.
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Richard Adams
> On 28 Dec 2004 00:34:05 EST, Richard Adams <ack...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hansel and Gretel shove a witch into her oven.
>>
>>The wolf in Little Red Ridinghood eats her grandmother (all on one
>>piece, though, which seems quite unusual) before the woodsman comes
>>along and hacks it open.
>>
>>It's horror of a sort, but usually sugar coated in some way, by leaving
>>out the grim bits. Mostly it seems to be a habit adopted in the 20th
>>century, to protect children from being traumatized.
>>
>
>
> Why do you use the words sugar coated? That makes it sound like a bad
> thing. Would the story of Hansel and Gretel have been improved by
> several pages of description of skin charring and blistering, hair
> burning, screaming, the smell of burning flesh? The whole point is to
> say that people who do evil things come to an evil end. Which it does
> perfecly well without the gore.
>
>
One of the greatest hurdles I've seen people try to overcome is reality.
They are so amazed that consequences don't match an inconsiderate act,
on their part of others. I have the impression people in the US, on
average, have a bigger problem with fear because they were not
confronted with reality at an earlier age. Children who grow up on
farms with livestock tend to be better acquainted with life and death
and it's seemingly arbitrary nature.
Fairy Tales tend more along the awful treatment Hollywood gives films,
justfiable homicide, as an example, the evil guy gets his just desserts.
In real life adults see their retirement funds destroyed by men in
suits who were supposed to act ethically, Michael Milken and the Enron
gang as examples. Fear this: You're 70 years old and your retirement
fund is gone.
Adding pages of graphic detail to a child's book isn't necessary. What
is is finding better reading material for children. Can you think of
any good examples? I read War of the Worlds at 13, in two days. I also
had a teacher read Run Baby Run (Nicky Cruz story) in elementary school,
an excellent choice.
I particularly like TP's works which often throw cold water on fairy
tales, and I think he makes some fair arguments in the books, including
Witches Abroad, for those who think beyond the story.
Darin Johnson
> Fairy Tales tend more along the awful treatment Hollywood gives films,
> justfiable homicide, as an example, the evil guy gets his just
> desserts.
OK, to combine this idea, along with "dark", I'm reminded of a
Hindi film I saw ages ago. I didn't understand what was going
on very well, but my roommates would explain bits if I got lost.
At the very end, the evil guy is cornered by the villagers who
all throw sticks at him until he's standing on a small mound of
kindling. The hero then hands a young boy his torch and urges
him to throw it, which he does and the villain dies.
I was absolutely horrified at this. It was far more horrifying than
any horror movie I had ever seen. But this is essentially what
happened at the end of Hansel and Gretel. Children are supposed to be
innocent, not cold blooded killers. And the good guys are supposed to
be virtuous, or at least flawed heros.
What struck me is that this was anti-Hollywood. Hollywood movies, and
western literature in general perhaps, does not have the good guys
perform evil deeds. The good guy does not torture the villain and
only rarely executes him (and _never_ in a movie that has musical
numbers). Instead the villains die through their own actions or acts
of god. They refuse to surrender and leave the burning buildings,
they plummet to their death while the hero is trying to save them,
their evil lair collapses around them, etc. Maybe this is a
convenient fiction for audiences, which allows the ultimate punishment
for the villain without having the hero become a killer or torturer.
This fits the western view of what justice is; bringing the bad guys
in front of the legal system. Whereas on other parts of the world (or
in other times) justice may mean exacting revenge. This is probably
why the original versions of the fairy tales seem so dark to us,
because we have a different view of "how things should go".
--
Darin Johnson
Support your right to own gnus.
Richard Adams
Now you may be into a cultural difference. The whole village turns on a
villain and a child (maybe a metaphor for the final judge, an innocent?)
torches him.
We had a film (The Lottery, IIRC) go around our schools, where a village
holds a lottery, the person with the spot on their bit of paper gets
stoned, and apparently it's a very accepted, time honored practice by
the villagers, an elderly woman even hands a stone to the victim-to-be's
young son. Fictional, though maybe not among druids or others in day's
gone by, but certainly food for thought and discussion, which was what
the effort made by educators was -- an exercise in critical thinking --
if GWB told you to jump off a cliff to ensure Freedom, would you? (If
so, why?)
Bringing the bad guys to justice before a legal system is hardly what
Hollywood has said with countless movies. Take the law into your own
hands, is more like their message. Too bad they don't show the
consequences, like where a man goes before a judge, who really doesn't
like it when people try to do _his_ job. It's also full of stupid
defiant words which become catch phrases in schools the next day.
Duke of Url
> Duke of Url wrote:
>> Diane L. wrote:
>>> Duke of Url wrote:
>
>>>> I read "Treasure Island" (the real one) when I was ten.
>>>
>>> That's nice. Presumably you would agree that that has "dark"
>>> moments as well, then?
>>
>> a] I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that she said that.
>> b] No, I do not agree that any moments of TI are "dark" - some are
>> shocking and some are tension-filled, but I reject the idea that
>> realism is "dark".
>
> Do you not think realism *can* be dark? If someone is murdered or
> left to die, that is realistic, but is not also 'dark'? Some reality
> is light, some of it dark, but to say that realism is never dark
> suggests that you and I have a very different meaning of the word
> 'dark' in this context. [1]
Perhaps I'm imputing too much emphasis to "dark". To me, it equates with a
story implying hopelessness.
bewtifulfreak
Oh, no, not neccessarily, at least not in the way that I'm using it,
particularly because I don't think the story as a whole is dark, but merely
has some dark bits; the dark bits themselves can be a bit grim, but that
certainly doesn't equate with a story implying hopelessness. Before The
Discworld distracted me away, I was a regular reader of Dean Koontz's books
(still wanna get back to them), and most of his stories are really pretty
dark overall, much darker than Terry's, and yet generally end quite
positively; often in stories, the darkness actually serves to bring out the
light. And in the case of WFM, I don't think the overall mood of the book
is dark anyway, just parts of it; there are other parts which are
lighthearted, fantastical, and downright hilarious. :)
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Graycat
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I do actually agree with you here (I read TI when I was nine or ten, too -
>didn't everyone?)
It is a YA book, isn't it? Of sorts. I read The Fionavar Tapestry when
I was that age and loved it, despite the sacrifices, rape and general
horror.
> but I still want to question the idea that TI exhibited
>realism. Even when it was written, most English children's lives did not
>include getting kidnapped by pirates and all the rest of it, and now it's
>pretty much unheard of. I also agree with the OP that if you (generic) want
>seriously dark children's stories, the brothers Grimm will be happy to
>oblige.
Or HC Andersen - where even the good guys end up dead. Those I would
say are "dark". I wouldn't put any, I think, of the DW books in that
category, but I guess that comes from what I put in the word. It seems
to me that "dark" gets thrown around quite a lot around here - lately
at any rate - and I rarely agree.
To me "dark" means something other than simply "contains elements of
realism or sadness/cruelty". To me "dark" is a tone or atmosphere that
colours an entire text/film/whatever. Thus, to me, Harry Potter is
"light" because it looks at the world from the brightest side, NW is
neither "light" nor "dark" because it looks at the world from both
sides, and The Little Match Girl is "dark" because it looks at the
world from the darkest side.
A "dark" book can have "light" bits, and the other way around, but
that doesn't change the overall mood.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 29/12/04 01:32 GMT Standard Time
>Darin Johnson wrote:
<snip>
>> Hollywood movies, and
>> western literature in general perhaps, does not have the good guys
>> perform evil deeds. The good guy does not torture the villain and
>> only rarely executes him (and _never_ in a movie that has musical
>> numbers). Instead the villains die through their own actions or acts
>> of god. They refuse to surrender and leave the burning buildings,
>> they plummet to their death while the hero is trying to save them,
>> their evil lair collapses around them, etc. Maybe this is a
>> convenient fiction for audiences, which allows the ultimate punishment
>> for the villain without having the hero become a killer or torturer.
<snip>
>Bringing the bad guys to justice before a legal system is hardly what
>Hollywood has said with countless movies. Take the law into your own
>hands, is more like their message. Too bad they don't show the
>consequences, like where a man goes before a judge, who really doesn't
>like it when people try to do _his_ job. It's also full of stupid
>defiant words which become catch phrases in schools the next day.
This is true. But, like Darin says, often (not always) the hero is conveniently
saved from killing the baddie, by the baddie inadvertantly engendering his own
death. This happens even when the hero *is* authorised to kill the villain, as
in some James Bonds.
Of course, the hero often kills lots of henchmen, but most of them don't even
have names, so that doesn't count...
(BTW, I was extremely irritated by someone saying that the survival of the
Brotherhood of Mutants in the "X-Men" movie was blatant sequel fodder.
Apparently, the idea that superheroes don't kill doesn't even *occur* to anyone
any more.)
--
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
bewtifulfreak
> To me "dark" means something other than simply "contains elements of
> realism or sadness/cruelty". To me "dark" is a tone or atmosphere that
> colours an entire text/film/whatever. Thus, to me, Harry Potter is
> "light" because it looks at the world from the brightest side, NW is
> neither "light" nor "dark" because it looks at the world from both
> sides, and The Little Match Girl is "dark" because it looks at the
> world from the darkest side.
>
> A "dark" book can have "light" bits, and the other way around, but
> that doesn't change the overall mood.
I think you're right. To me, WFM [1] is not a dark book, but does have some
dark bits, which, although I don't consider inappropriate for children in
general, I do think I might have been quite disturbed about when I was a
child, given my particular sensitivities; then again, I found those bits
fairly disturbing as an adult (which they were probably *meant* to be), and
that certainly didn't detract from my enjoyment. But in any case, no, I
wouldn't label it a dark book by any means.
[1] Again, I can only comment on this particular Tiffany book, as I've not
yet gotten to AHFOS (it's next on the list). :)
--
Ann
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Graycat
Ceannaideach) wrote:
Spoilerspace for X-Men (the recent movie)
>(BTW, I was extremely irritated by someone saying that the survival of the
>Brotherhood of Mutants in the "X-Men" movie was blatant sequel fodder.
>Apparently, the idea that superheroes don't kill doesn't even *occur* to anyone
>any more.)
Which of the X-Men movies? The first one? Wether or not Toad and
Sabretooth die is a bit ambiguous, isn't it? They fall off the statue
of liberty, toad gets fried by a bolt of lightning. I'd say the
chances are pretty good that they die. Having said that however none
of the Xmen, apart from Wolverine, are very keen on killing. Storm, at
least in the beginning, is very much against it.
Sachin Brojmohun
[Spoiler Space Start]
[End of Spoiler space]
This thread is quite interesting as to how we all approach villains and
death (more precisely, via encounters with sharp edges or
projectiles...etc.) We do question things and people.
So what about Vimes in _Men at Arms_ [MAA] when he faces the "gone" and
thinks that a bad man would torture you before killing you while a good
man would just kill you? This makes me think of the last scene in
_Seven_ where Brad Pitt faces the dilema of either killing his prisoner
or not and in the end just does so without saying much....
Concerning children and violence, I would just point a book which made
me ponder about good and evil and their influence on the human mind
"Lord of the Flies" by William Golding...
Cheers
--
SAUN {SAchin BrojmohUN}
_________________________
Once again we dance in the crowd
At times a step away
From a common fear that's all spread out
It won't listen to what you say
Once you're touched you stand alone
To face the bitter fight
Once I reached for love
And now I reach for life
|DT "Learning to Live"|
Diane L.
<now contains spoilers for 'TWFM', 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'Bambi' [1]>
[1] I somehow doubt that that's a list that has appeared very often.
> Perhaps I'm imputing too much emphasis to "dark". To me, it equates
> with a story implying hopelessness.
Goodness. No wonder we're disagreeing. To me, "dark" would mean
anything shocking, that pulls you up short and shows you cruelty or
meaness or prejudice in "ordinary" or "good" characters, or in the
workings of fate itself.
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
i
s
a
g
o
o
d
t
h
i
n
g
!
Ann's example of the death of the old woman suspected of witchcraft in
TWFM was definitely dark by this standard. She wasn't mistreated by
"villains" who could be expected to be cruel, but by ordinary people,
Tiffany's fellow villagers, out of ignorance and prejudice. In 'Reservoir
Dogs', the darkest moment for me was when Tim Roth's character
killed the woman whose car they were stealing, not the torture of the
cop, because of who was responsible for it.
By my definition, 'Bambi' has dark elements, too. I first saw it at about
4 - 5 years old, and the idea that good characters can die - that
*parents* can die, and be permanently dead, was very shocking.
I'm certainly not suggesting that 'Bambi' is a dark film, or that it's
unsuitable for children, but I wouldn't want a young child to see it
without someone present with whom they could talk through their
feelings about it.
Of course, another possible problem here is that "children" can mean
different things to different people. Are we talking about reading the
book to a 3 year old, or a 10 year old reading it for hirself? What is
appropriate for one is not necessarily right for the other.
Diane L.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>From: gra...@passagen.se (Graycat)
>Date: 29/12/04 12:59 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <41d2a7df...@news1.telia.com>
>
>On 29 Dec 2004 12:28:07 GMT, daibhidc...@aol.com (Daibhid
>Ceannaideach) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Spoilerspace for X-Men (the recent movie)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>(BTW, I was extremely irritated by someone saying that the survival of the
>>Brotherhood of Mutants in the "X-Men" movie was blatant sequel fodder.
>>Apparently, the idea that superheroes don't kill doesn't even *occur* to
>>anyone any more.)
>
>
>Which of the X-Men movies? The first one?
Yep.
>Wether or not Toad and
>Sabretooth die is a bit ambiguous, isn't it? They fall off the statue
>of liberty, toad gets fried by a bolt of lightning. I'd say the
>chances are pretty good that they die.
Well, things certainly don't look good for Toad, but like you said it's
ambiguous. Sabretooth, OTOH, could almost certainly survive something like
that. (I don't recall if his Wolvie-level healing factor was explicitly
mentioned in the film, but there was certainly nothing suggesting he *didn't*
have it).
>Having said that however none
>of the Xmen, apart from Wolverine, are very keen on killing. Storm, at
>least in the beginning, is very much against it.
Exactly.
Lesley Weston
wrote on 29/12/2004 4:18 AM:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:06:30 -0800, Lesley Weston
> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> I also agree with the OP that if you (generic) want
>> seriously dark children's stories, the brothers Grimm will be happy to
>> oblige.
>
> Or HC Andersen - where even the good guys end up dead. Those I would
> say are "dark". I wouldn't put any, I think, of the DW books in that
> category, but I guess that comes from what I put in the word. It seems
> to me that "dark" gets thrown around quite a lot around here - lately
> at any rate - and I rarely agree.
>
> To me "dark" means something other than simply "contains elements of
> realism or sadness/cruelty". To me "dark" is a tone or atmosphere that
> colours an entire text/film/whatever.
Yes, I forgot about HCA <shudder>. But that doesn't mean I think his work
and that of the Grimms and all the others should be banned or Bowdlerised.
Children need to know that the world is not Disneyland - the sidewalks are
not constantly being cleaned, you can't trust everybody to behave as you
would like them to, and virtue is not always rewarded.
Richard Adams
[knip]
>
> (BTW, I was extremely irritated by someone saying that the survival of the
> Brotherhood of Mutants in the "X-Men" movie was blatant sequel fodder.
> Apparently, the idea that superheroes don't kill doesn't even *occur* to anyone
> any more.)
You evidently missed the period in the, what mid-80's, when Marvel's cup
of mutants ranneth over and to tidy things up they killed off a whole
mess of them.
Lesley Weston
I would say that that would be real but not realistic, and so realism would
not be an appropriate description.
<snip>
> Treasure Island was not intended to be true to the average 19th century
> English child's experience (somehow I thought it was set in Scotland, not
> that it reflects the average Scottish child's experience either).
Isn't it Kidnapped that's set in Scotland, and TI in England? BICBW. As I
said, I read it fifty years ago (!) and not since, SFAIR. I did see the
Muppets' version recently, though.
Graycat
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>in article 41d29c5a...@news1.telia.com, Graycat at gra...@passagen.se
>wrote on 29/12/2004 4:18 AM:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:06:30 -0800, Lesley Weston
>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> I also agree with the OP that if you (generic) want
>>> seriously dark children's stories, the brothers Grimm will be happy to
>>> oblige.
>>
>> Or HC Andersen - where even the good guys end up dead. Those I would
>> say are "dark". I wouldn't put any, I think, of the DW books in that
>> category, but I guess that comes from what I put in the word. It seems
>> to me that "dark" gets thrown around quite a lot around here - lately
>> at any rate - and I rarely agree.
>>
>> To me "dark" means something other than simply "contains elements of
>> realism or sadness/cruelty". To me "dark" is a tone or atmosphere that
>> colours an entire text/film/whatever.
>
>Yes, I forgot about HCA <shudder>. But that doesn't mean I think his work
>and that of the Grimms and all the others should be banned or Bowdlerised.
Neither do I. Did it sound like I did?
Richard Bos
> Richard Adams <ack...@concentric.net> writes:
>
> > Fairy Tales tend more along the awful treatment Hollywood gives films,
> > justfiable homicide, as an example, the evil guy gets his just
> > desserts.
>
> OK, to combine this idea, along with "dark", I'm reminded of a
> Hindi film I saw ages ago. I didn't understand what was going
> on very well, but my roommates would explain bits if I got lost.
> At the very end, the evil guy is cornered by the villagers who
> all throw sticks at him until he's standing on a small mound of
> kindling. The hero then hands a young boy his torch and urges
> him to throw it, which he does and the villain dies.
>
> I was absolutely horrified at this. It was far more horrifying than
> any horror movie I had ever seen. But this is essentially what
> happened at the end of Hansel and Gretel.
Mno, not really. In Hansel and Gretel, the children kill the witch, yes,
in a horrible way, but in the same way that she herself had been
preparing to use for them. It's self-defense. The situation you describe
is an execution, which is quite a different thing.
I can see killing out of self-defense coming into the DW children's
books - what happens to the hiver in HFoS essentially is a more humane
version of it. But an execution? No. Not by the heroes, and unlike in
the adult DW books, probably not by anyone else, either
Richard
Len Oil
> The wolf in Little Red Ridinghood eats her grandmother (all on one
> piece, though, which seems quite unusual) before the woodsman comes
> along and hacks it open.
Sounds like there's karmic trade-off between them and the old woman who
swallowed a dog[1]...
[1] Among other things, but the horse got its revenge more directly...
:)
Darin Johnson
> Bringing the bad guys to justice before a legal system is hardly what
> Hollywood has said with countless movies. Take the law into your own
> hands, is more like their message.
Yes, but the good guys in Hollywood take the law into their own
hands with an unwritten code of conduct. That is, they may kill
the villain during a gunfight, but they will almost never calmly
shoot him in the back of the head after he has surrendered.
--
Darin Johnson
Gravity is a harsh mistress -- The Tick
Arthur Hagen
>
> Yes, but the good guys in Hollywood take the law into their own
> hands with an unwritten code of conduct. That is, they may kill
> the villain during a gunfight, but they will almost never calmly
> shoot him in the back of the head after he has surrendered.
And, of course, if someone has been a *little* nasty, they deserve to die
later in the movie. Especially if their face or hair is greasy.
Regards,
--
*Art
Richard Adams
> Richard Adams <ack...@concentric.net> writes:
>
>
>>Bringing the bad guys to justice before a legal system is hardly what
>>Hollywood has said with countless movies. Take the law into your own
>>hands, is more like their message.
>
>
> Yes, but the good guys in Hollywood take the law into their own
> hands with an unwritten code of conduct. That is, they may kill
> the villain during a gunfight, but they will almost never calmly
> shoot him in the back of the head after he has surrendered.
>
Oh, right, like the countless movies and TV shows where a 'cop operates
outside the rules' and his supervisor just gives him/her shit about it.
Richard Eney
In article <BDF819F0.3173B%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>,
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Richard Eney at dic...@radix.net wrote on 28/12/2004 10:27 AM:
>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>> I still want to question the idea that TI exhibited realism.
>>> Even when it was written, most English children's lives did not
>>> include getting kidnapped by pirates and all the rest of it, and
>>> now it's pretty much unheard of. I also agree with the OP that if
>>> you (generic) want seriously dark children's stories, the brothers
>>> Grimm will be happy to oblige.
>>
>> But does "realism" have to be tied to the average experience?
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> Something can be absolutely real, as in describing a historic event
>> that really happened exactly as it happened, yet the event is something
>> that almost nobody has ever experienced.
>
>I would say that that would be real but not realistic, and so realism
>would not be an appropriate description.
Huh?
A precisely accurate description of something that really happened
is "not realistic"? What definition of "real" are we using here?
In my dictionary, "real" is not defined as "only what happens to over
50% of the population". If it ever happened, even if only once, then
it's a real event, and a description of it in a realistic, reportorial
manner is realism.
Literary "Realism" (as begun by Theodore Dreiser) is a style of writing
that includes the mundane and unpleasant parts of life; however, the
events of the story of (IIRC) "Sister Carrie" did not happen to over
50% of the young women of the era.
A "realistic _expectation_" is not the same thing as a "real _event_".
>> Treasure Island was not intended to be true to the average 19th century
>> English child's experience (somehow I thought it was set in Scotland,
>> not that it reflects the average Scottish child's experience either).
>
>Isn't it Kidnapped that's set in Scotland, and TI in England? BICBW.
>As I said, I read it fifty years ago (!) and not since, SFAIR. I did
>see the Muppets' version recently, though.
You're probably right about the locations. Somehow I had misplaced the
Amiral Benbow Inn into Scotland. But in TI, the boy is not kidnapped
by the pirates; the pirates manage to get themselves hired and merely
mutiny and take over the ship later, keeping the boy (presumed harmless)
as a cabin boy.
=Tamar
SAUN {SAchin BrojmohUN}
> Oh, right, like the countless movies and TV shows where a 'cop operates
> outside the rules' and his supervisor just gives him/her shit about it.
>
Ooops, you forgot to state that the cop however continues to operate
outside the rules or leaves his job to do so... (cf. SHAFT)
;-)
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 29/12/04 13:27 GMT Standard Time
><now contains spoilers for 'TWFM', 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'Bambi' [1]>
>
>[1] I somehow doubt that that's a list that has appeared very often.
DNA came close once, IIRC, but it was before WFM was written...
Flesh-eating Dragon
and malicious. I reckon I'll be back and posting regularly, oh, around
the fourth of January.]
Diane L. wrote, quoting Duke of URL:
> > Perhaps I'm imputing too much emphasis to "dark". To me, it equates
> > with a story implying hopelessness.
>
> Goodness. No wonder we're disagreeing. To me, "dark" would mean
> anything shocking, that pulls you up short and shows you cruelty or
> meaness or prejudice in "ordinary" or "good" characters, or in the
> workings of fate itself.
I think I'd put the definition somewhere in between you guys, but
that's not to say I'm 100% sure what that definition is. I'd
definitely start by saying that a dark book is one that succeeds in
portraying a particular category of emotion to the reader (i.e. making
the reader empathise with a particular emotion that the characters are
feeling), but I wouldn't be too confident about trying to specify the
set of emotions in that category. Hopelessness is one, for sure (it
doesn't have to *be* hopeless, but the reader has to empathise with
characters who feel it is). So is terror, but only terror of a certain
kind, that has to have time to develop and grow.
Two of my very favourite books for young children are Roald Dahl's
"The Enormous Crocodile" and Jack Prelutsky's "The Terrible Tiger".
I'll use those as an example and say that the latter is dark in a way
that the former is not. TEC never actually gets to eat a child, and no
character ever wallows in fear very much (merely running away isn't
proper fear). TTT, OTOH, eats several people before eventually meeting
his match (and goes off to eat some more after the story ends), his
meals are quite visibly terrified as the tiger gloats at them, and
desperate attempts to placate the tiger are not only fruitless but
mocked.
Anyway, I am rather happy tonight, because I've been spending time
with relatives and I've been seeing how well my cousin's oldest
daughter is learning to read and write. Having finished her first year
at school she is now capable of enjoying some games that involve
words, and when we were down at the beach this evening we played for a
while writing messages for each other in the sand (this was my idea,
precisely because I thought it would be a good and fun way for Mikayla
to practise her reading and writing). We'd been talking about hunting
lions that were lurking about the cliffs earlier on, so I wrote a
message in the sand that said, "Lions: Bite Off Rebecca's Leg Before
She Gets Away" (Rebecca being my sister, also present). In response,
Mikayla wrote a message with Rebecca's guidance that said, "Lions eat
Adrian all up". Mikayla then went ahead and wrote a message saying,
"Becca is very mean. The lions eat her all up", with my guidance for
any words she was uncertain about. I was going to write "Mikayla
tastes like ice cream" but we ran out of time. Anyway, the point is
that she can *do* that sort of thing now, and I'm happy about that,
and I'm happy to see it for the first time, because words open up a
whole new world of entertainment and experience that she's just
starting to explore. She's not quite ready for, say, The Amazing
Maurice yet, which I think of as a book suitable for ten year olds (as
well as to adults, naturally), but she's well on the way.
Adrian.
Richard Adams
> Richard Adams wrote:
>
>> Oh, right, like the countless movies and TV shows where a 'cop
>> operates outside the rules' and his supervisor just gives him/her shit
>> about it.
>>
>
> Ooops, you forgot to state that the cop however continues to operate
> outside the rules or leaves his job to do so... (cf. SHAFT)
> ;-)
Or Colon & Nobbs, Ankh-Morpork's finest. No monument too large to
guard, never too many doorknobs to check.
Lesley Weston
wrote on 29/12/2004 10:52 AM:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:02:02 -0800, Lesley Weston
> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> in article 41d29c5a...@news1.telia.com, Graycat at gra...@passagen.se
>> wrote on 29/12/2004 4:18 AM:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:06:30 -0800, Lesley Weston
>>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> I also agree with the OP that if you (generic) want
>>>> seriously dark children's stories, the brothers Grimm will be happy to
>>>> oblige.
>>>
>>> Or HC Andersen - where even the good guys end up dead. Those I would
>>> say are "dark". I wouldn't put any, I think, of the DW books in that
>>> category, but I guess that comes from what I put in the word. It seems
>>> to me that "dark" gets thrown around quite a lot around here - lately
>>> at any rate - and I rarely agree.
>>>
>>> To me "dark" means something other than simply "contains elements of
>>> realism or sadness/cruelty". To me "dark" is a tone or atmosphere that
>>> colours an entire text/film/whatever.
>>
>> Yes, I forgot about HCA <shudder>. But that doesn't mean I think his work
>> and that of the Grimms and all the others should be banned or Bowdlerised.
>
> Neither do I. Did it sound like I did?
>
No - did it sound like I thought you did? (we could go on like this for
ever). I meant that the shudder that HCA's stories evoke in me does not
imply that I want them suppressed.
Lesley Weston
dic...@radix.net wrote on 29/12/2004 6:51 PM:
> abp removed because this is no longer [R]
>
> In article <BDF819F0.3173B%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Richard Eney at dic...@radix.net wrote on 28/12/2004 10:27 AM:
>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>> I still want to question the idea that TI exhibited realism.
>>>> Even when it was written, most English children's lives did not
>>>> include getting kidnapped by pirates and all the rest of it, and
>>>> now it's pretty much unheard of. I also agree with the OP that if
>>>> you (generic) want seriously dark children's stories, the brothers
>>>> Grimm will be happy to oblige.
>>>
>>> But does "realism" have to be tied to the average experience?
>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>> Something can be absolutely real, as in describing a historic event
>>> that really happened exactly as it happened, yet the event is something
>>> that almost nobody has ever experienced.
>>
>> I would say that that would be real but not realistic, and so realism
>> would not be an appropriate description.
>
> Huh?
>
> A precisely accurate description of something that really happened
> is "not realistic"? What definition of "real" are we using here?
"Realistic" would describe a fictional episode that had been written (or
filmed or whatever) in such a way as to make it seem like a real event,
without the implication that it was, in reality, a real event.
>
> In my dictionary, "real" is not defined as "only what happens to over
> 50% of the population". If it ever happened, even if only once, then
> it's a real event, and a description of it in a realistic, reportorial
> manner is realism.
>
> Literary "Realism" (as begun by Theodore Dreiser) is a style of writing
> that includes the mundane and unpleasant parts of life; however, the
> events of the story of (IIRC) "Sister Carrie" did not happen to over
> 50% of the young women of the era.
For an illustration of Realism, try Mrs. Gaskell's "Mary Barton" (1848),
which is a realistic portrayal of how considerably more than half the
population of the northern part of Britain lived at that time, though all
the characters and events in it are fictional.
>
> A "realistic _expectation_" is not the same thing as a "real _event_".
>
>>> Treasure Island was not intended to be true to the average 19th century
>>> English child's experience (somehow I thought it was set in Scotland,
>>> not that it reflects the average Scottish child's experience either).
>>
>> Isn't it Kidnapped that's set in Scotland, and TI in England? BICBW.
>> As I said, I read it fifty years ago (!) and not since, SFAIR. I did
>> see the Muppets' version recently, though.
>
> You're probably right about the locations. Somehow I had misplaced the
> Amiral Benbow Inn into Scotland. But in TI, the boy is not kidnapped
> by the pirates; the pirates manage to get themselves hired and merely
> mutiny and take over the ship later, keeping the boy (presumed harmless)
> as a cabin boy.
You're probably right. It's not my favourite genre in literature (I prefer
Realism, and also Jane Austen), so I don't remember it that well.
Richard Eney
>> > with a story implying hopelessness.
>>
>> Goodness. No wonder we're disagreeing. To me, "dark" would mean
>> anything shocking, that pulls you up short and shows you cruelty or
>> meaness or prejudice in "ordinary" or "good" characters, or in the
>> workings of fate itself.
>
>that's not to say I'm 100% sure what that definition is.
>I'd definitely start by saying that a dark book is one that succeeds in
>portraying a particular category of emotion to the reader (i.e. making
>the reader empathise with a particular emotion that the characters are
>feeling)
Huh? Did you leave out a word?
If the writer is trying to generate a response in the reader beyond a
merely intellectual one, the job of the writer is to produce a category of
emotion in the reader by causing the reader to empathize with a character
enough to react emotionally to whatever is going on in the story.
That's not "dark", that's ordinary writing. "Dark" is when the emotion is
upsetting, such as horror, terror, or other "dark", unhappy emotional
responses.
> but I wouldn't be too confident about trying to specify the
>set of emotions in that category. Hopelessness is one, for sure (it
>doesn't have to *be* hopeless, but the reader has to empathise with
>characters who feel it is). So is terror, but only terror of a certain
>kind, that has to have time to develop and grow.
>
>Two of my very favourite books for young children are Roald Dahl's
>"The Enormous Crocodile" and Jack Prelutsky's "The Terrible Tiger".
>I'll use those as an example and say that the latter is dark in a way
>that the former is not. TEC never actually gets to eat a child, and no
>character ever wallows in fear very much (merely running away isn't
>proper fear).
Strictly speaking, running away is the appropriate expression of "proper
fear". That's what fear is for: allowing us to recognize that we should
leave a dangerous situation. Being trapped is different.
=Tamar, who really shouldn't get into a discussion when she's going to be
offline for a while. See you later, everybody.
Flesh-eating Dragon
Richard Eney wrote, quoting myself:
> >I'd definitely start by saying that a dark book is one that succeeds
in
> >portraying a particular category of emotion to the reader (i.e.
making
> >the reader empathise with a particular emotion that the characters
are
> >feeling)
>
> Huh? Did you leave out a word?
"Particular" as in "particular type of", not as in "any given".
Adrian.
Arthur Hagen
>
> That's not "dark", that's ordinary writing. "Dark" is when the
> emotion is upsetting, such as horror, terror, or other "dark",
> unhappy emotional responses.
I don't necessarily equate horror or terror with "dark". The movie "Speed"
is definitely about terror, but it's not dark. "Bad Taste" has lots of
horror and other upsetting emotions (and stomachs) without being dark.
To me, futility, hopelessness and despair are the ingredients for making
something dark.
Regards,
--
*Art
thinking brain dog
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqffag$lcs$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
> news:10smbib...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > The Wee Free Men and A Hat Full of Sky are officially children's books.
> > All three can be read by adults.
>
> 'A Hat Full of Sky' is a bit dark for a children's book.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
> Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
> I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
> All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
> Time for tea
>
>
WFM and AHFOS are close to being my favourites, evn if they are meant for
kids. the nac macs are so funny, I just love them.
naomi
Graycat
<dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
That's still unclear though. "A dark book is one that succeeds in
portraying a particular type of emotion" says nothing about which
particular type.
Thomas Zahr
> Yes, I forgot about HCA <shudder>. But that doesn't mean I
> think his work and that of the Grimms and all the others
> should be banned or Bowdlerised.
Quite apart from the point that the brothers did not write
childrens tales. They collected tales (Maerchen) as they were
told across the continent from parent to child, but from
adult to adult too. The German word Maerchen is the
diminuitiv of Maer (news, story) but closely related to Mar
(nightmare) too.
I think they would have been astonished to be thought of as
writers of childrens books. They considered themselves
scientists.
> Children need to know that
> the world is not Disneyland - the sidewalks are not
> constantly being cleaned, you can't trust everybody to
> behave as you would like them to, and virtue is not always
> rewarded.
>
Well, there is that, and they pick up more from the news than
you think (especially radio)
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<I'm in urgent need of a coffee>
dra...@netyp.com.au
> >"Particular" as in "particular type of", not as in "any given".
>
> That's still unclear though. "A dark book is one that succeeds in
> portraying a particular type of emotion" says nothing about which
> particular type.
Well, there /was/ the rest of the paragraph ... which gave a couple of
examples ...
Adrian
(who will be back and posting without Google by the end of this day)
Flesh-eating Dragon
>> 27 - The Last Hero
>
> This is not part of the "mainline" DW books. It's a graphic novel.
It is part of the mainline DW /books/ but it is not a DW /novel/. It
also happens to be one of my very favourites.
I suppose that the word "mainline" is subjective.
Adrian.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> I do actually agree with you here (I read TI when I was nine or ten, too -
> didn't everyone?), but I still want to question the idea that TI exhibited
> realism. Even when it was written, most English children's lives did not
> include getting kidnapped by pirates and all the rest of it, and now it's
> pretty much unheard of.
Well, when people describe stories as "realistic" they generally don't
mean that it reflects something that's a common part of real life, or
even that the events depicted are a theoretical possibility.
If the premise of a story is, "OK, this couldn't happen, but suppose
it did. How would real people react, and what might realistically
happen next?" then that's realism the way most people use the word
IME.
Realism deviates from reality only in a very few specified respects
(e.g. a premise that werewolves exist deviates from a reality that
werewolves do not exist) and these deviations form the backbone of the
story. Everything else (the ribcage of the story, if you like) follows
the laws of real physics, real psychology, and real logic, with the
minimum amount of modification needed to accommodate the fantastic
scenario.
If aliens take over the world then the story can still be realistic.
If aliens take over the world and governments respond to the threat in
a way that deviates from the way real governments behave then it is
probably not realistic.
Adrian.
Mark Gallagher
feels...
> If aliens take over the world then the story can still be realistic.
> If aliens take over the world and governments respond to the threat in
> a way that deviates from the way real governments behave then it is
> probably not realistic.
Hmm, it's just possible /Independence Day/ was in some respects
realistic, then.
I for one can quite easily imagine George Bush putting the fate of the
world in the hands of one drunken lunatic with a crop-dusting plane...
--
"But honestly, astrology is crap, just ask the I Ching."
(Stig M. Valstad, <4tvqtu$n...@hasle.sn.no>)
Web: http://donotuselifts.net/
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] student [dot] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
Graycat
<dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
>Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>> I do actually agree with you here (I read TI when I was nine or ten, too -
>> didn't everyone?), but I still want to question the idea that TI exhibited
>> realism. Even when it was written, most English children's lives did not
>> include getting kidnapped by pirates and all the rest of it, and now it's
>> pretty much unheard of.
>
>Well, when people describe stories as "realistic" they generally don't
>mean that it reflects something that's a common part of real life, or
>even that the events depicted are a theoretical possibility.
I don't think "realistic" and literary "realism" are really the same
thing.
>If the premise of a story is, "OK, this couldn't happen, but suppose
>it did. How would real people react, and what might realistically
>happen next?" then that's realism the way most people use the word
>IME.
<snip>
>If aliens take over the world then the story can still be realistic.
>If aliens take over the world and governments respond to the threat in
>a way that deviates from the way real governments behave then it is
>probably not realistic.
For example, what you wrote here I wouldn't class as literary realism.
To me that is realistic sf, or fantasy, or whatever. Realism is when
you write about something that could happen in a way that is
realistic. Like life as it might actually be for a certain part of
society.
Paul E. Jamison
"Mark Gallagher" <n...@spam.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4414fdb...@news.individual.net...
> It's the end of the world as we know it, and Flesh-eating Dragon
> feels...
> > If aliens take over the world then the story can still be realistic.
> > If aliens take over the world and governments respond to the threat in
> > a way that deviates from the way real governments behave then it is
> > probably not realistic.
>
> Hmm, it's just possible /Independence Day/ was in some respects
> realistic, then.
>
> I for one can quite easily imagine George Bush putting the fate of the
> world in the hands of one drunken lunatic with a crop-dusting plane...
>
Does George W own a cropduster then?
Paul - who couldn't pass up the chance to stick it to Dubya
--
"Who reads, learns, lives the Ferret Way becomes keeper
of light, ennobling outer worlds from one within."
- a prophecy from the Ancients
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 03/01/05 16:11 GMT Standard Time
>I don't think "realistic" and literary "realism" are really the same
>thing.
...which means we probably need a new word for "the quality of being
realistic", since I think a confusion over the difference berween realism and,
er, realisticness is the source of a lot of this debate.
Lesley Weston
wrote on 03/01/2005 8:11 AM:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 02:16:45 +1030, "Flesh-eating Dragon"
> <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>
>>> I do actually agree with you here (I read TI when I was nine or ten, too -
>>> didn't everyone?), but I still want to question the idea that TI exhibited
>>> realism. Even when it was written, most English children's lives did not
>>> include getting kidnapped by pirates and all the rest of it, and now it's
>>> pretty much unheard of.
>>
>> Well, when people describe stories as "realistic" they generally don't
>> mean that it reflects something that's a common part of real life, or
>> even that the events depicted are a theoretical possibility.
>
> I don't think "realistic" and literary "realism" are really the same
> thing.
I agree. "CSI" is realistic (though often inaccurate), while "Mary Barton"
and "Coronation Street" are realism, the kind of thing that is sometimes
called "kitchen-sink drama".
Lesley Weston
dra...@netyp.com.au wrote on 03/01/2005 7:46 AM:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>> I do actually agree with you here (I read TI when I was nine or ten, too -
>> didn't everyone?), but I still want to question the idea that TI exhibited
>> realism. Even when it was written, most English children's lives did not
>> include getting kidnapped by pirates and all the rest of it, and now it's
>> pretty much unheard of.
>
> Well, when people describe stories as "realistic" they generally don't
> mean that it reflects something that's a common part of real life, or
> even that the events depicted are a theoretical possibility.
No, they mean that the events are described as if they really had happened,
with enough detail to keep the reader convinced that they did long enough
for her/him to enjoy the novel or short story or whatever. Realism is "slice
of life" type stuff, and seems to be set in the north of England quite
often. Which is why I said that Treasure Island does not fit the type - even
if it was set in the north (I don't remember), that's not the only
criterion.
>
> If the premise of a story is, "OK, this couldn't happen, but suppose
> it did. How would real people react, and what might realistically
> happen next?" then that's realism the way most people use the word
> IME.
I don't think so, see above.
>
> Realism deviates from reality only in a very few specified respects
> (e.g. a premise that werewolves exist deviates from a reality that
> werewolves do not exist) and these deviations form the backbone of the
> story. Everything else (the ribcage of the story, if you like) follows
> the laws of real physics, real psychology, and real logic, with the
> minimum amount of modification needed to accommodate the fantastic
> scenario.
>
> If aliens take over the world then the story can still be realistic.
> If aliens take over the world and governments respond to the threat in
> a way that deviates from the way real governments behave then it is
> probably not realistic.
This is the basis of SF - you're allowed to change one parameter to
something unreal (e.g. aliens have invaded), but everything else must be
exactly as it would be in reality if this one false parameter were true.
Whether or not the work is realistic would depend on how convincingly the
incidents are described.
Lesley Weston
Ceannaideach at daibhidc...@aol.com wrote on 03/01/2005 11:52 AM:
> From: gra...@passagen.se (Graycat)
> Date: 03/01/05 16:11 GMT Standard Time
>
>> I don't think "realistic" and literary "realism" are really the same
>> thing.
>
> ...which means we probably need a new word for "the quality of being
> realistic", since I think a confusion over the difference berween realism and,
> er, realisticness is the source of a lot of this debate.
>
I think you're right. "Realisticness" will do fine.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> I don't think "realistic" and literary "realism" are really the same
> thing.
I'm just talking about how most ordinary people (insofar as people who
read lots of books are ordinary) use the word realism IME, i.e. what
people mean when they say something like, "This book lacks realism".
Adrian.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Lesley Weston wrote:
> in article 41d96c6d...@news1.telia.com, Graycat at
gra...@passagen.se
> wrote on 03/01/2005 8:11 AM:
> > I don't think "realistic" and literary "realism" are really the
same
> > thing.
>
> I agree. "CSI" is realistic (though often inaccurate), while "Mary
Barton"
> and "Coronation Street" are realism, the kind of thing that is
sometimes
> called "kitchen-sink drama".
Corry may have been realism once, however, if I understand the term
correctly (which may not be the case), it certainly isn't these days.