Anakin and Tiffany Achin (or The Force vs. Witchcraft)
JB
Here's an effort to get a ON-topic thread starfted ... on a
topic which I have been mulling, ever since seeing the
final Stars Wars movie (which of course is episode 3 of 6). I have
not completely though this through and I am NOT
an expert philosopher so I'd be interested in hearing what all have to
say about this:
Comparing The Force (tm) from Star Wars with Witchcraft in DW reveals
very different underlying philisophies
(at first I thought about comparing to DW magic in general but I
decided that there is more 'philosphy' to the witch's
use of magic than the Wizard's magic). I don't care as much about
capabilities (eg. could Granny's headology beat
Obi Wan's Jedi mind trick?) as I do about the notions of good and evil
and the source of power for good and evil.
In Star Wars, it is clear that there are two sides to the force - if not
two difference forces - there's the 'Dark Side' and,
apparently, the 'Light Side'. It seems that the intentions of the user
of the force determine which side s/he draws on -
even if their actions are identical Jedis draw upon a different force
than Sith lords (e.g. light sabre battles). The Dark
Side power resonantes with selfishness, anger, fear, and 'attachment'.
The Light Side, seems to work through selflessness
and detachment (almost a Buddhist philosophy?) We are told that Anakin's
fall from the Light Side to the Dark Side are
caused by personal attachments, fear of loss, a anger management,
problem, and ambition. (I suspect sporting a
mullet had something to do with it, too ;). There are two powers: one
which can be accessed by bad folks, and the other
by good folks (and maybe bad guys, too - I dunno)
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
M
A
N
Y
B
O
O
K
S
In WFM, Tiffany Achin is becoming a witch (I originally wrote
"being trained" but she is training herself when she fights the
Fairy Queen). Tiffany draws upon her anger and possessiveness to
defend her brother, and her turf. She OWNS Wentworth
and the land - the same way a shepherd owns a flock - but that ownership
carries tremendous obligation. Just as the shepherd has
to defend the flock against predators (and Nac Mac Feegle), Tiffany has
to defend her flock from the Fairy Queen. Her anger
and sense of ownership help her put away the fear and face down the
Queen. It is implied that Tiffany is a good witch - the
Queen (who does not feel anger, fear, etc) is the bad one - and Tiffany
draws upon many of the things associated with the Dark
Side of the Force.
I also get a sense that there is niether 'Light or Dark' side to
witchcraft; there are good women who are witches and bad women
who are witches. The closest comparison may be that 'going to the Dark
Side' is about letting the power of witchcraft corrupt you.
In WS, it is mentioned that witches should not rule countries by
witchcraft because it would be too easy. Ruling by manipulating
a poor fool into becoming king is OK, though. Why? Because
manipulating people is just the game that all powerful people play
(Vetinari is a master of this art form and he is not magical - at least
not in the conventional sense). More of this good-bad witch is
seen in WA when we meet Lily, Granny's Sister, Lily... who is using
magic to create living fairy tells - even though it is mercilessly
cruel to the subjects of these fairy tells (eg. the Wolve which lays his
own neck on the chopping block to end his suffering).
Lily's callous disregard for the effct on others shows that she is not a
nice person. Her addiction to power is another manifestation
of her being a black witch (even though she claims to be the good fairy
godmother). She draws her great power by meddling
with mirrors (something tabboo for witches). She draws upon power
which winds up controlling her. But it is not her temper or
fear which turned her into a wicked witch. Her quest for power and
control overcame her internal sense of right and wrong so
she was willing to do wrong for her 'lofty' goals - the fact that
witchcraft was involved is secondary: she was a black witch
because she was a black person who practiced witchcraft. It was the
same witchcraft practiced by Granny, Nanny and Magrat
(well, sorta - each witch hs her own specialties, of course).
In some of the witches' books, we see Granny's struggle with 'going
to the dark side: Granny could be a black witch (ie. a bad woman who is
a witch) easily because of her temperment. Granny is not a 'nice'
person. She is not friendly, cheerful, courteous, honest (or most of
the other boy scout traits) - but she is moral. She knows right and
wrong and chooses the right. It is her iron will which keeps her on
the straight and narrow - because she could very easily choose the
wrong. And (I forgot the reference) wicthcraft is about edges - being
on the edge between light and dark; also life and death. Why is granny
so tempted by the dark but Nanny Ogg not? In part because Nanny Ogg
has a lot of attachements to her HUGE family (it must be mentioned
here, that at least some of her daughters-in-law might call her a wicked
witch - but not twice). Nanny is not tempted to go to the 'dark side'
because she is 'grounded'.
I could wax on and on - but I think I made some of the points:
Philosophically The Force and Witchcraft are very different. Particularly,
the aspect of their being a 'bad force' but witchcraft is witchcraft.
WHat makes one a 'bad jedi' contains some of the elements which makes
a woman a 'good witch': attachment, possessiveness, anger, etc.
Interestingly, the Force sounds like some eastern philosophy and Witchcraft
sounds much more Western philosophy (to me, but I am not an expert).
Maybe it is my cultural background but witchcraft seems much
more plausible to me. It resonates with me that the difference between
a good witch and a wicked witch is not the witchcraft but the woman
doing it.
OK. I rambled long enough ...
Brian Wakeling
JB uttered thus:
> Hi all,
>
> Here's an effort to get a ON-topic thread starfted
> ... on a topic which I have been mulling, ever since seeing
> the
> final Stars Wars movie (which of course is episode 3 of 6).
> I have not completely though this through and I am NOT
> an expert philosopher so I'd be interested in hearing what
> all have to say about this:
>
> Comparing The Force (tm) from Star Wars with Witchcraft in
> DW reveals very different underlying philisophies
> (at first I thought about comparing to DW magic in general
> but I decided that there is more 'philosphy' to the witch's
> use of magic than the Wizard's magic). I don't care as
> much about capabilities (eg. could Granny's headology beat
> Obi Wan's Jedi mind trick?) as I do about the notions of
> good and evil and the source of power for good and evil.
>
> In Star Wars, it is clear that there are two sides to the
> force - if not two difference forces - there's the 'Dark
> Side' and, apparently, the 'Light Side'. It seems that the
> intentions of the user of the force determine which side
> s/he draws on - even if their actions are identical Jedis
> draw upon a
> different force than Sith lords (e.g. light sabre battles).
The Dark side of the Force seems to draw upon personality
traits more useful for combat. Why, then, did Ian McDiarmid
wield his lightsabre so *slowly* against all the Jedi that
came against him? If the Dark side is so good for combat, why
wasn't Yoda a small spot of grease on the carpet within two
seconds, instead of a bouncing rubber gremlin with a sword?
<Ahem>
I think it is in CJ that it is most specifically mentioned
about good and bad witchcraft - it's not where you stand, it's
which way you face. Granny, in her coma-like struggle against
becoming vampired, faces towards the light (ie. good), and
steps backwards from the edge (into darkness - ie. evil).
> I also get a sense that there is niether 'Light or
> Dark' side to witchcraft; there are good women who are
> witches and bad women who are witches. The closest
> comparison may be that
> 'going to the Dark Side' is about letting the power of
> witchcraft corrupt you.
I don't think it's quite like that. Lily is mentioned as being
prideful in her teenage years, and she may not have had any
(or strong) magical powers that young to corrupt her.
Obviously, the use of magic can corrupt the wielder, and
having a "corrupt" nature may hasten the fall, but I don't
think it's entirely as simple as it sounds.
> In WS, it is mentioned that witches should not rule
> countries by witchcraft because it would be too easy. Ruling
> by manipulating a poor fool into becoming king is OK,
> though. Why? Because manipulating people is just the game
> that all powerful
> people play (Vetinari is a master of this art form and he
> is not magical - at least not in the conventional sense).
> More of this good-bad witch is seen in WA when we meet Lily,
> Granny's Sister, Lily... who
> is using magic to create living fairy tells - even though it
> is
> mercilessly cruel to the subjects of these fairy tells (eg.
> the Wolve
> which lays his own neck on the chopping block to end his
> suffering). Lily's callous disregard for the effct on others
> shows that
> she is not a nice person. Her addiction to power is
> another manifestation of her being a black witch (even
> though she claims to be
> the good fairy godmother).
Considering what gets done to even good witches, what do you
suppose will happen to someone who actively claims to be an
evil magic user?
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
The problem with being in the rat-race is:
Even if you win, you're still a rat.
Bob-Nob
<snip>
> The Dark side of the Force seems to draw upon personality
> traits more useful for combat. Why, then, did Ian McDiarmid
> wield his lightsabre so *slowly* against all the Jedi that
> came against him? If the Dark side is so good for combat, why
> wasn't Yoda a small spot of grease on the carpet within two
> seconds, instead of a bouncing rubber gremlin with a sword?
"Is the Dark Side stronger?"
"No, no, no. Quicker. Easier. More seductive."
-- from The Empire Strikes Back
The Dark Side of the Force isn't any stronger, it's just easier
to find the power within it. It provides a shortcut to power, not a
means to greater power.
Catch you later.
--Robert Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Math & Classics | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
IF1, IF3, IF9: best films, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
IF's 3-Year Anniversary: 5/12 - 5/15... What are YOU doing this weekend?
Len Oil
> The Dark side of the Force seems to draw upon personality
> traits more useful for combat. Why, then, did Ian McDiarmid
> wield his lightsabre so *slowly* against all the Jedi that
> came against him? If the Dark side is so good for combat, why
> wasn't Yoda a small spot of grease on the carpet within two
> seconds, instead of a bouncing rubber gremlin with a sword?
> <Ahem>
A bit off-topic for here, but if you take to logical extremes the
light/dark side of the force issue, you wonder how a Jedi could ever
defeat a Sith, for they'd be restricted to parrying everything the Sith
lays on them and the first time they even attempt to strike back (never
mind kill) it turns them... However, that's looking at it simplisticly,
and obviously the death of a Sith is "for the common good" above and
beyond any "personal gain" (as Charmed would word it).
(In terms of the Star Wars RPG game, Luke fighting Vader in Ep6 has him
earning dozens of dark-side points, and the player would have had to
turn his character sheet over to the GM almost immediately at the rate
he started accumulating Dark Side points... ;)
> > S
> > P
> > O
> > I
> > L
> > E
> > R
> >
> > S
> > P
> > A
> > C
> > E
> >
> > M
> > A
> > N
> > Y
> >
> > B
> > O
> > O
> > K
> > S
> I think it is in CJ that it is most specifically mentioned
> about good and bad witchcraft - it's not where you stand, it's
> which way you face. Granny, in her coma-like struggle against
> becoming vampired, faces towards the light (ie. good), and
> steps backwards from the edge (into darkness - ie. evil).
I was never quite sure if Light was "Good" and Darkness "Bad" or if
Light was the attractive (i.e. Dark, and/or afterlife/oblivion) and Dark
was mundane (and the real world) such that Granny orientates herself to
the Light as the threat and/or Final Destination but backs towards where
she Should be.
I must re-read that, I feel sure I haven't always been so confused about
it.
Richard Eney
JB <Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu> wrote:
<snips>
>Comparing The Force (tm) from Star Wars with Witchcraft
>in DW reveals very different underlying philisophies
>(at first I thought about comparing to DW magic in general
>but I decided that there is more 'philosphy' to the witch's
>use of magic than the Wizard's magic). I don't care as much
>about capabilities (eg. could Granny's headology beat
>Obi Wan's Jedi mind trick?) as I do about the notions of good
>and evil and the source of power for good and evil.
>
>In Star Wars, it is clear that there are two sides to the
>force - if not two difference forces - there's the 'Dark Side' and,
>apparently, the 'Light Side'. It seems that the intentions of
>the user of the force determine which side s/he draws on -
>even if their actions are identical Jedis draw upon a different
>force than Sith lords (e.g. light sabre battles).
I'm not so sure; wouldn't the very use of the terms "dark side"
and "light side" imply that there is only one Force, which has
two sides? OTOH I admit I also think that the two "sides"
are distinguished mainly by the opinions of the beings who
are describing them, and not by any real difference in how
the Force is accessed and used.
> The Dark Side power resonates with selfishness, anger, fear,
>and 'attachment'. The Light Side, seems to work through selflessness
>and detachment (almost a Buddhist philosophy?) We are told that
>Anakin's fall from the Light Side to the Dark Side are
>caused by personal attachments, fear of loss, an anger
>management, problem, and ambition. (I suspect sporting a
>mullet had something to do with it, too ;). There are
>two powers: one which can be accessed by bad folks, and
>the other by good folks (and maybe bad guys, too - I dunno)
I see that as more of a personality issue than any real difference
in the power source. To take a sufficiently absurd metaphor:
the SUV side of the Force resonates with people who have selfishness
and anger issues, while the hybrid-economy-engine side of the Force
resonates with those who can afford an SUV but who prefer to try to
minimize their fuel use. Both the SUV and the hybrid run on the
same fuel, but use it differently, and the owners use it differently,
probabbly having different driving habits as well.
>S
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>
>S
>P
>A
>C
>E
>
>M
>A
>N
>Y
>
>B
>O
>O
>K
>S
>
>
>
> In WFM, Tiffany Aching is becoming a witch (I originally wrote
>"being trained" but she is training herself when she fights the
>Fairy Queen). Tiffany draws upon her anger and possessiveness to
>defend her brother, and her turf. She OWNS Wentworth
>and the land - the same way a shepherd owns a flock - but that
>ownership carries tremendous obligation. Just as the shepherd has
>to defend the flock against predators (and Nac Mac Feegle), Tiffany
>has to defend her flock from the Fairy Queen. Her anger
>and sense of ownership help her put away the fear and face down the
>Queen.
> It is implied that Tiffany is a good witch - the
>Queen (who does not feel anger, fear, etc) is the bad one - and
>Tiffany draws upon many of the things associated with the Dark
>Side of the Force.
Tiffany doesn't own Wentworth any more than she technically owns
the land at her age, but she has taken on the responsibility for
both. She has identified with the land itself, with the whole
sheep-raising ecology so to speak. (Granny did the same kind of
thing earlier, in Wyrd Sisters.) When she defends it, she is
defending not merely something she owns, but something she _is_,
or in Tiffany's case, will soon become, partly as a result of
having to decide whether to try to defend it or not.
> I also get a sense that there is niether 'Light or Dark' side
>to witchcraft; there are good women who are witches and bad women
>who are witches. The closest comparison may be that 'going to the
>Dark Side' is about letting the power of witchcraft corrupt you.
I see that as identical, as far as it goes.
>In WS, it is mentioned that witches should not rule countries by
>witchcraft because it would be too easy. Ruling by manipulating
>a poor fool into becoming king is OK, though. Why? Because
>manipulating people is just the game that all powerful people play
>(Vetinari is a master of this art form and he is not magical - at least
>not in the conventional sense).
In an early book Carrot makes a similar statement - he shouldn't rule
because people shouldn't obey him only because of his charisma, they
should obey only if it's the right thing to do. He doesn't want the
kind of near-magical near-absolute (if temporary) power that his
charisma gives him.
>More of this good-bad witch is
>seen in WA when we meet Lily, Granny's Sister, Lily... who is using
>magic to create living fairy tells - even though it is mercilessly
>cruel to the subjects of these fairy tells (eg. the Wolf which lays
>his own neck on the chopping block to end his suffering).
>Lily's callous disregard for the effct on others shows that she
>is not a nice person. Her addiction to power is another manifestation
>of her being a black witch (even though she claims to be the good
>fairy godmother). She draws her great power by meddling
>with mirrors (something tabboo for witches). She draws upon power
>which winds up controlling her. But it is not her temper or
>fear which turned her into a wicked witch. Her quest for power and
>control overcame her internal sense of right and wrong so
>she was willing to do wrong for her 'lofty' goals - the fact that
>witchcraft was involved is secondary: she was a black witch
>because she was a black person who practiced witchcraft.
>It was the same witchcraft practiced by Granny, Nanny and Magrat
> (well, sorta - each witch has her own specialties, of course).
I agree completely.
> In some of the witches' books, we see Granny's struggle with 'going
>to the dark side: Granny could be a black witch (ie. a bad woman who is
>a witch) easily because of her temperment. Granny is not a 'nice'
>person.
Well, not in the casual modern definition of "nice", but Granny is
"nice" in its older meaning of something like "precise" or "finely
distinguished".
> She is not friendly, cheerful, courteous, honest (or most of
>the other boy scout traits) - but she is moral. She knows right and
>wrong and chooses the right. It is her iron will which keeps her on
>the straight and narrow - because she could very easily choose the
>wrong. And (I forgot the reference) wicthcraft is about edges - being
>on the edge between light and dark; also life and death.
>Why is granny so tempted by the dark but Nanny Ogg not?
>In part because Nanny Ogg has a lot of attachements to her HUGE family
>(it must be mentioned here, that at least some of her daughters-in-law
>might call her a wicked witch - but not twice). Nanny is not tempted
>to go to the 'dark side' because she is 'grounded'.
That is a complex question of personality analysis and really could use
its own thread. I'm not entirely sure that Nanny sees a dark or light
side on a larger scale; she judges all situations by human values,
including petty ones of sentimentality.
> I could wax on and on - but I think I made some of the points:
>Philosophically The Force and Witchcraft are very different. Particularly,
>the aspect of there being a 'bad force' but witchcraft is witchcraft.
>WHat makes one a 'bad jedi' contains some of the elements which makes
>a woman a 'good witch': attachment, possessiveness, anger, etc.
The differences are more of a Nanny Ogg kind of thing, I think.
From the point of view of a being trying to decide which side of the Force
is dark or light, the judgement is made by whether we like the results.
>Interestingly, the Force sounds like some eastern philosophy and Witchcraft
>sounds much more Western philosophy (to me, but I am not an expert).
>Maybe it is my cultural background but witchcraft seems much
>more plausible to me. It resonates with me that the difference between
>a good witch and a wicked witch is not the witchcraft but the woman
>doing it.
I'm of the opinion that the Force is very much like DW witchcraft, and a
bit like DW wizardry except that wizardry seems to need more
paraphernalia.
=Tamar
JB
>>Interestingly, the Force sounds like some eastern philosophy and Witchcraft
>>sounds much more Western philosophy (to me, but I am not an expert).
>>Maybe it is my cultural background but witchcraft seems much
>>more plausible to me. It resonates with me that the difference between
>>a good witch and a wicked witch is not the witchcraft but the woman
>>doing it.
>>
>>
>
>I'm of the opinion that the Force is very much like DW witchcraft, and a
>bit like DW wizardry except that wizardry seems to need more
>paraphernalia.
>
>
Hmm. Could you elaborate on that? I snipped many of your excellent
comments because I didn't want to create
a huge mess of replies and sub replies - and this comment was most
intriguinig. I obviously expressed a view that
they are different - maybe the way you look at them the two supernatural
'philosophies' aren't so different.
Joerg Neidig
<snip a lot>
>> In WFM, Tiffany Aching is becoming a witch (I originally wrote
>>"being trained" but she is training herself when she fights the
>>Fairy Queen). Tiffany draws upon her anger and possessiveness to
>>defend her brother, and her turf. She OWNS Wentworth
>>and the land - the same way a shepherd owns a flock - but that
>>ownership carries tremendous obligation. Just as the shepherd has
>>to defend the flock against predators (and Nac Mac Feegle), Tiffany
>>has to defend her flock from the Fairy Queen. Her anger
>>and sense of ownership help her put away the fear and face down the
>>Queen.
>> It is implied that Tiffany is a good witch - the
>>Queen (who does not feel anger, fear, etc) is the bad one - and
>>Tiffany draws upon many of the things associated with the Dark
>>Side of the Force.
>
>
> Tiffany doesn't own Wentworth any more than she technically owns
> the land at her age, but she has taken on the responsibility for
> both. She has identified with the land itself, with the whole
> sheep-raising ecology so to speak. (Granny did the same kind of
> thing earlier, in Wyrd Sisters.) When she defends it, she is
> defending not merely something she owns, but something she _is_,
> or in Tiffany's case, will soon become, partly as a result of
> having to decide whether to try to defend it or not.
That is a very interesiting point. In episode 3 Anakin clearly has the
opinion that he has to defend his property. He does not allow his wife
(sorry, forgot name) to have a free will. Instead, he prefers that she
simply admires him. When his wife suggests that Anakin might be wrong he
is so outraged that he tries to kill her.
So, for him it is not about the good for his wife anymore it is simply
about defending his personal property like a dragon defends his layer.
Tiffany really wants that nothing harms Wentworth or the land in
general. I do not think she merely defends the land, because she
identifies herself with it. Would she help a total stranger? Maybe not
with as much energy, but nevertheless she would, because it would feel
right.
Joerg Neidig
JB
Good point. Anakin's possessiveness is 'selfish' - he fears losing her
love and ultimately attacks her for her (perceived) betrayal, because he
feels that he has lost what he cherished. Tiffany's possessiveness is
based in concern for the object - she accepts the land and her brother
as her own because they both need someone to fight for them (despite the
fact that Tiffany used Wentworth as monster bait, and feels little
affection for him). I like tthis distinction - plus it reveals the
simplistic philosophy of Star Wars: the good guys (Jedi whazzits) avoid
all attachments because they are bad in some way (shades of
Buddhism?). But, like real people, witches can have very positive
attachments (who will speak for those with no voices? Who will speak for
you?). The underlying philosphies of DW seem so much richer than those
of Star Wars... well, to me.
Of course, much of this may be misreading movies which 1) had
astonishingly bad dialog 2) sagged under the weight of excessive CGI's
3) usually were poorly directed 4) seemed to reserve the leading roles
for the worst actors and 5) started accidently from a summer movie lark.
BTW: for those who haven't seen Episode III of Star Wars, Hayden
Christensen's acting is so bad that it is only by context that the
audience can tell his motivation. Natalie Portman (who plays his wife),
OTOH, has a bit more range - still it is sad to she her reduced from the
firery strong-willed woman in previous episodes to a bare-foot and
pregnant wife.
My advice to PTerry - if Lucas ever offers to make a Disk World movie -
RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jade
<snip lots & lots>
>
> Good point. Anakin's possessiveness is 'selfish' - he fears losing her
> love and ultimately attacks her for her (perceived) betrayal, because he
> feels that he has lost what he cherished. Tiffany's possessiveness is
> based in concern for the object - she accepts the land and her brother
> as her own because they both need someone to fight for them (despite the
> fact that Tiffany used Wentworth as monster bait, and feels little
> affection for him). I like tthis distinction - plus it reveals the
> simplistic philosophy of Star Wars: the good guys (Jedi whazzits) avoid
> all attachments because they are bad in some way (shades of
> Buddhism?). But, like real people, witches can have very positive
> attachments (who will speak for those with no voices? Who will speak for
> you?). The underlying philosphies of DW seem so much richer than those
> of Star Wars... well, to me.
Another point of difference is Granny (possibly in Carpe
Jugulum) musing that good and bad become irrelevant, because
when you really *know* the difference between right & wrong,
you(/she) *can't* - just CAN NOT - choose wrong.
compare Anakin's "I shouldn't" (he does) "I shouldn't have"
idiot
Jade
JB
Hmmmm. That is a good one. BTW: CJ is a favorite book of mine. I
love the interplay between Granny
and Mighilty Oats. There are some wonderful exchanges between them -
Oats seems to see through Granny
more than anyone (other than Nanny Ogg) - to the point that he realizes
that she NEEDS to help him around
even though he supports her weight.
>compare Anakin's "I shouldn't" (he does) "I shouldn't have"
>
>idiot
>
>
Well said!
>Jade
>
>
If Anakin had had to accompany Granny to a vampire's castle he wouldn't
have fallen for the dark side ;)
The Sith lord would have had a new arse torn in 'em!
Richard Eney
JB <Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu> wrote:
>Richard Eney wrote:
<snip>
>>I'm of the opinion that the Force is very much like DW witchcraft,
>>and a bit like DW wizardry except that wizardry seems to need more
>>paraphernalia.
>>
>
>Hmm. Could you elaborate on that? I snipped many of your excellent
>comments because I didn't want to create
>a huge mess of replies and sub replies - and this comment was most
>intriguinig. I obviously expressed a view that
>they are different - maybe the way you look at them the two supernatural
>'philosophies' aren't so different.
As I posted, I see the Force as being neutral, and the relatively light
or dark of it being the choices made by the Jedi or witch using it.
Minor backing up: It's possible that in Lucas's universe there is some
difference - perhaps the dark side is (as someone else posted) genuinely
easier to get access to, and the light side is the finer or trickier
energies that require more work to be able to use.
Anyway.
First, some differences in Discworld wizard vs witch magic: Wizards seem
to require paraphernalia to do most of their magic, even when it is
reduced to a minimum. (An egg, but it has to be a fresh egg...) Even
though Ridcully can temporarily turn someone into a frog with a snap of
his fingers, he tends to have his staff near him at all times; wizards
store magic in their staffs, and need to replenish it. Witches, on the
other hand, don't seem to need physical paraphernalia except symbolically,
and often not even that. If the sword isn't handy, call an old stick
a sword and really mean it, and it will be a sword for long enough.
But wizards can do that too: the "just long enough" element is a
repeating theme in Pratchett's work. It shows up in MP, and less
magically, in TT, to name two. It's a matter of catching the moment
that makes it all work. It has to be the right moment, caught the
right way - exactly a million-to-one chance, and at the genuine last
minute, and you have to have made the effort -
And as far as not using paraphernalia is concerned - Rincewind has done
magic and almost always without any tools (TLF, he magically opened a lock
without tools other than mind and body), even though he usually is
channelling someone or something else's ambient magic. It _can_ be done.
It's just that the wizards feel better using more paraphernalia.
And witches do sometimes work better with some paraphernalia. Especailly
the lesser ones do, who make shambles, buy wands and elegant costumes,
etc. But in healing, the potions sometimes work better when they are
actually medical and not just headology. Magrat is a better doctor,
Granny is a better witch.
So when it comes down to the best of the best, either a witch or a wizard
can do magic without waving a wand. And at the other end of the scale,
either a witch or a wizard will use lots of stuff to help along a weaker
talent.
=Tamar
JB
Wow. I like this discussion of DW magic. It seems to hit all of the
major points I see in it.
Tom Shannon
Richard Eney wrote:
> Minor backing up: It's possible that in Lucas's universe there is some
> difference - perhaps the dark side is (as someone else posted) genuinely
> easier to get access to, and the light side is the finer or trickier
> energies that require more work to be able to use.
It is all that but IMO it goes a bit deeper. The dark side of the
force represents the "animal" in us. Its instinctive, base, and above
all emotional. Use your hatred for a foe, all your emotions, as a
weapon against him. The light side represents what I would call the
"higher" functions. It has to do with self-control, self-conciousness,
logic. The light side is harder and not as quick because its basically
a struggle against evolution. As I see it, it represents what it is
that makes us human.
> Anyway.
>
> First, some differences in Discworld wizard vs witch magic:
I think the difference may not have so much to do with the us of tools
as with which tools are used and, more generally, how they are used.
The witch magic and the wizard magic are basically the same thing
approached from different angles one being distinctly male, the other
distinctly female. The "male" side is more mathematical and
scientific, the "female" side is more verbal, more natural and better
able to recognize and use what's already available. A witch is more
likely to take an indirect approach rather than to pound directly at a
problem with greater sophistication and the tools used reflect that.
Tom S.
JB
>Richard Eney wrote:
>
>
>
>> Minor backing up: It's possible that in Lucas's universe there is some
>>difference - perhaps the dark side is (as someone else posted) genuinely
>>easier to get access to, and the light side is the finer or trickier
>>energies that require more work to be able to use.
>>
>>
>
>It is all that but IMO it goes a bit deeper. The dark side of the
>force represents the "animal" in us. Its instinctive, base, and above
>all emotional. Use your hatred for a foe, all your emotions, as a
>weapon against him. The light side represents what I would call the
>"higher" functions. It has to do with self-control, self-conciousness,
>logic. The light side is harder and not as quick because its basically
>a struggle against evolution. As I see it, it represents what it is
>that makes us human.
>
>
Interesting view. The dark side is more animal or reptillian - the
lighter side is more intelligent based.
I will have to chew on that.
It seems to me that witchcraft (and wizzardry) seem to combine both the
animal and higher-function sides
into one thing!
>>Anyway.
>>
>>First, some differences in Discworld wizard vs witch magic:
>>
>>
>
>I think the difference may not have so much to do with the us of tools
>as with which tools are used and, more generally, how they are used.
>The witch magic and the wizard magic are basically the same thing
>approached from different angles one being distinctly male, the other
>distinctly female. The "male" side is more mathematical and
>scientific, the "female" side is more verbal, more natural and better
>able to recognize and use what's already available. A witch is more
>likely to take an indirect approach rather than to pound directly at a
>problem with greater sophistication and the tools used reflect that.
>
>Tom S.
>
>
>
Another good point: magic has the two sides - the male and the female
(ER definitely shows us that wizards
are not just male witches - there is something qualitatively
different... otherwise a 'girl wizard' would just be a witch.
Thus it is clear that there is something in the approach to magic which
is different - not just magical ability.
Sanity
>> First, some differences in Discworld wizard vs witch magic:
>
> I think the difference may not have so much to do with the us of tools
> as with which tools are used and, more generally, how they are used.
> The witch magic and the wizard magic are basically the same thing
> approached from different angles one being distinctly male, the other
> distinctly female. The "male" side is more mathematical and
> scientific, the "female" side is more verbal, more natural and better
> able to recognize and use what's already available. A witch is more
> likely to take an indirect approach rather than to pound directly at a
> problem with greater sophistication and the tools used reflect that.
So, to sum it up: wizard's magic is about fireballs, witches' magic about
headology. Right?
--
TTFN, | AFPChess, L-Files & more:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
Michel AKA Sanity | Now available on Jabber: michel @ jabber.xs4all.nl
Trevor Marsh
>
> Of course, much of this may be misreading movies which 1) had
> astonishingly bad dialog 2) sagged under the weight of excessive CGI's 3)
> usually were poorly directed 4) seemed to reserve the leading roles for
> the worst actors and 5) started accidently from a summer movie lark.
>
> BTW: for those who haven't seen Episode III of Star Wars, Hayden
> Christensen's acting is so bad that it is only by context that the
> audience can tell his motivation.
Yes. To call him "wooden" would be insulting my kitchen cabinets.
Natalie Portman (who plays his wife),
> OTOH, has a bit more range - still it is sad to she her reduced from the
> firery strong-willed woman in previous episodes to a bare-foot and
> pregnant wife.
>
Exactly how Anikin would want her. Totally dependant on him.
Trev
Brian Wakeling
pan.2005.06.09....@news.affordable-prawns.co.uk,
Sanity uttered thus:
> "Tom Shannon" <tsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> First, some differences in Discworld wizard vs witch
>>> magic:
>>
>> I think the difference may not have so much to do with the
>> us of tools as with which tools are used and, more
>> generally, how they are used. The witch magic and the
>> wizard magic are basically the same thing approached from
>> different angles one being distinctly male, the other
>> distinctly female. The "male" side is more mathematical
>> and scientific, the "female" side is more verbal, more
>> natural and better able to recognize and use what's
>> already available. A witch is more likely to take an
>> indirect approach rather than to pound directly at a
>> problem with greater sophistication and the tools used
>> reflect that.
>
> So, to sum it up: wizard's magic is about fireballs,
> witches' magic about headology. Right?
I can't remember which one it's in, but I think there's a line
about how witches and wizards do magic, and it runs something
like this:
"A wizard would form a picture of the world how he wanted it
to be, then change the world to fit the picture. A witch would
merely move into the picture"
So the different magics approach the problem from different
directions. The wizards way uses more power, the witches way
uses less, but applies it to a distinct point. It's like the
difference between hand-carving a penny whistle, and using an
electric drill to make one. I think.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
"Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your week"
Tom Shannon
Brian Wakeling wrote:
> "A wizard would form a picture of the world how he wanted it
> to be, then change the world to fit the picture. A witch would
> merely move into the picture"
Whether its TP quoted directly or you summarizing it, its well said.
Much better than I could have done (or did). A witch is much more
likely to use what's available than to create something new (and almost
by definition, more complicated) to solve a problem.
There's something else I guess I'd like to (hesitantly) throw out.
Witches are much more nurturing than wizards. Its very verbal and very
stereotypically feminine. They tend to deal more with changing people
than changing the environment. Wizards concern themselves with
changing the world. Witches concern themselves with changing its
population. The wizardly concerns require a very physical, very
direct, very aggressive and very stereotypically male approach. The
witch's concerns generally require a more subtle and indirect approach.
"Headology" as someone up the thread (and of course TP) put it.
At least that's how I see it, generally speaking, always bearing in
mind that TP did an entire book explaining how a female became a
wizard. The differences in approach to magic have to do in part with
the stereotypical differences between the sexes. IMO it's a general
statement in a sort of "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus"
sort of way.
Tom S.
Bob
Great post
"JB" <Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu> wrote in message
news:d81t77$hds$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
Rocky Frisco
My (ubsolicited) opinion:
The thing that differntiates "the dark side of the force" from "the
force" seems to me to be similar to what makes the difference between
the good use of witchcraft from the evil or bad use: whether it is used
to initiate force against others or not. This is similar to the
Libertarian Principle. It all comes down to the Law of Thelema: the
individual will is sacred and must not be opposed except to defend the
will of others in their own lives.
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
Rocky Frisco's LIBERTY website: http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com/
The World's Best Daily News Service: http://www.rationalreview.com/
Rock onstage with JJ Cale and E. Clapton: http://tinyurl.com/3modw
Lesley Weston
ro...@rocky-frisco.com wrote on 10/07/2005 10:52 AM:
<snip entire Force/Dark Force discussion>
Hi Rocky! Good to see you back. Hope you'll stay around this time.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Rocky Frisco
> in article 5fdAe.16038$fV.7128@okepread06, Rocky Frisco at
> ro...@rocky-frisco.com wrote on 10/07/2005 10:52 AM:
>
> <snip entire Force/Dark Force discussion>
>
> Hi Rocky! Good to see you back. Hope you'll stay around this time.
Thanks!
I will probably lurk a bit and post occasionally until I manage to piss
somebody off again. :)
UPDATE: got a haircut and quit wearing The Hat.
Lister
<ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote:
>
>I will probably lurk a bit and post occasionally until I manage to piss
>somebody off again. :)
>
>UPDATE: got a haircut and quit wearing The Hat.
>
>-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
Although it doesn't look like it from that webpage :)
(Hello Mr Frisco)
--
How can I meet Kylie Minogue?
JB
> My (ubsolicited) opinion:
>
> The thing that differntiates "the dark side of the force" from "the
> force" seems to me to be similar to what makes the difference between
> the good use of witchcraft from the evil or bad use: whether it is
> used to initiate force against others or not. This is similar to the
> Libertarian Principle. It all comes down to the Law of Thelema: the
> individual will is sacred and must not be opposed except to defend the
> will of others in their own lives.
>
> -Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
> --
Rock,
I like the cut of your jib ...
If we're on the same page we agree: Applying physical strength to
dominate another and force them
into submission against their will is bad (e.g. robbery, rape, other
ugliness) - likewise applying economic,
religious, political, military, mystical, magical, headology, etc power
to dominate others and force them
to submit against their will is bad (within the limits of the Law of
Thelema). The issue is not the power it is the application of the power.
NOW. Getting back to Starwars and Witchcraft - Granny definitely
expresses your (and my) view in
Wierd Sister as well as in Witched Abroad. Granny has the power to run
people like puppets. She
certainly intimidates, cajoles and badgers people into doing what is
right (in her view at least) BUT
she never (like Lily) hijacks their self-determination. However, in
Star Wars the Jedi (AKA the good
guys) use the Jedi Mind Trick (tm) to hijack the will of others (perhaps
the others are weak-willed but
isn't it more dastardly to take advantage of the weak?) So, doesn't
the Star Wars philosophy fall
short of our ideals whereas the DW witchcraft fits nicely?
JB
ps. I piss everyone off on a regular basis, too. I guess it is a
testament of this list that I am not banned
from it.
Alec Cawley
says...
>
> UPDATE: got a haircut and quit wearing The Hat.
Could anybody with a haircut and not wearing The Hat be the real Rocky
Frisco? The world doubts and holds its breath. What other reversals of
the natural order will ensue?
--
@lec ©awley
http://www.livejournal.com/~randombler
mark
Rocky Frisco (ro...@rocky-frisco.com) was heard to remark...
> My (ubsolicited) opinion:
Got a cold? ;-)
ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCKYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY's back!
<snip />
--
"Dear me, what a strange place to put a walrus!"
- Baron Greenback, /Danger Mouse/
http://donotuselifts.net/
mark
(Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu) was heard to remark...
> I piss everyone off on a regular basis, too. I guess it is a
> testament of this list that I am not banned
> from it.
Oooooh, one of these days, Alice! Not a list not a list not a list ...
Rocky Frisco
Hey! Blessings on thee.
Haven't updated the picture yet.
Rocky Frisco
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>
>> My (ubsolicited) opinion:
>>
>> The thing that differntiates "the dark side of the force" from "the
>> force" seems to me to be similar to what makes the difference between
>> the good use of witchcraft from the evil or bad use: whether it is
>> used to initiate force against others or not. This is similar to the
>> Libertarian Principle. It all comes down to the Law of Thelema: the
>> individual will is sacred and must not be opposed except to defend the
>> will of others in their own lives.
> Rock,
>
> I like the cut of your jib ...
> If we're on the same page we agree: Applying physical strength to
> dominate another and force them
> into submission against their will is bad (e.g. robbery, rape, other
> ugliness) - likewise applying economic,
> religious, political, military, mystical, magical, headology, etc power
> to dominate others and force them
> to submit against their will is bad (within the limits of the Law of
> Thelema). The issue is not the power it is the application of the power.
Yes. Reserving the opinion that power (over others) DOES most definitely
corrupt humans, as long as the power is not used to initiate force
against others, it remains benign.
Knowing that it is the nature of Pratchett newsgroups to counter almost
any opinion, I welcome any example that disproves this assertion, as
long as it does not lead the thread off-topic.
> NOW. Getting back to Starwars and Witchcraft - Granny definitely
> expresses your (and my) view in
> Wierd Sister as well as in Witched Abroad. Granny has the power to run
> people like puppets. She
> certainly intimidates, cajoles and badgers people into doing what is
> right (in her view at least) BUT
> she never (like Lily) hijacks their self-determination. However, in
> Star Wars the Jedi (AKA the good
> guys) use the Jedi Mind Trick (tm) to hijack the will of others (perhaps
> the others are weak-willed but
> isn't it more dastardly to take advantage of the weak?) So, doesn't
> the Star Wars philosophy fall
> short of our ideals whereas the DW witchcraft fits nicely?
Well, first I must say, I can't recall where the "mind trick" was used
in any way except for self protection, so that would still satisfy the
criterion, since it was not initiating force. The will to defend one's
self is, to me, almost as important as the principle of non-agression,
since both are rational, effective responses based on respect for each
and all others, as well as one's self. With all due respect for the
opinions of pacifists, it's my opinion that refraining from self-defense
teaches perpetrators to continue their depredations.
On the other hand, I won't be alarmed if somebody here can reference a
"bad" use of the trick by a "good" Jedi, somewhere in the series, since
I really do think that Terry has more insight into human behavior than
George Lucas. One of the "mind tricks" I use to make this sort of
judgement is to imagine what the world would be like if the person were
an absolute ruler. or god. I think I could live a good, full life in a
Terry Pratchett universe, whereas I think, even though I think he's
probably a nice person, a Lucas universe would soon devolve into at
least as dire a Hell as this one is.
> ps. I piss everyone off on a regular basis, too. I guess it is a
> testament of this list that I am not banned
> from it.
Well, actually, I banned myself, for nasty behavior. It was justified,
but uncalled for, if that makes any sense at all. Sometimes I find it
very difficult not to be a fool-killer, even though that's not properly
non-aggressive. I have a tendency to show contempt toward statists and
other supporters of evil; their ignorance and programmed condition might
possibly protect them from personal guilt, but the evil they allow and
support does grievously harm others, so I group them with those who
initiate force and violence.
Rocky Frisco
> In article <fEeAe.16045$fV.15030@okepread06>, ro...@rocky-frisco.com
> says...
>
>>UPDATE: got a haircut and quit wearing The Hat.
> Could anybody with a haircut and not wearing The Hat be the real Rocky
> Frisco? The world doubts and holds its breath. What other reversals of
> the natural order will ensue?
The only observable change so far is far more interest from some women.
If something as shallow as a haircut makes that difference to them, I
doubt I would find their company stimulating, so I have remained unmoved
so far, except the ones with REALLY big tracts of land. <--humour
Rocky Frisco
> While recovering from a recent, uncomfortable transmembrification,
> Rocky Frisco (ro...@rocky-frisco.com) was heard to remark...
>
>>My (ubsolicited) opinion:
> Got a cold? ;-)
Currently suffering from a hot.
> ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCKYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY's back!
My front too! :)
Lister
<ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote:
>Lister wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:27:44 -0500, Rocky Frisco
>> <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I will probably lurk a bit and post occasionally until I manage to piss
>>>somebody off again. :)
>>>
>>>UPDATE: got a haircut and quit wearing The Hat.
>>>
>>>-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Although it doesn't look like it from that webpage :)
>>
>> (Hello Mr Frisco)
>
>Hey! Blessings on thee.
>
Cool, I've been blessed :)
Lesley Weston
ro...@rocky-frisco.com wrote on 10/07/2005 12:27 PM:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> in article 5fdAe.16038$fV.7128@okepread06, Rocky Frisco at
>> ro...@rocky-frisco.com wrote on 10/07/2005 10:52 AM:
>>
>> <snip entire Force/Dark Force discussion>
>>
>> Hi Rocky! Good to see you back. Hope you'll stay around this time.
>
> Thanks!
>
> I will probably lurk a bit and post occasionally until I manage to piss
> somebody off again. :)
Everybody pisses everybody else off here - don't worry about it.
>
> UPDATE: got a haircut and quit wearing The Hat.
!!!!!
JB
>While recovering from a recent, uncomfortable transmembrification, JB
>(Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu) was heard to remark...
>
>
>>I piss everyone off on a regular basis, too. I guess it is a
>>testament of this list that I am not banned
>>from it.
>>
>>
>
>Oooooh, one of these days, Alice! Not a list not a list not a list ...
>
>
>
>
Sigh. OK. Usenet Group. ;)
JB
> JB wrote:
>
>> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>>
>>> My (ubsolicited) opinion:
>>>
>>> The thing that differntiates "the dark side of the force" from "the
>>> force" seems to me to be similar to what makes the difference
>>> between the good use of witchcraft from the evil or bad use: whether
>>> it is used to initiate force against others or not.
>>
> [...]
> Yes. Reserving the opinion that power (over others) DOES most
> definitely corrupt humans, as long as the power is not used to
> initiate force against others, it remains benign.
Good point. It is the INITIATION of the forcing others - not responding
to it.
Of course, that can lead us to dangerous waters -- I cannot recall the
book but Sam Vimes killed someone
(in the line of duty) and observed that if he had made a glib comment it
would have been murder.
Alas, it is difficult to know exactly when one has stopped waging a
defensive 'war' and started taking the
war to the enemy. At what point does this become an abuse of power?
(I'm scrupulously avoiding any
RW examples because A) I don't want to go there and B) I suspect, if I
thought hard, I could come up
with DW examples)
>> NOW. Getting back to Starwars and Witchcraft - Granny definitely
>> expresses your (and my) view in
>> Wierd Sister as well as in Witched Abroad. Granny has the power to
>> run people like puppets. She
>> certainly intimidates, cajoles and badgers people into doing what is
>> right (in her view at least) BUT
>> she never (like Lily) hijacks their self-determination. However, in
>> Star Wars the Jedi (AKA the good
>> guys) use the Jedi Mind Trick (tm) to hijack the will of others
>> (perhaps the others are weak-willed but
>> isn't it more dastardly to take advantage of the weak?) So, doesn't
>> the Star Wars philosophy fall
>> short of our ideals whereas the DW witchcraft fits nicely?
>
>
> Well, first I must say, I can't recall where the "mind trick" was used
> in any way except for self protection, so that would still satisfy the
> criterion, since it was not initiating force. The will to defend one's
> self is, to me, almost as important as the principle of non-agression,
> [...]
Hmmm. I'll have to think about it - but off hand I think you've made an
excellent point: the Jedi's use the power
defensively.
> [...] since I really do think that Terry has more insight into human
> behavior than George Lucas.
Hear, hear. That is one reason I started this thread - it seemed that
Lucas' view of human nature was
simple-minded (one of the comments I made was the application of anger
or possessiveness: in Star Wars
it leads Jedi's to ruin - in DW it fueled Tiffany Aching to beat the Queen
> [...] I think I could live a good, full life in a Terry Pratchett
> universe, whereas I think, even though I think he's probably a nice
> person, a Lucas universe would soon devolve into at least as dire a
> Hell as this one is.
>
Interesting way to look at it - and I agree. When I read DW books,
there is a certain comfort I derive from
seeing a world which works in this manner. WHen I see Star Wars I get
the nagging feeling that the main
difference between the good guys and the bad is which side they happen
to be on.
ALSO, in Practhett's universe, good people are not holy, unworldly
beings: they have flaws and have to wrestle
with their demons. Vimes and Granny, spring to mind as two people who
must be ever vigilant to avoid falling
into their respective traps. To me, this makes them far more heroic.
There is a quote (I'm paraphrasing)
"Many a man has been a hero on a fine morning, after a good
night's sleep and a good meal -
who would have proven a coward on a stormy morning, after a
restless night and while hungry."
Vimes and Granny are heroic even without sleep, sustenance or comfort.
mark
Please. USENET froup ;-)
Rocky Frisco
> ALSO, in Practhett's universe, good people are not holy, unworldly
> beings: they have flaws and have to wrestle
> with their demons. Vimes and Granny, spring to mind as two people who
> must be ever vigilant to avoid falling
> into their respective traps. To me, this makes them far more heroic.
> There is a quote (I'm paraphrasing)
> "Many a man has been a hero on a fine morning, after a good
> night's sleep and a good meal -
> who would have proven a coward on a stormy morning, after a
> restless night and while hungry."
>
> Vimes and Granny are heroic even without sleep, sustenance or comfort.
I suspect our Terry would himself be the same. I would sure like to read
a book by TP that contained no overt fantasy or S-F elements, but dealt
with the ever-darkening universal slide toward the concentration of
political power in our world, coupled with the avoidance of
responsibility that characterizes Designated Authority these days.
Then, I guess, he would really be "guilty of literature."
beth...@yahoo.co.uk
Welcome back Rocky. You know it really is weird. I am about the same
age as you.(67) Until very recently I had long hair (I was a Willie
Nelson lookalike) but had it cut short. We will have to stop this
cloning!!:-)
BriD(Sorry about the off topic)
Bruce Sinclair
>JB wrote:
>
>> ALSO, in Practhett's universe, good people are not holy, unworldly
>> beings: they have flaws and have to wrestle
>> with their demons. Vimes and Granny, spring to mind as two people who
>> must be ever vigilant to avoid falling
>> into their respective traps. To me, this makes them far more heroic.
>> There is a quote (I'm paraphrasing)
>> "Many a man has been a hero on a fine morning, after a good
>> night's sleep and a good meal -
>> who would have proven a coward on a stormy morning, after a
>> restless night and while hungry."
>>
>> Vimes and Granny are heroic even without sleep, sustenance or comfort.
>
>I suspect our Terry would himself be the same. I would sure like to read
>a book by TP that contained no overt fantasy or S-F elements, but dealt
>with the ever-darkening universal slide toward the concentration of
>political power in our world, coupled with the avoidance of
>responsibility that characterizes Designated Authority these days.
>
>Then, I guess, he would really be "guilty of literature."
IMO, one of the reasons DW works better than starwars is the characters. SW
is good vs evil pure and simple - it's the whole plot. DW is people vs
people. This quote springs to mind ...
I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.
Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards !
The DW characters are "real" - if possibly a bit charicatured (lampooned
might be a better word ?) ... but we all know people who are "a bit" like
these characters with their own agendas and styles. I know I do :)
Believability is everything here.
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
JB
> JB wrote:
>
>> ALSO, in Practhett's universe, good people are not holy, unworldly
>> beings: they have flaws and have to wrestle
>> with their demons. Vimes and Granny, spring to mind as two people
>> who must be ever vigilant to avoid falling
>> into their respective traps. To me, this makes them far more
>> heroic. There is a quote (I'm paraphrasing)
>> "Many a man has been a hero on a fine morning, after a
>> good night's sleep and a good meal -
>> who would have proven a coward on a stormy morning, after
>> a restless night and while hungry."
>>
>> Vimes and Granny are heroic even without sleep, sustenance or comfort.
>
>
> I suspect our Terry would himself be the same. I would sure like to
> read a book by TP that contained no overt fantasy or S-F elements, but
> dealt with the ever-darkening universal slide toward the concentration
> of political power in our world, coupled with the avoidance of
> responsibility that characterizes Designated Authority these days.
>
> Then, I guess, he would really be "guilty of literature."
>
As most everyone on this "froup" knows by now - I see diskworld as a
satrical mirror to RW.
The wizards, witches, trolls, vampires, monks, gods, Death are all
devices which allow Terry to
comment upon RW safely (not in the sense that irate professors would
string him up if he openly
ridiculed academia - but he provides us a buffer so it is safe for us to
laugh at ourselves). I am
not alone in this POV.
I think he has commented profoundly on power, aggregating power and
abusing power in various
novels. CJ, G!G!, L&L, Jingo, GP, MAA - all deal with people (I use
the term loosely) seeking
power over other people. Sam Vimes repeatedly decries the avoidance of
responsibility as
evidenced by a desire for another king.
Another advantage of doing it the DW way - characters like Lord Rust can
stand in for any foolish
wanna-be war hero.... throughout the ages. If Terry wrote a book about
say, G W Bush, it would
become dated, put off some people who should entertain those thoughts,
but most importantly, mislead
people to think that that particular leader was special in his
upbraiding of rights and persuit of power.
By making it a fictional character, it condemns the whole lot of those
who seek power over their fellow
humans - instead of pointing the finger at one or two scape goats.
OK. I'll step off of my soap box now.
Stacie Hanes
<snip>
> As most everyone on this "froup" knows by now - I see diskworld as a
> satrical mirror to RW.
> The wizards, witches, trolls, vampires, monks, gods, Death are all
> devices which allow Terry to
> comment upon RW safely (not in the sense that irate professors would
> string him up if he openly
> ridiculed academia - but he provides us a buffer so it is safe for us
> to laugh at ourselves). I am
> not alone in this POV.
If there's such a thing as "Pratchett scholarship" then yes, that's what
most of the "Pratchett scholars" think.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
http://esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
Rocky Frisco
> Welcome back Rocky. You know it really is weird. I am about the same
> age as you.(67) Until very recently I had long hair (I was a Willie
> Nelson lookalike) but had it cut short. We will have to stop this
> cloning!!:-)
>
> BriD(Sorry about the off topic)
Must be wunna them ideas what's time has came.
Rocky Frisco
Might as well; you made your point well. :)
Perhaps my suggestion was based on the fact that some literary snobs
will never totally credit the genius of any genre work, no matter how
great it might be. I have no doubt that Terry could write the Definitive
Great Novel if he wanted to.
Lesley Weston
But isn't it the point (or part of the point) that he doesn't want to? To
paraphrase Himself "Picasso pretended he couldn't draw, but if you had held
a gun to his head, you'd have found he could draw just fine." The Definitive
Great Novel would cause generations of schoolchildren to hate him for having
written it and nobody else would read it; he can make the same points and
write just as well while disguising it all as fantasy, and comic fantasy at
that, which gives him an enormous audience of enthusiastic readers.
JB
Thanx
>>Perhaps my suggestion was based on the fact that some literary snobs
>>will never totally credit the genius of any genre work, no matter how
>>great it might be. I have no doubt that Terry could write the Definitive
>>Great Novel if he wanted to.
>>
>>
>
>But isn't it the point (or part of the point) that he doesn't want to? To
>paraphrase Himself "Picasso pretended he couldn't draw, but if you had held
>a gun to his head, you'd have found he could draw just fine." The Definitive
>Great Novel would cause generations of schoolchildren to hate him for having
>written it and nobody else would read it; he can make the same points and
>write just as well while disguising it all as fantasy, and comic fantasy at
>that, which gives him an enormous audience of enthusiastic readers.
>
>
Whoa. I can see that I am in over my head now ...
"It is better to remain silent and have everyone think you a fool than
open your mouth and remove all doubt"
/Oh-oh... what does that mean? I'd better say something./... Yeah? It
takes one to know one!/ Swish!/
The Simpsons
David Jensen
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
<BEF99A47.38AA4%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>in article tmTAe.16148$fV.12456@okepread06, Rocky Frisco at
>ro...@rocky-frisco.com wrote on 12/07/2005 10:47 AM:
>> Might as well; you made your point well. :)
>>
>> Perhaps my suggestion was based on the fact that some literary snobs
>> will never totally credit the genius of any genre work, no matter how
>> great it might be. I have no doubt that Terry could write the Definitive
>> Great Novel if he wanted to.
>
>But isn't it the point (or part of the point) that he doesn't want to? To
>paraphrase Himself "Picasso pretended he couldn't draw, but if you had held
>a gun to his head, you'd have found he could draw just fine." The Definitive
>Great Novel would cause generations of schoolchildren to hate him for having
>written it and nobody else would read it; he can make the same points and
>write just as well while disguising it all as fantasy, and comic fantasy at
>that, which gives him an enormous audience of enthusiastic readers.
Has a book ever been improved because it was discovered by secondary
school teachers?
NOTICE
PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be
prosecuted;
persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons
attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.
BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR, Per G.G., Chief of Ordnance.
Stacie Hanes
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:02:17 GMT, in alt.books.pratchett
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> <BEF99A47.38AA4%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>> in article tmTAe.16148$fV.12456@okepread06, Rocky Frisco at
>> ro...@rocky-frisco.com wrote on 12/07/2005 10:47 AM:
> ...
>>> Might as well; you made your point well. :)
>>>
>>> Perhaps my suggestion was based on the fact that some literary snobs
>>> will never totally credit the genius of any genre work, no matter
>>> how great it might be. I have no doubt that Terry could write the
>>> Definitive Great Novel if he wanted to.
>>
>> But isn't it the point (or part of the point) that he doesn't want
>> to? To paraphrase Himself "Picasso pretended he couldn't draw, but
>> if you had held a gun to his head, you'd have found he could draw
>> just fine." The Definitive Great Novel would cause generations of
>> schoolchildren to hate him for having written it and nobody else
>> would read it; he can make the same points and write just as well
>> while disguising it all as fantasy, and comic fantasy at that, which
>> gives him an enormous audience of enthusiastic readers.
>
> Has a book ever been improved because it was discovered by secondary
> school teachers?
Yes. Maybe I'm a broken record, but the idea that any art is improved by not
thinking about it is ludicrous.
Ed Weatherup
> David Jensen wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Has a book ever been improved because it was discovered by
>>>> secondary school teachers?
>>>
>>> Yes. Maybe I'm a broken record, but the idea that any art is
>>> improved by not thinking about it is ludicrous.
>>
>> think about what the author was saying. It was more a demand that I
>> accept the interpretation that the teacher had.
>
> I teach college anyway. But I'm chronically sick of the sentiment that
> analyzing the Sacred Pratchett Texts somehow ruins them.
Absolute agreed but I understood your comment to say that the Sacred
Pratchett Texts (SPT) are improved by being discovered by secondary school
teachers. Surely the idea that the art itself is changed in anyway by
thinking about it is ludicrous?
> Not that that's what you said, it's just an easy trigger to trip.
I've been resisting your comment up there all day! ;-))
> Yeah, there are bad teachers and bad critics, and I'll alllow it's
> possible to overdo anything.
--
Ed.
David Jensen
"Stacie Hanes" <house_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<WN8Be.2862$dU3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>David Jensen wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Has a book ever been improved because it was discovered by secondary
>>>> school teachers?
>>>
>>> Yes. Maybe I'm a broken record, but the idea that any art is
>>> improved by not thinking about it is ludicrous.
>>
>> think about what the author was saying. It was more a demand that I
>> accept the interpretation that the teacher had.
>
>I teach college anyway. But I'm chronically sick of the sentiment that
>analyzing the Sacred Pratchett Texts somehow ruins them.
The problem I had with Reading for School was that until I got to
college, I never got the sense that my teachers enjoyed the books they
were teaching. It was all spinach. Could the book be fun to read?
Wherever did that idea come from?
With an approach like that, they could ruin any book.
>Not that that's what you said, it's just an easy trigger to trip.
I understand.
>Yeah, there are bad teachers and bad critics, and I'll alllow it's possible
>to overdo anything.
And there are good teachers and I had them, but not till college, where
you got to read and discuss, not read and get told.
David Jensen
>David Jensen wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:02:17 GMT, in alt.books.pratchett
>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> <BEF99A47.38AA4%brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>>> in article tmTAe.16148$fV.12456@okepread06, Rocky Frisco at
>>> ro...@rocky-frisco.com wrote on 12/07/2005 10:47 AM:
>> ...
>>>> Might as well; you made your point well. :)
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps my suggestion was based on the fact that some literary snobs
>>>> will never totally credit the genius of any genre work, no matter
>>>> how great it might be. I have no doubt that Terry could write the
>>>> Definitive Great Novel if he wanted to.
>>>
>>> But isn't it the point (or part of the point) that he doesn't want
>>> to? To paraphrase Himself "Picasso pretended he couldn't draw, but
>>> if you had held a gun to his head, you'd have found he could draw
>>> just fine." The Definitive Great Novel would cause generations of
>>> schoolchildren to hate him for having written it and nobody else
>>> would read it; he can make the same points and write just as well
>>> while disguising it all as fantasy, and comic fantasy at that, which
>>> gives him an enormous audience of enthusiastic readers.
>>
>> Has a book ever been improved because it was discovered by secondary
>> school teachers?
>
>Yes. Maybe I'm a broken record, but the idea that any art is improved by not
>thinking about it is ludicrous.
My high school experience didn't actually included being asked to think
Lister
<house_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I teach college anyway. But I'm chronically sick of the sentiment that
>analyzing the Sacred Pratchett Texts somehow ruins them.
>
>Not that that's what you said, it's just an easy trigger to trip.
>
>Yeah, there are bad teachers and bad critics, and I'll alllow it's possible
>to overdo anything.
You can never have enough air
(or, for that matter, Discworld books)
Stacie Hanes
>>>
>>> Has a book ever been improved because it was discovered by secondary
>>> school teachers?
>>
>> Yes. Maybe I'm a broken record, but the idea that any art is
>> improved by not thinking about it is ludicrous.
>
> My high school experience didn't actually included being asked to
> think about what the author was saying. It was more a demand that I
> accept the interpretation that the teacher had.
I teach college anyway. But I'm chronically sick of the sentiment that
analyzing the Sacred Pratchett Texts somehow ruins them.
Not that that's what you said, it's just an easy trigger to trip.
Yeah, there are bad teachers and bad critics, and I'll alllow it's possible
to overdo anything.
--
Lister
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, there are bad teachers and bad critics, and I'll alllow it's possible
>>to overdo anything.
>
>And there are good teachers and I had them,
What, all of them?
*runs*
Stacie Hanes
Definitely understandable. I've been in classes I didn't much care for--and
by now I've been in a *lot* of classes.
I'm not always this grouchy. Life has been sort of acting up lately.
I get your point, though. College seems to be where the fun starts. That may
not be true, but it's what I'm feeling right this minute, if you'll bear
with me. I read my first Discworld novel for a college lit class. I was
probably headed that way anyway, but that book in that setting may be part
of what shaped the last decade of my life. I was a reader already, always
have been, but I got college = fun thoroughly implanted in my head.
I've taught freshman composition with a Buffy theme; it's only a matter of
time until I sneak a Discworld novel in there. Except that I don't have to
sneak . . . it's perfectly acceptable.
I feel like elementary and secondary schools have lost the mission somehow.
No one seems to enjoy it very much, not the teachers, not the students. And
whatever they're doing, it seems to be other than learning to read and write
well. Maybe they *should* 86 the canon and get more popular fiction in
there, like Discworld and so on, and make it enjoyable enough that people
equate school with pleasure and not torture.
Rant over, sorry if anyone got splashed.
Stacie Hanes
> Stacie Hanes wrote:
>> David Jensen wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Has a book ever been improved because it was discovered by
>>>>> secondary school teachers?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Maybe I'm a broken record, but the idea that any art is
>>>> improved by not thinking about it is ludicrous.
>>>
>>> My high school experience didn't actually included being asked to
>>> think about what the author was saying. It was more a demand that I
>>> accept the interpretation that the teacher had.
>>
>> I teach college anyway. But I'm chronically sick of the sentiment
>> that analyzing the Sacred Pratchett Texts somehow ruins them.
>
> Absolute agreed but I understood your comment to say that the Sacred
> Pratchett Texts (SPT) are improved by being discovered by secondary
> school teachers. Surely the idea that the art itself is changed in
> anyway by thinking about it is ludicrous?
Yeah. What I said, not quite what I meant. I admit I was responding to a
sentiment he didn't quite express. I did think it was closely realted,
though.
As I said, it's easy to set me off on that subject.
Brian Wakeling
w2gBe.4569$BK1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net,
Stacie Hanes uttered thus:
> David Jensen wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:36:54 GMT, in alt.books.pratchett
>> "Stacie Hanes" <house_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <WN8Be.2862$dU3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>> David Jensen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has a book ever been improved because it was
>>>>>> discovered by secondary school teachers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Maybe I'm a broken record, but the idea that any
>>>>> art is improved by not thinking about it is ludicrous.
>>>>
>>>> My high school experience didn't actually included being
>>>> asked to think about what the author was saying. It was
>>>> more a demand that I accept the interpretation that the
>>>> teacher had.
>>>
>>> I teach college anyway. But I'm chronically sick of the
>>> sentiment that analyzing the Sacred Pratchett Texts
>>> somehow ruins them.
>>
>> The problem I had with Reading for School was that until I
>> got to college, I never got the sense that my teachers
>> enjoyed the books they were teaching. It was all spinach.
>> Could the book be fun to read? Wherever did that idea come
>> from?
All we ever got to read (or was read to us) at school was
"classics" - The 39 Steps, Peter Pan, Sherlock Holmes, Lord of
the Flies, Great Expectations, and of course, Shakespeare.
They gave us the interesting ones at primary school, when they
were read by the teacher to the whole class. When we got to
secondary school, we were apparently trusted enough to read
for ourselves, and we got the most boring and
difficult-to-read pile of albatross shite that ever disgraced
the name of literature. It wasn't as if they were well-known
Shakespeare plays, even!
With an approach like that, they have ruined many an aspiring
reader's interest in books.
<snip>
>
> I get your point, though. College seems to be where the fun
> starts. That may not be true, but it's what I'm feeling
> right this minute, if you'll bear with me. I read my first
> Discworld novel for a college lit class. I was probably
> headed that way anyway, but that book in that setting may
> be part of what shaped the last decade of my life. I was a
> reader already, always have been, but I got college = fun
> thoroughly implanted in my head.
When I went to university, part of the course was entitled
"text and context", and it was in this module that we had to
study what had been written when and why. There were various
books suggested for background reading, and I believe the only
reason "Witches Abroad" got onto the reading list was because
of Steve, the crazy Aussie lecturer who stopped watches
working and worked for The List over the weekend.
> I've taught freshman composition with a Buffy theme; it's
> only a matter of time until I sneak a Discworld novel in
> there. Except that I don't have to sneak . . . it's
> perfectly acceptable.
> I feel like elementary and secondary schools have lost the
> mission somehow. No one seems to enjoy it very much, not
> the teachers, not the students. And whatever they're doing,
> it seems to be other than learning to read and write well.
> Maybe they *should* 86 the canon and get more popular
> fiction in there, like Discworld and so on, and make it
> enjoyable enough that people equate school with pleasure
> and not torture.
> Rant over, sorry if anyone got splashed.
I have a rant somewhere about the canon, which I had to do for
the said "text and context" module of my course. If anyone's
interested, I can dig it out. I seem to remember it had a fair
bit of railing at the establishment and their circular
reasoning in it.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
"An Englishman, even if he is alone, forms an orderly queue of
one."
- George Mikes
Alec Cawley
@gmail.com says...
> You can never have enough air
On the contrary. If you breathe air at an excessively high pressure, you
will get oxygen drunkenness and eventually die of oxygen poisoning. Too
much air will kill.
--
@lec ©awley
http://www.livejournal.com/~randombler
Lister
wrote:
>In article <727ad15bgiobl4vts...@4ax.com>, misterlister169
>@gmail.com says...
>
>> You can never have enough air
>
>On the contrary. If you breathe air at an excessively high pressure, you
>will get oxygen drunkenness and eventually die of oxygen poisoning. Too
>much air will kill.
OK, I'll rephrase that, "you can never have enough air, at the right
pressure"
Stacie Hanes
> In a speech called
> w2gBe.4569$BK1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net,
> Stacie Hanes uttered thus:
>> Maybe they *should* 86 the canon and get more popular
>> fiction in there, like Discworld and so on, and make it
>> enjoyable enough that people equate school with pleasure
>> and not torture.
>> Rant over, sorry if anyone got splashed.
>
> I have a rant somewhere about the canon, which I had to do for
> the said "text and context" module of my course. If anyone's
> interested, I can dig it out. I seem to remember it had a fair
> bit of railing at the establishment and their circular
> reasoning in it.
Let me backpedal just a bit. I sort of meant save the canon for LATER when
people are a bit more prepared. Some of it's not easy and shouldn't be
forced on people when more enjoyable stuff can do the job better and easier.
And some of the canon is certainly arguable. I just reread _Lady Audley's
Secret_ which has half its value as a history lesson, not literature. I've
heard it referred to (and I agree) as "high-grade Victorian shlock."
Okay . . . line of reasoning: literature is partly for fulfillment and
enjoyment, and partly to help humanize people. There's no reason it has to
be George Eliot instead of Terry Pratchett *at any certain point*.
Not saying that people shouldn't read Eliot. I just read _The Mill on the
Floss_ and liked it. But I'm up to my eyeballs in 19th century BritLit. And
I think there's a general feeling among the widely read that Shakespeare had
humans down pretty well, so Shakespeare has value. Chaucer . . . gotta
respect jokes with a 600 year shelf-life.
And yes, I think it's important to know why writers wrote what they wrote,
so you can maybe understand the life you're living in a little better. But
There *are* good contemporary works and writers, and maybe they'd better
serve the cause of education in the late elementary and secondary schools.
Perhaps not exclusively--people should know Shakespeare *exists* before they
get to college--but something's weird, and feels like it's going wrong with
the whole system.
JB
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:36:54 GMT, "Stacie Hanes"
><house_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>I teach college anyway. But I'm chronically sick of the sentiment that
>>analyzing the Sacred Pratchett Texts somehow ruins them.
>>
>>Not that that's what you said, it's just an easy trigger to trip.
>>
>>Yeah, there are bad teachers and bad critics, and I'll alllow it's possible
>>to overdo anything.
>>
>>
>
>
>You can never have enough air
>
>
>
10,000 feat of air without a parachute isn't a good thing!
>(or, for that matter, Discworld books)
>
>
OK. You got me there ;_)
JB
>[...]
>
>
>I get your point, though. College seems to be where the fun starts. That may
>not be true, but it's what I'm feeling right this minute, if you'll bear
>with me. I read my first Discworld novel for a college lit class. I was
>probably headed that way anyway, but that book in that setting may be part
>of what shaped the last decade of my life. I was a reader already, always
>have been, but I got college = fun thoroughly implanted in my head.
>
>I've taught freshman composition with a Buffy theme; it's only a matter of
>time until I sneak a Discworld novel in there. Except that I don't have to
>sneak . . . it's perfectly acceptable.
>
>I feel like elementary and secondary schools have lost the mission somehow.
>No one seems to enjoy it very much, not the teachers, not the students. And
>whatever they're doing, it seems to be other than learning to read and write
>well. Maybe they *should* 86 the canon and get more popular fiction in
>there, like Discworld and so on, and make it enjoyable enough that people
>equate school with pleasure and not torture.
>
>Rant over, sorry if anyone got splashed.
>
>
No. This is cool.
I was born to be a science geek (which explains my poor social skills
... sorry ;) I *never* liked
reading for 'fun' when I was a kid - No. I lie. When I was little I
read kid's books for fun. When
I was a teenager I read science books for fun. Not even my Aunt (who
taught English in College)
could convince me to read literature. I *hated* literature - Dickens?
Puh-leeze... you can tell he
was paid by the word! (I could go on). Finally, in High School I had
an English teacher who
was having us read some of Twain's essays - by this time I had learned
to 'fake it', but she was too
clever and used to issue a 'call slip' to summon me to her office and
make me do my reading assignments
right there in front of her (as she graded her papers, etc). I didn't
balked because she was young and
all of us adolescents had crushes on her [Why didn't *I* ever have on of
those teachers who slept with
her students?] Anyway, eventually, she got me hooked on Twain's
satircal, sardonic, evil, twisted and
delicious view of life. I read ambrose Beirce (whose name I canot spel)
and Swift. And others.
Anyway, the reason I *love* DW books is they have the insight into
humanity that is only common
to great satire but don't have the bitter edge to them. Somehow, the
nastiness of humanity is softened
by the shining examples of the good side. Kind of like saying "For
every Hitler or Stalin, there are a million
of good, decent, honest humans who fight not for some grand cause but
simply strive to earn their way in
this world without causing undue harm to others."
Bruce Sinclair
Contrariwise, excessive thinking about it and taking it apart can ruin art.
All poetry except "murder in the cathedral" for me. School also had a near
miss with spoiling shakespeare for me.
IMO, all "assigned books" were spoiled for me. Excessive complexity whether
the book's author intended it or not will do that ... at least it will for
me :)
Art shouild provoke a response ... that could be thinking ... but it might
not be either :)
Stacie Hanes
Can, I guess. But I don't see it. I have to acknowledge that some people
feel that way. I came up with a reading of _Goblin Market_ that I think
really works. Convinced my professors, even, and my girlfriend--the latter
really enjoyed the paper. But she told me she doesn't look at GM the same
way anymore. It's more intellectual and less "fun."
Which I just don't understand. For me, taking it apart reveals more to
enjoy.
I guess I have to deman the qualifier "for some people," because I simply do
not see it. I really can't understand how.
Without readers, a book is inert. All of the effect comes from the reader
thinking about the book. There's no other place for the meaning to live.
Opening the text to interpretation an analysis just means more sources of
pleasure, for me. It's like more surface area or something.
You don't have to try to convince me that it's different for other people,
that's clear enough. I just don't understand limiting oneself to one way of
seeing.
> IMO, all "assigned books" were spoiled for me. Excessive complexity
> whether
> the book's author intended it or not will do that ... at least it
> will for
> me :)
I'm torn between "I don't groove on the simple," which is true, and "what's
excessive?" which is also true, as a question. <shrug> Human communication
is complex. Books are complex. I don't feel there's any gain in trying to
treat them as simple, unless you're talking picture books, and even then I
have my doubts.
> Art shouild provoke a response ... that could be thinking ... but it
> might
> not be either :)
Well . . . emotion is a different way of knowing. Proustian, not Platonic.
It's roughly equivalent, I think. I mean in usefulness, value, whatever.
Different, but not inferior. I don't think you gain from a simple response
unless you also reflect on it, but maybe that's just me. I mean, does anyone
just look at a painting or read a book, feel something, and not consider the
feeling? Seems weird.
Say, Magrat and the elf queen. She suddenly felt something, and knew. She
didn't look it up in a book, despite being the intellectual sort of witch.
Just to throw in some topicality.
I guess analysis is a less innocent form of enjoyment.
Richard Eney
Back in .. June? Gosh, I'm way behind reading a.b.p....
Stacie Hanes <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Brian Wakeling wrote:
>> Stacie Hanes uttered thus:
>
>>> Maybe they *should* 86 the canon and get more popular
>>> fiction in there, like Discworld and so on, and make it
>>> enjoyable enough that people equate school with pleasure
>>> and not torture.
>>> Rant over, sorry if anyone got splashed.
>>
>> I have a rant somewhere about the canon, which I had to do for
>> the said "text and context" module of my course. If anyone's
>> interested, I can dig it out. I seem to remember it had a fair
>> bit of railing at the establishment and their circular
>> reasoning in it.
>
>Let me backpedal just a bit. I sort of meant save the canon for LATER when
>people are a bit more prepared. Some of it's not easy and shouldn't be
>forced on people when more enjoyable stuff can do the job better and easier.
>And some of the canon is certainly arguable. I just reread _Lady Audley's
>Secret_ which has half its value as a history lesson, not literature. I've
>heard it referred to (and I agree) as "high-grade Victorian shlock."
I finally read that, as a history lesson (voluntary - I'd heard of it and
was curious). It's a bad book. Not only is it totally dated (hence its
value as history), it's based on inaccurate biology. Argh.
>Okay . . . line of reasoning: literature is partly for fulfillment and
>enjoyment, and partly to help humanize people. There's no reason it has to
>be George Eliot instead of Terry Pratchett *at any certain point*.
Absolutely.
>I think there's a general feeling among the widely read that Shakespeare
>had humans down pretty well, so Shakespeare has value. Chaucer . . .
>gotta respect jokes with a 600 year shelf-life.
>And yes, I think it's important to know why writers wrote what they
>wrote, so you can maybe understand the life you're living in a little
>better. But There *are* good contemporary works and writers, and maybe
>they'd better serve the cause of education in the late elementary and
>secondary schools. Perhaps not exclusively--people should know
>Shakespeare *exists* before they get to college--but something's weird,
>and feels like it's going wrong with the whole system.
Partly because I went to college in the 1960s and '70s, I found that
most of the contemporary writers of the time had absolutely nothing
for me. The best were at least transparent writers, but what they
wrote just didn't work for me. I was avidly reading SF, mysteries,
the occasional biography, whatever was around - anything was better
than what they gave me of _contemporary_ lit in class in college.
OTOH, I was always a reader. I read Shakespeare for fun when I was
twelve (probably a good idea, because it wasn't ruined by someone
pushing an interpretation). When assigned _Moby Dick_ in high school,
I loved it. I didn't enjoy the ten different exams on it, but I did
and still do like the book. Etc etc.
It may be genuinely the effect of television. I am of possibly the
last (US) generation that had even a modest percentage of no-tv-homes.
When we wanted entertainment, we read (or paid to see movies).
Having already learned that books were fun before going to school,
I was protected against having that knowledge erased by school
assignments. I also knew that some books weren't fun, but that was
like knowing there were foods I didn't like.
Nevertheless, much as I disliked it, actually studying a book helped
me to learn that there were depths that I missed in the first reading.
The best course I took in college for that was Critical Analysis of
the Short Story. It was pretty basic, but much of it was new to me,
even though I already "got" some allusions.
And I _do_ believe that "the art of a book can be improved by being
studied." If the reader didn't get the meanings built into the
story, it's like someone who glances at a great painting of, oh,
the Judgement of Paris, and only sees some semi-nude people.
They miss the whole point of the painting. The art is in the book,
but if it isn't appreciated, it may as well not be there. Study
can reveal the art to the reader.
There are people out there who buy Pratchett books, read them once
for jokes, and pass them on to the used book stores (or even throw
them away). (I've read their posts to a.f.p. in the past, genuinely
asking why anybody would read a book twice, or complaining that the
clues to the mystery were too well hidden.) It's their right to do
so, but they're missing a lot, and probably missing a lot of the
fun they bought the book to find.
=Tamar
Bruce Sinclair
Absolutely ... the pictures are better. But what makes my pictures worse
than the teachers pictures ? ... and why should I have to justify mine and
she not ?
>Opening the text to interpretation an analysis just means more sources of
>pleasure, for me. It's like more surface area or something.
>You don't have to try to convince me that it's different for other people,
>that's clear enough. I just don't understand limiting oneself to one way of
>seeing.
>
>> IMO, all "assigned books" were spoiled for me. Excessive complexity
>> whether
>> the book's author intended it or not will do that ... at least it
>> will for
>> me :)
>
>I'm torn between "I don't groove on the simple," which is true, and "what's
>excessive?" which is also true, as a question. <shrug> Human communication
>is complex. Books are complex. I don't feel there's any gain in trying to
>treat them as simple, unless you're talking picture books, and even then I
>have my doubts.
:) Sure. But teachers often said to me ... "what did the author intend".
The obvious and only correct answer is "we don't know unless we ask them".
In a class it would be best to follow this up with 2 or 3 possibilities. :)
>> Art shouild provoke a response ... that could be thinking ... but it
>> might
>> not be either :)
>
>Well . . . emotion is a different way of knowing. Proustian, not Platonic.
>It's roughly equivalent, I think. I mean in usefulness, value, whatever.
>Different, but not inferior. I don't think you gain from a simple response
>unless you also reflect on it, but maybe that's just me.
It's me too ... but I don't want my response to have to confirm "what the
author meant".
> I mean, does anyone
>just look at a painting or read a book, feel something, and not consider the
>feeling? Seems weird.
Some do. Many painters/scuptors would consider that a success I think ...
even if a minor one. Going away "uncomfortable" without knowing why is OK.
>Say, Magrat and the elf queen. She suddenly felt something, and knew. She
>didn't look it up in a book, despite being the intellectual sort of witch.
>Just to throw in some topicality.
>
>I guess analysis is a less innocent form of enjoyment.
Indeed ... and it is not for everyone at all times :)
Bruce
----------------------------------------
I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.
Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett
Stacie Hanes
Snipped stuff I understand and agree with.
Maybe I missed the inaccurate biology. What part do you mean? And inaccurate
for now, or inaccurate even to the state of the art at the time the book was
written?
Stacie Hanes
Understandable to a point. There's certainly more and less plausible,
though. Faulty logic, wrong facts, etc., can all make for a "bad"
interpretation. If your reading is based partly on a flat-out wrong fact,
then I have to say it's inferior to one without such errors.
>> I'm torn between "I don't groove on the simple," which is true, and
>> "what's excessive?" which is also true, as a question. <shrug> Human
>> communication is complex. Books are complex. I don't feel there's
>> any gain in trying to treat them as simple, unless you're talking
>> picture books, and even then I have my doubts.
>
> :) Sure. But teachers often said to me ... "what did the author
> intend".
Which is a *really* stupid question.[1]
> The obvious and only correct answer is "we don't know unless we ask
> them".
[1] At least in part because the author's intention is only a fraction of
the whole picture. Plus, I don't think any author has a complete picture of
what's going on in a book. Some of them may get pretty close, but you can't
tell me that they're all thinking about historical context and suchlike.
> In a class it would be best to follow this up with 2 or 3
> possibilities. :)
>
>>> Art shouild provoke a response ... that could be thinking ... but it
>>> might
>>> not be either :)
>>
>> Well . . . emotion is a different way of knowing. Proustian, not
>> Platonic. It's roughly equivalent, I think. I mean in usefulness,
>> value, whatever. Different, but not inferior. I don't think you gain
>> from a simple response unless you also reflect on it, but maybe
>> that's just me.
>
> It's me too ... but I don't want my response to have to confirm "what
> the
> author meant".
No, that's pretty bad. Well, sometimes. It's sometimes necessary to ask, but
not quite like that. Er. There's usually a core set of probabilities, but .
. .
>> I mean, does anyone
>> just look at a painting or read a book, feel something, and not
>> consider the feeling? Seems weird.
>
> Some do. Many painters/scuptors would consider that a success I think
Yeah, possibly. Want to talk abut the defintion of good art now? :-)
I don't!
Alec Cawley
house_d...@yahoo.com says...
> I think there's a general feeling among the widely read that Shakespeare had
> humans down pretty well, so Shakespeare has value. Chaucer . . . gotta
> respect jokes with a 600 year shelf-life.
The trouble with teaching Shakespeare as liTerature is that they are
*plays* dammit. They were not designed to be *read*, they were designed
to be *acted*, by people who had read *and thought* about them. It is,
IMO, not reasonable to expect school age children to read a play in the
same way as they may read a novel. The ability to understand a play from
the page is an acquired skill.
When I studied the Bard at school, they eventualy showed us the play at
the *end* of the course. So we had gone through the play scene by scene,
two or three scenes a week, losing the context and spontaneity between
each pair of classes, before they let us see what the whole thing was
about.
I love Shakespeare, but I feel that is despite, rather than because of,
school. I think that, if they had set out to do a course in Literature
Aversion, they could hardly have done better.
Lesley Weston
Hanes at house_d...@yahoo.com wrote on 13/07/2005 4:18 PM:
<The canon>
> Okay . . . line of reasoning: literature is partly for fulfillment and
> enjoyment, and partly to help humanize people. There's no reason it has to
> be George Eliot instead of Terry Pratchett *at any certain point*.
>
> Not saying that people shouldn't read Eliot. I just read _The Mill on the
> Floss_ and liked it. But I'm up to my eyeballs in 19th century BritLit. And
> I think there's a general feeling among the widely read that Shakespeare had
> humans down pretty well, so Shakespeare has value. Chaucer . . . gotta
> respect jokes with a 600 year shelf-life.
I read and enjoyed "The Mill on the Floss" when I was at school - not as a
school book, just because I wanted to and because we *had* been required to
read "Silas Marner", which I had also enjoyed. I was put off Shakespeare for
good by the way he was taught (by the same teacher), though I'm just
beginning to enjoy the comedies again and I could always appreciate their
poetry so long as it was in shortish bits. Chaucer I don't get. I think my
point is that even the best teaching can ruin some books for some people,
simply because they're forced on the student, but even the worst teaching
can't ruin everything.
>
> And yes, I think it's important to know why writers wrote what they wrote,
> so you can maybe understand the life you're living in a little better. But
> There *are* good contemporary works and writers, and maybe they'd better
> serve the cause of education in the late elementary and secondary schools.
Indeed - even if having books that interest the kids doesn't turn the kids
into readers, they'll still find that particular class less boring, which is
a net improvement - kids exist right now as well as in the future.
Stacie Hanes
> In article <cjhBe.7720$8f7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> house_d...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>> I think there's a general feeling among the widely read that
>> Shakespeare had humans down pretty well, so Shakespeare has value.
>> Chaucer . . . gotta respect jokes with a 600 year shelf-life.
>
> The trouble with teaching Shakespeare as liTerature is that they are
> *plays* dammit. They were not designed to be *read*, they were
> designed to be *acted*, by people who had read *and thought* about
> them. It is, IMO, not reasonable to expect school age children to
> read a play in the same way as they may read a novel. The ability to
> understand a play from the page is an acquired skill.
You make good points.
anke....@gmail.com
Alec Cawley wrote:
>
> The trouble with teaching Shakespeare as liTerature is that they
> are *plays* dammit. They were not designed to be *read*, they
> were designed to be *acted*, by people who had read *and thought*
> about them. It is, IMO, not reasonable to expect school age
> children to read a play in the same way as they may read a novel.
> The ability to understand a play from the page is an acquired
> skill.
>
> When I studied the Bard at school, they eventualy showed us the
> play at the *end* of the course. So we had gone through the play
> scene by scene, two or three scenes a week, losing the context
> and spontaneity between each pair of classes, before they let us
> see what the whole thing was about.
Well, that's better than what we did. We'd first mull over the
same couple of lines for a week, and then be told, "read the next
three scenes. We won't talk about them; the next one we'll discuss
is the fourth scene."
I was thoroughly sick of the teacher telling us that "when the
battle's lost and won" translates to "nothing is as it seems",
until no-one dared to suggest anything else.
It did not put me off Shakespeare completely - I read Hamlet and
Midsummernight's Dream to get the references in Wyrd Sisters and
Lords and Ladies (yay, OT :D) - but I think it was the last straw
that put me off systematically analysing stories.
What really amuses me is hearing it said that Shakespeare wrote
popular stuff. I don't know enough to be sure it's true, but, well.
It seems like he may not have sone and sat down to write "great
literature", but to write plays that were popular with people, so
that he'd get paid for them.
Somehow gives me hope that Terry Pratchett might get the
recognition he deserves ;)
~Anke
Robb Kane
Shakespeare" by Stephen Greenblatt. It is a great read, very
entertaining and extremely well researched. Covers many aspects of his
life including the fact that he wrote popular plays.
My guess is that T.Pratchett doesn't have to worry much. Folks are
still reading Tolkien, Asimov, Clark, Burroughs, etc. Some stories are
timeless. Some popular literature survives even the critics.
kuy...@wizard.net
> In article <ndlBe.4781$BK1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Stacie Hanes" <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> :) Sure. But teachers often said to me ... "what did the author intend".
> The obvious and only correct answer is "we don't know unless we ask them".
Well, technically you don't even know what the author intended, even if
you do ask, and do get an answer. The author might be lying or
mis-remembering what he or she intended. You can't really know anything
about reality with justifiable certainty; the best you can do is make
informed guesses, some of which have better justification than others.
You could say, for instance, that the sun is in the sky, but all you
can be certain of is that you have (possibly false) perceptions that
lead you to make the (well justified but still possibly incorrect)
guess that those perceptions have been caused by the presence of a sun
in the sky.
You can make well-justified guesses about an author's intent,
particularly if the author is competent enough to have actually
achieved that intent, and you're intelligent and well-educated enough
to identify it. Refusing to attempt to make those guesses means you're
not understanding as much about the author's work as you could if you
put some more thought into it.
Stacie Hanes
>> What really amuses me is hearing it said that Shakespeare wrote
>> popular stuff. I don't know enough to be sure it's true, but, well.
>> It seems like he may not have sone and sat down to write "great
>> literature", but to write plays that were popular with people, so
>> that he'd get paid for them.
>
>> Somehow gives me hope that Terry Pratchett might get the
>> recognition he deserves ;)
We're trying. I can't wait until my Greebo piece gets printed.
Robb Kane wrote:
> You might try reading "Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became
> Shakespeare" by Stephen Greenblatt.
Thanks for the suggestion; I'm taking a Shakespeare class this fall.
> Some popular literature survives even the critics.
That's the sort of comment that started me ranting in the first place. I
won't start again, but >:-<
Stacie Hanes
> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <ndlBe.4781$BK1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> "Stacie Hanes" <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> ...
>> :) Sure. But teachers often said to me ... "what did the author
>> intend".
>> The obvious and only correct answer is "we don't know unless we ask
>> them".
>
>
> Well, technically you don't even know what the author intended, even
> if you do ask, and do get an answer.
<snip>
Thank you. usually I just say "authors have no idea, take what they say with
an entire salt shaker" but you have the right of it. Some of them know
better than others. I think Pratchett has a pretty good idea, but I don't
think even he is capable of perceiving the whole of reality all at once.
Umberto Eco said something to the effect that he'd be betraying the book to
interpret it for anyone, because that text/reader interaction is the whole
effing point.
Lesley Weston
Hanes at house_d...@yahoo.com wrote on 15/07/2005 8:10 AM:
> kuy...@wizard.net wrote:
>> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> In article <ndlBe.4781$BK1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> "Stacie Hanes" <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> ...
>>> :) Sure. But teachers often said to me ... "what did the author
>>> intend".
>>> The obvious and only correct answer is "we don't know unless we ask
>>> them".
>>
>>
>> Well, technically you don't even know what the author intended, even
>> if you do ask, and do get an answer.
>
> <snip>
>
> Thank you. usually I just say "authors have no idea, take what they say with
> an entire salt shaker" but you have the right of it. Some of them know
> better than others. I think Pratchett has a pretty good idea, but I don't
> think even he is capable of perceiving the whole of reality all at once.
>
> Umberto Eco said something to the effect that he'd be betraying the book to
> interpret it for anyone, because that text/reader interaction is the whole
> effing point.
Brings to mind the remark made by some musician [1] "Talking [or writing]
about music is like dancing about architecture." There was also some painter
who said something like "If I could tell you what it meant, I wouldn't have
had to go to all the bother of painting it." Novels use the same medium as
their would-be interpreters, but still there's a big difference between the
novel and a third party's interpretation of it. If a reader can't get an
meaning that satisfies that particular reader out of any given novel, then
perhaps they're reading the wrong novel for them, even if it's very much the
right novel for someone else.
I've been reading TPGOL [2]. I read Stacie's chapter first of course,[3]
and now I'm skimming the rest. IMO, many of the essays (not Stacie's) fall
into the dancing-about-architecture category, using technical jargon to
discuss material that is entirely lucid and free-flowing and absolutely
*not* in need of interpretation. I seem to be using the book as a sort of
annotation file, in which capacity it is excellent, without bothering about
the lit. crit. aspects. But then, as I've said before, lit. crit. is not my
thing.
[1] Thelonius Monk? Elvis Costello? See
http://home.pacifier.com/~ascott/they/tamildaa.htm
[2] Until tomorrow. Someone has placed a hold on the library's only copy of
it - who? The VPL only bought it because I asked them to, and April, Jessie
and Jean didn't reply to my offer on afp to return it quickly if one of them
wanted it. So there is at least one person in Vancouver who reads TP *and*
rather obscure books about him, yet is not an afper or abper. V. mysterious.
[3] And enjoyed it - you write well, Stacie. But I expect you've been told
that before.
Stacie Hanes
> in article %lQBe.3906$dU3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net,
> Stacie Hanes at house_d...@yahoo.com wrote on 15/07/2005 8:10 AM:
<authors' intent>
>> Umberto Eco said something to the effect that he'd be betraying the
>> book to interpret it for anyone, because that text/reader
>> interaction is the whole effing point.
>
> Brings to mind the remark made by some musician [1] "Talking [or
> writing] about music is like dancing about architecture." There was
> also some painter who said something like "If I could tell you what
> it meant, I wouldn't have had to go to all the bother of painting
> it." Novels use the same medium as their would-be interpreters, but
> still there's a big difference between the novel and a third party's
> interpretation of it. If a reader can't get an meaning that satisfies
> that particular reader out of any given novel, then perhaps they're
> reading the wrong novel for them, even if it's very much the right
> novel for someone else.
Very true. One thing novels do is help you identify what's happening in your
head. They widen your emotional experience and give you a greater range of
feeling. I read some psych research about people who haven't got an
extensive emotional vocabulary, and the effect of that lack is
startling--they actually don't seem to feel as much. Being able to put names
to your experiences is apparently important to emotional and mental health.
In good novels, you find *accurate* portraits of the inner lives of people,
and the right novel will have some sort of resonance. Some novels just won't
have anything a particular individual can relate to.
> I've been reading TPGOL [2]. I read Stacie's chapter first of
> course,[3] and now I'm skimming the rest. IMO, many of the essays
> (not Stacie's) fall into the dancing-about-architecture category,
> using technical jargon to discuss material that is entirely lucid and
> free-flowing and absolutely *not* in need of interpretation. I seem
> to be using the book as a sort of annotation file, in which capacity
> it is excellent, without bothering about the lit. crit. aspects. But
> then, as I've said before, lit. crit. is not my thing.
<snip>
> [3] And enjoyed it - you write well, Stacie. But I expect you've been
> told that before.
:-) Thank you very much for the kind words. It's not something I'm tired of
hearing, not quite yet.
Mike Stevens
> The trouble with teaching Shakespeare as liTerature is that they are
> *plays* dammit. They were not designed to be *read*, they were
> designed to be *acted*, by people who had read *and thought* about
> them. It is, IMO, not reasonable to expect school age children to
> read a play in the same way as they may read a novel. The ability to
> understand a play from the page is an acquired skill.
I strongly agree with this. To understand a play from the page (any play,
but especially as complex a play as most of Shakespeare's) requires a
background experience of having taken plays from the page to the stage.
It's also something not at all easy to do as a solitary reader. It's best
done by a group of actors and a director working together.
I'm a great lover of Shakespeare on the stage, and I've experienced much of
his work both from the audience and from on (the amateur) stage. I was
delighted, some years ago, to be offered a leading part in what had been for
many years my favourite Shakespeare play (Sir Toby in "Twelfth Night" - if
you'd ever met me you'd see why that was the part I was offered). I thought
I knew the play pretty well, I'd seen quite a number of productions
(including Laurence Olivier as Malvolio) and read it a number of times. But
even then, working with other actors and a director (my wife, as it
happened) to put the play on the stage showed me all sorts of depths and
subtleties that I'd missed previously. I find it hard to think that such
discovery could come out of classroom approach without the sort of brilliant
teacher who turns up about one per generation per continent.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Bruce Sinclair
>Alec Cawley wrote:
>> The trouble with teaching Shakespeare as liTerature is that they are
>> *plays* dammit. They were not designed to be *read*, they were
>> designed to be *acted*, by people who had read *and thought* about
>> them. It is, IMO, not reasonable to expect school age children to
>> read a play in the same way as they may read a novel. The ability to
>> understand a play from the page is an acquired skill.
>
>I strongly agree with this. To understand a play from the page (any play,
>but especially as complex a play as most of Shakespeare's) requires a
>background experience of having taken plays from the page to the stage.
>It's also something not at all easy to do as a solitary reader. It's best
>done by a group of actors and a director working together.
Oh yes. Shakspeare was boring words until the teacher played some scratchy
old BBC records of macbeth. Now instead of <trumpets sound>, they really
did. ! :)
Since then I have enjoyed watching and being in many of the plays ... and
they re as you suggest, plays. To be watched/acted. As such they work well
.. as words on a page, much less so.
Bruce Sinclair
>Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <ndlBe.4781$BK1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Stacie
> Hanes" <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> :) Sure. But teachers often said to me ... "what did the author intend".
>> The obvious and only correct answer is "we don't know unless we ask them".
>Well, technically you don't even know what the author intended, even if
>you do ask, and do get an answer. The author might be lying or
>mis-remembering what he or she intended.
Agreed. The best answer I've heard an author give was "I intended to sell
books" or some such flippant thing ... then add ... you are supposed to
react ... do it.
>You can't really know anything
>about reality with justifiable certainty; the best you can do is make
>informed guesses, some of which have better justification than others.
>You could say, for instance, that the sun is in the sky, but all you
>can be certain of is that you have (possibly false) perceptions that
>lead you to make the (well justified but still possibly incorrect)
>guess that those perceptions have been caused by the presence of a sun
>in the sky.
Yep.
>You can make well-justified guesses about an author's intent,
>particularly if the author is competent enough to have actually
>achieved that intent, and you're intelligent and well-educated enough
>to identify it. Refusing to attempt to make those guesses means you're
>not understanding as much about the author's work as you could if you
>put some more thought into it.
Yep ... but enjoyment of the work is not necessarily related to
understanding. I still say that sometimes, understanding reduces the
enjoyment. Probably all the repetition stops it being fresh.
Bruce Sinclair
>kuy...@wizard.net wrote:
>> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>> In article <ndlBe.4781$BK1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> "Stacie Hanes" <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> ...
>>> :) Sure. But teachers often said to me ... "what did the author
>>> intend".
>>> The obvious and only correct answer is "we don't know unless we ask
>>> them".
>> Well, technically you don't even know what the author intended, even
>> if you do ask, and do get an answer.
>
><snip>
>
>Thank you. usually I just say "authors have no idea, take what they say with
>an entire salt shaker" but you have the right of it. Some of them know
>better than others. I think Pratchett has a pretty good idea, but I don't
>think even he is capable of perceiving the whole of reality all at once.
>
>Umberto Eco said something to the effect that he'd be betraying the book to
>interpret it for anyone, because that text/reader interaction is the whole
>effing point.
Absolutely agree. That is why we read :)
Luna
bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair)
wrote:
Huh. I've not had such a negative experience with literary criticism and
study. My enjoyment of books, stories, and plays has often been
greatly enhanced by knowing the background of the writer and certain
details of the time in which it was written. I also enjoy analyzing
symbolism, and all that other stuff you have to do in school. It can be
lots of fun and deepen my appreciation for a book or story. I have fond
memories of certain works from school that I didn't "get" on first
reading, and only truly understood after having to write a paper on
them. The Glass Menagerie was more poignant after knowing more about
Tennessee Williams. The Japanese Quince seemed like a boring piece of
nothing on first reading, but after a lot of study I found the nuances
and suddenly it was transformed in my eyes.
Isn't it fun when you're reading a Discworld book for the second time,
and you notice the foreshadowing that you didn't notice the first time?
Isn't it fun picking out the annotations, finding out where they came
from? That's analysis right there. Repetition doesn't stop it being
fresh for me, because I'm a different person with a different life
experience and new knowledge every time I reread a book.
Bruce Sinclair
>Huh. I've not had such a negative experience with literary criticism and
>study. My enjoyment of books, stories, and plays has often been
>greatly enhanced by knowing the background of the writer and certain
>details of the time in which it was written. I also enjoy analyzing
>symbolism, and all that other stuff you have to do in school.
There you go. I hated that ... and I was not alone. The lord of the flies is
still a story about kids on an island to me. Nothing remarkable or even
very interesting. Sorry :)
> It can be
>lots of fun and deepen my appreciation for a book or story. I have fond
>memories of certain works from school that I didn't "get" on first
>reading, and only truly understood after having to write a paper on
>them. The Glass Menagerie was more poignant after knowing more about
>Tennessee Williams. The Japanese Quince seemed like a boring piece of
>nothing on first reading, but after a lot of study I found the nuances
>and suddenly it was transformed in my eyes.
Yeah well ... all I can say is that I've been put off "the novel" and
"petry" of all sorts since school. I guess I hated the smug way the
interpretations went .. and if you disagreed you were wrong.
>Isn't it fun when you're reading a Discworld book for the second time,
>and you notice the foreshadowing that you didn't notice the first time?
>Isn't it fun picking out the annotations, finding out where they came
>from? That's analysis right there. Repetition doesn't stop it being
>fresh for me, because I'm a different person with a different life
>experience and new knowledge every time I reread a book.
Agreed. I read em again cos I get something new out of them every time ...
but that's the reader/book interaction thing going on to me. I don't
necessarily "know" anything more ... I'm just more or less receptive to some
ideas or styles at the time I guess. I do know I want to enjoy it, not
"understand" it :)
JB
>
>>Isn't it fun when you're reading a Discworld book for the second time,
>>and you notice the foreshadowing that you didn't notice the first time?
>>Isn't it fun picking out the annotations, finding out where they came
>>from? That's analysis right there. Repetition doesn't stop it being
>>fresh for me, because I'm a different person with a different life
>>experience and new knowledge every time I reread a book.
>>
>>
>
>Agreed. I read em again cos I get something new out of them every time ...
>but that's the reader/book interaction thing going on to me. I don't
>necessarily "know" anything more ... I'm just more or less receptive to some
>ideas or styles at the time I guess. I do know I want to enjoy it, not
>"understand" it :)
>
>
Yah. I see what you are saying - it isn't the way I enjoy Pratchett's
books, but so what?
It is a tribute to his writing that we can enjoy the same work in so
many different ways!
BTW: I enjoy a lot of other things in that way (i.e. music. I have
some friends which advanced
degrees in music and only a few of them are good companions for concerts
or operas because
I can just enjoy the music in their presence - whereas the others want
me to "appreciate it")
JB
>Huh. I've not had such a negative experience with literary criticism and
>study. My enjoyment of books, stories, and plays has often been
>greatly enhanced by knowing the background of the writer and certain
>details of the time in which it was written. I also enjoy analyzing
>symbolism, and all that other stuff you have to do in school. It can be
>lots of fun and deepen my appreciation for a book or story. I have fond
>memories of certain works from school that I didn't "get" on first
>reading, and only truly understood after having to write a paper on
>them. The Glass Menagerie was more poignant after knowing more about
>Tennessee Williams. The Japanese Quince seemed like a boring piece of
>nothing on first reading, but after a lot of study I found the nuances
>and suddenly it was transformed in my eyes.
>
>Isn't it fun when you're reading a Discworld book for the second time,
>and you notice the foreshadowing that you didn't notice the first time?
>Isn't it fun picking out the annotations, finding out where they came
>from? That's analysis right there. Repetition doesn't stop it being
>fresh for me, because I'm a different person with a different life
>experience and new knowledge every time I reread a book.
>
Hear, hear!
Also, I think that there is often a notion that a single analysis can
discover everything
that an author meant, intended, or suggested. This is as mistaken as
thinking that we can
find a single reason, intention or meaning in our friends and family.
People are not that
simple, they operate on many levels (some of which they are unaware -
but we, the loved
ones can see - other levels no mortals see). We can analyse literature
on so many levels
without contradiction (and we can even have multiple valid analyses
which do contradict!)
I love to analyse DW books because it is clear that they are satirical,
which means there
are definite hidden messages. I sometime read things into the text
which later appear to
be imagined ... but who knows, at a future date, I may find evidence
that my first suspicion
was correct?
Luna
JB <Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu> wrote:
I can understand their point of view. I'm reasonably well read in
golden age science fiction. Some of the stories are enjoyable to me
partly because of my knowledge of the history of the field. "See, isn't
it neat what he's doing here? No one had done that before at this time"
or "See how he's poking fun at the conventions of the genre" or "See how
this story is a direct attack of the philosophies of this other famous
author?" But none of this stuff has the same impact for someone who
isn't familiar with the history behind it. A less informed reader might
read a story and be all "So? I've seen this same thing on TV a million
times" whereas I'm all "Yeah, but this is where it started! It was all
new then!" I imagine opera enthusiasts feel the same way, noticing
nuances and having emotional reactions to pieces of music because they
know more about what went into it, why the choices were made, what the
significance was at the time. Like the difference between how Sybil and
Vimes react to the Dwarf opera in The Fifth Elephant. I'd say Vimes was
the one missing out, not Sybil.
JB
Right, background knowledge gives you context for the story - which can
change the
significance of it.
An example is: a while ago I was puzzled by the interactions of the Nobs
of Ankh-
Morpork and it precipitated a discussion of British Nobility etc. Among
the things I found out was
that a family which has been around a long time, even if it is poor and
comparitively powerless is
still respected for having the continuity of existence (or words to that
effect). This helped me
understand (which book was it? I'm writing off the cuff here) why a poor
'down and out' son of
a Noble family could still gather an audience of the wealthy to propose
a plan to replace the patrician
with a king. Learning about the quirks of nobility didn't just make the
'analysis' of DW better, it made
the story line more plausible to me.
abp has lots of these discussions which help understand the context of
many of Terry's books.
BTW: a friend who is a Harry Potter fan has complained that maiy Hary
Potter fans have not been
exposed to the world of Fantasy literature and do not realze that many
of Rowlings 'creations' were
created before. I am not sure this matters, though.
.
Bruce Sinclair
>>>Isn't it fun when you're reading a Discworld book for the second time,
>>>and you notice the foreshadowing that you didn't notice the first time?
>>>Isn't it fun picking out the annotations, finding out where they came
>>>from? That's analysis right there. Repetition doesn't stop it being
>>>fresh for me, because I'm a different person with a different life
>>>experience and new knowledge every time I reread a book.
>>Agreed. I read em again cos I get something new out of them every time ...
>>but that's the reader/book interaction thing going on to me. I don't
>>necessarily "know" anything more ... I'm just more or less receptive to some
>>ideas or styles at the time I guess. I do know I want to enjoy it, not
>>"understand" it :)
>>
>>
>Yah. I see what you are saying - it isn't the way I enjoy Pratchett's
>books, but so what?
>It is a tribute to his writing that we can enjoy the same work in so
>many different ways!
Oh yes. I guess that is part of the reason why I think he might be doing
"literature". I just fear that his books will make it to the "studied this
year" list for schools :)
>BTW: I enjoy a lot of other things in that way (i.e. music. I have
>some friends which advanced
>degrees in music and only a few of them are good companions for concerts
>or operas because
>I can just enjoy the music in their presence - whereas the others want
>me to "appreciate it")
Agreed. I play a few instruments ... and most of the fun is playing with
others and enjoying what comes out. Different every time :)
Bruce Sinclair
(snip)
>>I enjoy a lot of other things in that way (i.e. music. I have
>> some friends which advanced
>> degrees in music and only a few of them are good companions for concerts
>> or operas because
>> I can just enjoy the music in their presence - whereas the others want
>> me to "appreciate it")
>
>I can understand their point of view. I'm reasonably well read in
>golden age science fiction. Some of the stories are enjoyable to me
>partly because of my knowledge of the history of the field. "See, isn't
>it neat what he's doing here? No one had done that before at this time"
>or "See how he's poking fun at the conventions of the genre" or "See how
>this story is a direct attack of the philosophies of this other famous
>author?" But none of this stuff has the same impact for someone who
>isn't familiar with the history behind it. A less informed reader might
>read a story and be all "So? I've seen this same thing on TV a million
>times" whereas I'm all "Yeah, but this is where it started! It was all
>new then!" I imagine opera enthusiasts feel the same way, noticing
>nuances and having emotional reactions to pieces of music because they
>know more about what went into it, why the choices were made, what the
>significance was at the time. Like the difference between how Sybil and
>Vimes react to the Dwarf opera in The Fifth Elephant. I'd say Vimes was
>the one missing out, not Sybil.
Yeah ... as long as you are prepared to accept that he has no "duty" to get
to sybil's level of understanding and that his reaction is just as valid,
that's fine. :)
To me that is the real measure of how good or not a book/whatever is. If you
need the historical background to appreciate it, then perhaps it's not as
good as it could be ? :)
To me, the thing and the whole of the thing must stand on its own.
Bruce Sinclair
(snip)
>BTW: a friend who is a Harry Potter fan has complained that maiy Hary
>Potter fans have not been
>exposed to the world of Fantasy literature and do not realze that many
>of Rowlings 'creations' were
>created before. I am not sure this matters, though.
True :) If it gets kids reading (even boys I'm told) it's a great thing :)
For myself, I don't think she is a good writer at all ... or she has been
seriously failed by her editors. That said, I have read them :)
Stacie Hanes
<historical context>
> To me that is the real measure of how good or not a book/whatever is.
> If you
> need the historical background to appreciate it, then perhaps it's
> not as
> good as it could be ? :)
> To me, the thing and the whole of the thing must stand on its own.
Expecting a lot of Chaucer, aren't you? His stuff *does* stand on its own,
but historical context adds hugely. Can't help that. It's not a flaw of the
writer that he failed to anticipate the what 20th century readers would be
like. He did amazingly well, but the fact remains that because a work might
be helped by some background doesn't necessarily mean it "isn't as good as
it could be."
If you confine that to contemporary stuff, then sure. Maybe you're right.
Bruce Sinclair
>Bruce Sinclair wrote:
><historical context>
>> To me that is the real measure of how good or not a book/whatever is.
>> If you
>> need the historical background to appreciate it, then perhaps it's
>> not as
>> good as it could be ? :)
>> To me, the thing and the whole of the thing must stand on its own.
>
>Expecting a lot of Chaucer, aren't you? His stuff *does* stand on its own,
>but historical context adds hugely. Can't help that. It's not a flaw of the
>writer that he failed to anticipate the what 20th century readers would be
>like. He did amazingly well, but the fact remains that because a work might
>be helped by some background doesn't necessarily mean it "isn't as good as
>it could be."
>
>If you confine that to contemporary stuff, then sure. Maybe you're right.
Actually chaucer stands well on his own IMO. Likewise shakespeare, congreve
(sp?) and some of the others. Agree that some background knowledge helps
with understanding ... but for the plays particularly, this should be for
the actors, not the audience. It's up to them to show the audience what the
playwrite "meant".
I will note tho that this is 400 + years ago. :)
mark
Bruce Sinclair (bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz) was
heard to remark...
> In article <dbgi5r$1jg$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>, JB <Bec...@SunDotStanfordDot.Edu> wrote:
> (snip)
> >BTW: a friend who is a Harry Potter fan has complained that maiy Hary
> >Potter fans have not been
> >exposed to the world of Fantasy literature and do not realze that many
> >of Rowlings 'creations' were
> >created before. I am not sure this matters, though.
>
> True :) If it gets kids reading (even boys I'm told) it's a great thing :)
>
> For myself, I don't think she is a good writer at all ... or she has been
> seriously failed by her editors. That said, I have read them :)
I haven't read any farther than /Goblet of Fire/. I quite enjoyed the
first two books, but found three and four excruciatingly dull and long
and repetitive (what's this? Harry has a problem? Poof! Problem
gone! What a wonderful thing is magic!). Not to mention unlikely: as
she tries to make it more realistic, JKR is exposing the holes in her
universe. I suspect she was badly let down in the editing department.
One hopes Terry Pratchett never succumbs to the same thing. "What do
you mean I can't write a homosexual encounter between Greebo and the
Librarian? I'm Terry Pratchett, damnit! I'd like to see the editor
who successfully alters one of *my* books!"
<snip />
--
"That hydroelectric facility is so beautiful I think I'll pass out!"
said Tom, fainting with dam praise.
http://donotuselifts.net/
Luna
bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair)
wrote:
> In article <wtVCe.5046$dU3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Stacie
> Hanes" <esmer...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> ><historical context>
> >> To me that is the real measure of how good or not a book/whatever is.
> >> If you
> >> need the historical background to appreciate it, then perhaps it's
> >> not as
> >> good as it could be ? :)
> >> To me, the thing and the whole of the thing must stand on its own.
> >
> >Expecting a lot of Chaucer, aren't you? His stuff *does* stand on its own,
> >but historical context adds hugely. Can't help that. It's not a flaw of the
> >writer that he failed to anticipate the what 20th century readers would be
> >like. He did amazingly well, but the fact remains that because a work might
> >be helped by some background doesn't necessarily mean it "isn't as good as
> >it could be."
> >
> >If you confine that to contemporary stuff, then sure. Maybe you're right.
>
> Actually chaucer stands well on his own IMO. Likewise shakespeare, congreve
> (sp?) and some of the others. Agree that some background knowledge helps
> with understanding ... but for the plays particularly, this should be for
> the actors, not the audience. It's up to them to show the audience what the
> playwrite "meant".
>
> I will note tho that this is 400 + years ago. :)
>
> Bruce
>
Sorry, but there is _no way_ to get some of the jokes in Shakespeare
without knowing the background of when and where he was living.
Bruce Sinclair
(snip)
>without knowing the background of when and where he was living.
>
Yes there might be one or two that are "too hard" ... you cut them. It's
what he would have done :)
Galen Musbach
wrote:
>
>> Well, first I must say, I can't recall where the "mind trick" was used
>> in any way except for self protection, so that would still satisfy the
>> criterion, since it was not initiating force. The will to defend one's
>> self is, to me, almost as important as the principle of non-agression,
>> [...]
>
>Hmmm. I'll have to think about it - but off hand I think you've made an
>excellent point: the Jedi's use the power
>defensively.
Obi-wan, when first meeting Luke in episode 4.
"You will come with me ..."
Luke shakes it off, but Ben was trying to control him
for his own purposes.
-Galen
Stacie Hanes
> In article
> <lunachick-F9170...@news1.east.earthlink.net>, Luna
> <luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote: (snip)
>> Sorry, but there is _no way_ to get some of the jokes in Shakespeare
>> without knowing the background of when and where he was living.
>>
> It's called acting. :)
> Yes there might be one or two that are "too hard" ... you cut them.
> It's
> what he would have done :)
Now, I think you might be reaching. You're very likely right about the
pragmatism, but I don't want to lose the history.
And if you extrapolate, you lose more and more of the jokes until it's so
watered down it's not worth the bother. at what point do you say "no more"?
Rocky Frisco
> Sorry, but there is _no way_ to get some of the jokes in Shakespeare
> without knowing the background of when and where he was living.
I particularly like the "How she maketh her great P's" line in MND.
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
Rocky Frisco's LIBERTY website: http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com/
The World's Best Daily News Service: http://www.rationalreview.com/
Rock onstage with JJ Cale and E. Clapton: http://tinyurl.com/3modw
Rocky Frisco
> Luna wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but there is _no way_ to get some of the jokes in Shakespeare
>> without knowing the background of when and where he was living.
>
>
> I particularly like the "How she maketh her great P's" line in MND.
Oops, sorry; bad reference; was TN.
Bruce Sinclair
>Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article
>> <lunachick-F9170...@news1.east.earthlink.net>, Luna
>> <luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote: (snip)
>>> Sorry, but there is _no way_ to get some of the jokes in Shakespeare
>>> without knowing the background of when and where he was living.
>>>
>> It's called acting. :)
>> Yes there might be one or two that are "too hard" ... you cut them.
>> It's
>> what he would have done :)
>
>Now, I think you might be reaching. You're very likely right about the
>pragmatism, but I don't want to lose the history.
>
>And if you extrapolate, you lose more and more of the jokes until it's so
>watered down it's not worth the bother. at what point do you say "no more"?
Good points all ... but the number of jokes that you can't "do" by acting,
is very small. There are purists that want everything "as it was" ... but
their audiences would be small :)