*R* Re: Is it me or is one terry pratchett's book not funny?
Steve Shadbolt
brid...@logica.com (Martin Bridges) wrote:
>On 16 Jan 1997 19:39:22 GMT, Nicholas Kitchener
><kitch...@logica.com> wrote:
>>
>>Ok, I found Good Omens, Interesting times, Guards Guards Guards et al
>>really good but the one with the phantom of the opera is, well, boring.
>>I know that perhaps I'll get flamed, but anyone else got a _bad_
>>nomination (as well as a good one if you like)?
>>
>>Good: Interesting Times
>>Bad: <The opera one>
>>
>I think it's perfectly valid to say that we don't always love every
>one of PTerry's books. We're all individuals with individual tastes
>and he can't satisfy all of us all the time. And anyone who flames you
>for daring to criticise is a very sad person indeed.
>
>Personally, I find most of the Pratchett oeuvre hilarious, but Soul
>Music just didn't do it for me. Hogfather's taking some bedding in
>too, but I have a feeling it'll grow.
>
>To be more formal:
>Favourite - Men At Arms
>Least Fav - Soul Music
>
>Cheery bye
>
>Martin
>who has just noticed that he's responding to a post from a fellow
>Logica employee. Eeek!
Just to keep the Logica thread going :)
I found Hog Father much better on the second read through, when it all
fitted together much better.
Favorite : Men at Arms
Least favorite : The Colour of Magic (I think I've just read it to
many times)
Anyone for Logica.Prachett ??
T M Joyce
Steve Shadbolt (shad...@logica.com) wrote:
: brid...@logica.com (Martin Bridges) wrote:
: >On 16 Jan 1997 19:39:22 GMT, Nicholas Kitchener
: ><kitch...@logica.com> wrote:
: >>
: >>Good: Interesting Times
: >>Bad: <The opera one>
: >>
: >To be more formal:
: >Favourite - Men At Arms
: >Least Fav - Soul Music
: Favorite : Men at Arms
: Least favorite : The Colour of Magic (I think I've just read it to
: many times)
Fave: Reaper Man
Least Fave: Starta/Dark Side of the Sun
It is probably sometyhing to do with the fact that they're some of
the oldest books, from before Pterry developed the style we all know and
love.
--
toodle pip,
Tom
"...never be flippantly rude to any inoffensive grey-bearded stranger you
may meet in pine forests or hotel smoking rooms on the continent. It
always turns out to be the King of Sweeden." SAKI
David James Spillett
In article <32df4dd6.3633014@news>, Martin Bridges <brid...@logica.com>
writes
>
>To be more formal:
>Favourite - Men At Arms
>Least Fav - Soul Music
>
only one so far (I've read all the Discworld books as far as Maskerade,
which I'm half way through now) I didn't really take to was Eric.
--
David James Spillett
ad...@djspillett.demon.co.uk
God was a woman,
until she changed her mind
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
Derek Lavin
In message <32dfa0c4.23072174@news>
shad...@logica.com (Steve Shadbolt) writes:
> >>Ok, I found Good Omens, Interesting times, Guards Guards Guards et al
> >>really good but the one with the phantom of the opera is, well, boring.
> >>I know that perhaps I'll get flamed, but anyone else got a _bad_
> >>nomination (as well as a good one if you like)?
I thought that Maskerade was very clever and very perceptive;
especially with the way that Perdita X. Nitt, despite having a
magical voice, was relegated to the chorus for being ugly. I also
liked the "lovely hair" references.
The musical references at the end - Miserable Les - was quite clever, as well.
Definately in my top three.
> >Personally, I find most of the Pratchett oeuvre hilarious, but Soul
> >Music just didn't do it for me. Hogfather's taking some bedding in
> >too, but I have a feeling it'll grow.
Hmm, Soul Music just happens to be my fave...
--
Following up? DON'T SNIP THE .SIG!
Am I in your KILLFILE? Then PLEASE REMOVE ME!
Thank you.
Shooty
Steve Shadbolt wrote:
> >>
> >>Ok, I found Good Omens, Interesting times, Guards Guards Guards et al
> >>really good but the one with the phantom of the opera is, well, boring.
> >>I know that perhaps I'll get flamed, but anyone else got a _bad_
> >>nomination (as well as a good one if you like)?
> >>
> >>Good: Interesting Times
> >>Bad: <The opera one>
> >
> >To be more formal:
> >Favourite - Men At Arms
> >Least Fav - Soul Music
> >
>
> I found Hog Father much better on the second read through, when it all
> fitted together much better.
>
> Favorite : Men at Arms
>
> Least favorite : The Colour of Magic (I think I've just read it to
> many times)
I am not so keen on Sourcery and Interesting Times.
I think Poor old Rincey is getting a bit stretched.
Peter J. I. Ellis
> agree. To me M@A feels like the Discworld equivalent of a Disney movie
^^^
*Now* I *know* why I shouldn't be using Iexplore.... this came up
highlighted. I clicked on it, expecting, I dunno, a link to the l-space
web or something. Instead it launched my mail software and tried to send
e-mail to M@A...
Sorry for such a pointless meta-OLF(may not be one line, but it's worth
only one neuron), but I really felt that that little gem of idiocy needed
sharing with you lot.
Robin Adams
Andreas Dehmel (deh...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE) wrote:
: Favourite DW-books:
: 1) Small Gods
: 2) Pyramids
: 3) Guards! Guards!
: Least-favourite DW-books:
: 1) Soul Music
: 2) Men at Arms
: 3) Moving Pictures (which is still a lot better than 1 + 2)
Oo! Oo! Can a newbie have a go at this?
OK, let's start with the bad ones:
Least favourite: Soul Music. This was basically one joke spun out into a
whole book. It was just a series of jokes about rock music, one of which,
slipped into a book somewhere, would have made me smile, but after a while
grew a bit tedious. Oh, yeah, and there were some silly bits about someone
called Susan, too. (I did like the bit with the guards and the lyre,
though.)
Second least favourite: Maskerade. This has its moments, but, quite
frankly, I didn't care what happened to the opera house in the end. All
the characters in the opera were really wet, and, somehow, the witches just
don't work without Magrat.
Third least favourite: The Colour of Magic. Not really because there's
anything much wrong with it, but because they've just got so much better
since then. That's progress, I suppose.
Now, the good news:
Favourite: Men at Arms. [Half the audience cheer, the other half boo. The
people talking about lorries and speed limits look up and say 'What?']
Sorry, Andreas, but this is brilliant. More than any other book, the
characters feel like Real People (TM). This has a lot in it: there's the
basic police/murder story, the ever-so-mysterious voice of the Gonne (with
associated Real World Comment), and the character interaction between the
guards. The Angua-Gaspode bits tended to drag a bit, but the brilliant
Detritus-Cuddy dialogue more than made up for it. Easily his best to date.
Second favourite: Witches Abroad. Pure luck that this hit home, really; in
the first half, the witches are exactly like my grandmother when abroad; in
the second, Pterry says exactly what I've always felt about fairy stories
(or, at least, kiddified versions of them) - it is dangerous to see the
world in terms of Good People and Bad People. Also, "Fairy Hedgehog" made
me laugh more than any other bit in any book - I was just in the right mood, I
suppose.
Third favourite: Sourcery. After I put TCoM in my least favourite pile, I've
got to have a Rincewind book in this one, and Sourcery is by far the best.
Interesting Times is funnier, but this has a bit more depth to the plot; you
start to care what happens to the characters, as well as just going along for
the ride. And the ending, where Coin throws away his staff - looking back,
maybe, it was a bit obvious, but the first time it really struck me. (No, I
don't mean the staff.)
This was difficult to do; all his books are so different. I'm still feeling
a bit guilty about not including Guards! Guards! and Small Gods, and, if I'd
done this tomorrow, I'd have picked completely different ones. It's like
asking what someone's favourite song is - it changes almost every day. (It
does for me, at least.)
Ralf
Andreas Dehmel
shad...@logica.com (Steve Shadbolt) writes:
>brid...@logica.com (Martin Bridges) wrote:
>>On 16 Jan 1997 19:39:22 GMT, Nicholas Kitchener
>><kitch...@logica.com> wrote:
>>Personally, I find most of the Pratchett oeuvre hilarious, but Soul
>>Music just didn't do it for me. Hogfather's taking some bedding in
>>too, but I have a feeling it'll grow.
>>
>>To be more formal:
>>Favourite - Men At Arms
Couldn't disagree more. I read it twice but it just doesn't do
anything for me. It's not as bad as Soul Music but for someone who wrote
books like "Small Gods", "Guards! Guards!" or "Pyramids" it's really,
really weak. It feels like PTerry was trying awfully hard to use some
popular characters no matter what; the result is a very bad sequel to
the classic "Guards! Guards!". Re-read the two books and you'll have to
agree. To me M@A feels like the Discworld equivalent of a Disney movie
starring Snowhite, Bambi, Dumbo, Mickey & Donald, Mowgli, ...
Of course that explains why it's so popular. But since when has popularity
ever had anything to do with quality?
>>Least Fav - Soul Music
Definitely. I generally dislike the ones where PTerry's trying to stress
the "mirror-of-worlds" bit too much. See also "Moving Pictures".
"Interesting Times" was a vast improvement over M@A and SM but still not
up to par with the classics. I hope PTerry won't use the geriatric
barbarians again too soon because although they are fun every couple of
years they can become very annoying when used too often. Kind of like the
"anti-something" bits he uses so frequently, "through-something-and-out-
the-other-side". When you see this kind of thing in almost every book
it starts getting on your nerves.
Something I'm really missing in the newer books is depth. Take "Small Gods"
for example: it works on many levels while at the same time it never shakes
its finger under your nose or brags about its depth. I just finished it for
the 3rd time and IMHO it's definitely his masterpiece. Especially M@A and
SM are extremely one-dimensional.
Favourite DW-books:
1) Small Gods
2) Pyramids
3) Guards! Guards!
Least-favourite DW-books:
1) Soul Music
2) Men at Arms
3) Moving Pictures (which is still a lot better than 1 + 2)
Andreas
Victoria Martin
On 21 Jan 1997, Andreas Dehmel wrote:
> >>Favourite - Men At Arms
>
> Couldn't disagree more. I read it twice but it just doesn't do
> anything for me. It's not as bad as Soul Music but for someone who wrote
> books like "Small Gods", "Guards! Guards!" or "Pyramids" it's really,
> really weak.
Hmm, i thought it was interesting that in the survey that was carried
out recently, British afpers voted MAA their favourite book whilst the
Americans opted for SG. Personally, I think both books are amongst the
all-time greats (I would add WS and FoC to the list), but I have an
American friend who's opinion on Pratchett I greatly respect and he
thinks MAA is very weak. I have no idea where these national differences
come from.
It feels like PTerry was trying awfully hard to use some
> popular characters no matter what; the result is a very bad sequel to
> the classic "Guards! Guards!". Re-read the two books and you'll have to
> agree.
I think I've read both often enough not to have to re-read them - G!G!
has a lot going for it (especially the Elucidated Brethren of the Ebon
Night) but to me it feels like a forerunner to MAA. It sets the scene and
gets the characters into position, but they really take off in MAA.
Carrot becomes much more complex and interesting once he's no longer as
dim as in G!G!, and Vimes perspective on A-M and Vetinari is far more
intriguing once he's becoming part of the power structure and is no
longer staring at the world out of a gutter.
> To me M@A feels like the
Discworld equivalent of a Disney
movie > starring Snowhite, Bambi, Dumbo, Mickey & Donald, Mowgli, ...
> Of course that explains why it's so popular. But since when has popularity
> ever had anything to do with quality?
>
Hey, there's no need to get insulting. Me, I think MAA is popular
*because* of its quality. but then I would, wouldn't I? because I like it.
> >>Least Fav - Soul Music
>
> Definitely. I generally dislike the ones where PTerry's trying to stress
> the "mirror-of-worlds" bit too much. See also "Moving Pictures".
I thought MP was much more successful in its own terms than SM. The
sorties have an internal coherence that doesn't rely on the real-world
parallel to motivate them. Look at the ending where the Librarian is
carried up the Tower of Art clutched in the hands of a giant woman - the
steps by which that end is reached are absolutely logical and consistent
with the principles with which the story opens. Then compare that scene
with Death on the motorbike in SM - the Librarian has no motie for
building it, beyond "narrative causality"; death has no reason to take
the Dean's studded leather coat, beyond a vague feeling that "some things
have just got to be".
BTW, why doesn't SG count as a "mirror of worlds" book?
>
> "Interesting Times" was a vast improvement over M@A and SM but still not
> up to par with the classics.
Definitely the best of the Rincewind books, in my view.
>
> Something I'm really missing in the newer books is depth. Take "Small Gods"
> for example: it works on many levels while at the same time it never shakes
> its finger under your nose or brags about its depth. I just finished it for
> the 3rd time and IMHO it's definitely his masterpiece. Especially M@A and
> SM are extremely one-dimensional.
What about FoC? how does this measure up in your estimation?
>
Victoria
Dick Eney
In article <5c34h0$q...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Robin Adams <sjoh...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>OK, let's start with the bad ones:
>
>Least favourite: Soul Music. This was basically one joke spun out into a
>whole book. It was just a series of jokes about rock music, one of which,
>slipped into a book somewhere, would have made me smile, but after a while
>grew a bit tedious. Oh, yeah, and there were some silly bits about someone
>called Susan, too. (I did like the bit with the guards and the lyre,
>though.)
>done this tomorrow, I'd have picked completely different ones. It's like
>asking what someone's favourite song is - it changes almost every day. (It
>does for me, at least.)
Well, there's no accounting for tastes, and I haven't dared try to pick a
favorite.
But I would like to point out that Soul Music is not merely about Rock
music. The _jokes_ are based on music (and not just rock, either - check
the annotations). It is, as Terry tells us in so many words in the
beginning, a book about Memory. It includes the topic of fame (which is
based on memory), and the topic of whether it is better to have a Real
Life or a Mere Existence: Death's opinion seems to be that a Real Life is
better, and Mort and Isabel apparently agreed, but the ideal is to have a
chance to both stay alive and Live by means of your own talent (rather
than some unexpected magic).
=Tamar (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
Dick Eney
John Fouhy <jfo...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> with the principles with which the story opens. Then compare that scene
>> with Death on the motorbike in SM - the Librarian has no motie for
>> building it, beyond "narrative causality"; death has no reason to take
>> the Dean's studded leather coat, beyond a vague feeling that "some things
>> have just got to be".
>
>the same way as the stories do - except it wasn't nearly as easily
>recognisable, and hence difficult to fight (although I doubt any of the
>city-dwellers - even the Wizzards - would notice the signs of a Story).
In MP the "wild idea" was directing events in much the same way -
specifically, Mr. Peavie (accountant of the alchemists guild, i.e. a
Bursar equivalent) invented banged grains "because it seemed right".
And the Librarian was strongly affected by the music in SM; he actually
played in the band. He only left the band when he read Dibbler's contract.
=Tamar (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
John Fouhy
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970121...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hmm, i thought it was interesting that in the survey that was carried
> out recently, British afpers voted MAA their favourite book whilst the
> Americans opted for SG. Personally, I think both books are amongst the
Survey? What survey? Never saw the voting req. nor the results..
(I wouldn't have voted anyway - I like 'em all :-) - but the results could
be interesting..)
Umm, actually, speaking of surveys -
I read recently in the paper of a British survey of the best books of the
century. LotR topped the list (and the Hobbit came in highish too), with
(I think) Orwell taking out places 2 and 3 (forget exactly). HHGTTG was
20-something, I believe.
Anyone know if Everyone's Favourite Author got onto the list?
> with the principles with which the story opens. Then compare that scene
> with Death on the motorbike in SM - the Librarian has no motie for
> building it, beyond "narrative causality"; death has no reason to take
> the Dean's studded leather coat, beyond a vague feeling that "some things
> have just got to be".
In some ways, SM was liked to WA - the Music was directing events in much
the same way as the stories do - except it wasn't nearly as easily
recognisable, and hence difficult to fight (although I doubt any of the
city-dwellers - even the Wizzards - would notice the signs of a Story).
--
/ John Fouhy, Wellington, New Zealand | e-mail: jfo...@actrix.gen.nz \
| Student of Wellington College | The Turtle Moves! | Fidonet: 3:771/300.9 |
\ "Thou whoreson, Z, thou unnecessary letter" _King Lear_, Bill Shaxpere /
Michelle N. Fishman
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970121...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>Favourite - Men At Arms
>>
>> Couldn't disagree more. I read it twice but it just doesn't do
>> anything for me. It's not as bad as Soul Music but for someone who wrote
>> books like "Small Gods", "Guards! Guards!" or "Pyramids" it's really,
>> really weak.
>
>Hmm, i thought it was interesting that in the survey that was carried
>out recently, British afpers voted MAA their favourite book whilst the
>Americans opted for SG. Personally, I think both books are amongst the
>all-time greats (I would add WS and FoC to the list), but I have an
>American friend who's opinion on Pratchett I greatly respect and he
>thinks MAA is very weak. I have no idea where these national differences
>come from.
I'm an American and I quite liked M@A. I have to agree that it builds upon
what G!G! started--M@A gives a much more in-depth feel to the streets and
atmosphere of A-M and the Night Guard are more fleshed out as characters. I
haven't had a chance to read FoC as of yet, but I hope the tradition
continues.
As for "worst" books, well, WS didn't hold my interest all that much. And the
Rincewind books, except for IT, aren't as funny or as interesting as the Night
Watch or the "independent" books like Pyramids or SG.
Michelle
Dick Eney
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970123...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>On 22 Jan 1997, Tamar <dick...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>> >Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >> with Death on the motorbike in SM - the Librarian has no motive for
>> >> building it, beyond "narrative causality"; Death has no reason to
>> >> take the Dean's studded leather coat, beyond a vague feeling that
>> >> "some things have just got to be".
>>
>> actually played in the band. He only left the band when he read
>> Dibbler's contract.
>
>only makes sense if you fill in the gaps by referring to our world. I'll
>concede that the banged grains are an instance of the same gap-filling, but
>that is a very minor part of MP, whereas Death on the motorbike is the
>climax of SM. I found it distinctly unsatisfying that such a central event
>had so little internal motivation.
The motorcycle itself was a rather large example of the influence of the
music, true. However, I don't think it is entirely unsupported.
And remember, the Librarian has explored some of L-space, and has thus had
some prior connections to other space-times. He also owes his present
shape to the Octavo's change spell in TLF. Because of these exposures, he
may be more sensitive to such influences. Of course, this doesn't explain
the Dean's unusual sensitivity, but the Dean is "as impressionable as a
dollop of hot wax". (Ponder Stibbons seems to be the other way, having
had no particular response to the clicks at all, and also none to the
music. OTOH he has been responding to whatever made him work on Hex.)
The "living music" in SM appeared to be considerably stronger right from
the beginning than the film idea was for most of MP. Virtually all of the
responses in SM were caused directly by the music inhabiting Buddy and the
guitar. The wizards were strongly (and apparently permanently in the case
of the Dean) affected by the music from one exposure. By comparison, the
wizards slowly and under some duress went to see the clicks long after
Victor and most of the other Holy Wood folks were "called" from a distance
before Holy Wood was even (re)built. The click monsters didn't gain that
sort of power until very large numbers of people had seen them and begun
to give belief-strength to them.
= Tamar (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
9615...@brookes.ac.uk
John Fouhy wrote:
(snip)
> Umm, actually, speaking of surveys -
>
> I read recently in the paper of a British survey of the best books of the
> century. LotR topped the list (and the Hobbit came in highish too), with
> (I think) Orwell taking out places 2 and 3 (forget exactly). HHGTTG was
> 20-something, I believe.
>
> Anyone know if Everyone's Favourite Author got onto the list?
Sadly, no. 4 Roald Dahl's, 3 Orwell's, Winnie the Pooh and Wind in the Willows,
Delia Smith's Complete Cookery Course (?????) but no TP. I guess the votes were
too widely shared - there is not one book which stands out more than the rest
for voting purposes...
The entire list is available on misc.writing (posted by moi), where we may be
keeping score... I'm up to 67% if you include film/TV adaptations (61% without)
Jac
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Victoria Martin
On 22 Jan 1997, Dick Eney wrote:
> >Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> with the principles with which the story opens. Then compare that scene
> >> with Death on the motorbike in SM - the Librarian has no motie for
> >> building it, beyond "narrative causality"; death has no reason to take
> >> the Dean's studded leather coat, beyond a vague feeling that "some things
> >> have just got to be".
> >
> And the Librarian was strongly affected by the music in SM; he actually
> played in the band. He only left the band when he read Dibbler's contract.
>
But to proceed from being affected by the music to building a motorbike
only makes sense if you fill in the gaps by referring to our world. I'll
concede that the banged grains are an instance of the same gap-filling, but
that is a very minor part of MP, whereas Death on the motorbike is the
climax of SM. I found it distinctly unsatisfying that such a central even
had so little internal motivation.
Victoria
Edgerley Keith
>
> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >Hmm, i thought it was interesting that in the survey that was carried
> >out recently, British afpers voted MAA their favourite book whilst the
> >Americans opted for SG.
>
> Don't know if nationality has much to do with it. I'm german, for instance.
>
> >(snip)
> Maybe it's that I just don't like crime stories - and M@A is nothing but
> a dead standard crime story: the good guys are hunting someone with a new
> and advanced weapon. Now where do we know this from? About every other
> James Bond movie, maybe?
(snip)
>
>I may be being naive - or do I mean disingenuous? - but I would have said that the main burden of MAA was that power tends to corrupt, that just holding the "gonne", for instance, starts to induce feelings of superiority, and that the only way to handle power successfully is either to refuse to accept it or to keep it under control by renouncing its trappings - like Vetinari.
>
--
Keith Edgerley
EBU, Geneva
tel: +41 22 717 2203 fax: +41 22 717 2200
EA Dixon
John Fouhy (jfo...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz) wrote:
:
: Umm, actually, speaking of surveys -
:
: I read recently in the paper of a British survey of the best books of the
: century. LotR topped the list (and the Hobbit came in highish too), with
: (I think) Orwell taking out places 2 and 3 (forget exactly). HHGTTG was
: 20-something, I believe.
:
: Anyone know if Everyone's Favourite Author got onto the list?
Tragically no... he was nowhere to be seen in the top 100 - an omission
commented upon by the newspaper (the Grauniad) I was reading...
Still... it was amusing to see conspiracy theories raised about the
Tolkein Society rigging the vote... LoTR got about 5000 votes out of 30000
entries, apparently... all the arty literature types were aghast... :)
Eric Dixon
Terry Pratchett
In article <5c4g3r$h...@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>, John Fouhy <jfouhy@atlanti
s.actrix.gen.nz> writes
>
>I read recently in the paper of a British survey of the best books of the
>century. LotR topped the list (and the Hobbit came in highish too), with
>(I think) Orwell taking out places 2 and 3 (forget exactly). HHGTTG was
>20-something, I believe.
>
>Anyone know if Everyone's Favourite Author got onto the list?
I'm told that I was the #3 in the Most Voted For author list -- but you
disorganised lot only went and split the vote up among all the books,
didn't you?
--
Terry Pratchett
Brought to you by Demon News, sooner or later.
Victoria Martin
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Edgerley Keith wrote:
> >
> >I may be being naive - or do I mean disingenuous? - but I would have said
that the main burden of MAA was that power tends to corrupt, that just
holding the "gonne", for instance, starts to induce feelings of superiority,
and that the only way to handle power successfully is either to refuse to
accept it or to keep it under control by renouncing its trappings - like
Vetinari.
But note that Vetinari failed to destroy the gonne, so that at some level
he was susceptible to the temptation it offered. Maybe he thought he'd
keep it in reserve in case a crisis ever arose when it would be useful to
have a weapon like that.
Victoria
Victoria Martin
On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, David James Spillett wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970123...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes
> >But to proceed from being affected by the music to building a motorbike
> >only makes sense if you fill in the gaps by referring to our world. I'll
> >concede that the banged grains are an instance of the same gap-filling, but
> >that is a very minor part of MP, whereas Death on the motorbike is the
> >climax of SM. I found it distinctly unsatisfying that such a central even
> >had so little internal motivation.
> DW has been described as fantasy characters acting in a 20th century
> way. I think is a big part of the attraction (I can certainly identify
> with certain characters, and recognise parts of people I have met behind
> them...).
>
I accept that point, and I wouldn't dream of denying that a great deal of
the humour derives from that. But that doesn't mean that the DW doesn't
have to have some kind of internal coherence. If anything that can happen
here can also happen there, without the parallel needing to be set up
carefully, then why bother to have the DW at all? Whenever terry introduces
our-world technology, he's careful to explain it in DW terms (take
Rincewind's camera, for instance); my quibble with SM was that it
*didn't* explain some very central events in DW terms, they only made
logical sense if you inserted facts from our world that had NO DW equivalent.
Victoria
Dick Eney
In article <32E8CB...@ebu.ch>, Edgerley Keith <edge...@ebu.ch> wrote:
>I may be being naive - or do I mean disingenuous? - but I would have
>said that the main burden of MAA was that power tends to corrupt, that
>just holding the "gonne", for instance, starts to induce feelings of
>superiority, and that the only way to handle power successfully is
>either to refuse to accept it or to keep it under control by renouncing
>its trappings - like Vetinari.
A very good point, and one I had missed. Carrot also renounced the
trappings, and had no trouble handling the gonne. However, Carrot has had
more training in kingship than most, since he has observed the dwarf form
("king" means "chief mining engineer" and is a tough job) as well as the
public-image form (various events in G!G!). He also has natural power
(in the sense of 'krisma') and therefore doesn't need the external
trappings [1] such as armies, cheering crowds, visible crown, etc.
=Tamar (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
[1] peripherals? :) "Who cares about plotting the stars in their courses?
With the right peripherals, I could put them where I wanted them." -
sentient computer, in cartoon by Alexis Gilliland
Grant Malcolm
Peter J. I. Ellis <pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in article
<01bc07b1$6e3368c0$6685...@pjie2.emma.cam.ac.uk>...
> > agree. To me M@A feels like the Discworld equivalent of a Disney movie
> ^^^
>
> *Now* I *know* why I shouldn't be using Iexplore.... this came up
> highlighted. I clicked on it, expecting, I dunno, a link to the l-space
> web or something. Instead it launched my mail software and tried to
send
> e-mail to M@A...
hehe
same here...I did exactly the same thing
*chortle*
Sharon (sharing acct with below)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Grant Malcolm gmal...@cygnus.uwa.edu.au
Freelance Director (+619) 387 2338
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
David James Spillett
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970123...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes
>But to proceed from being affected by the music to building a motorbike
>only makes sense if you fill in the gaps by referring to our world. I'll
>concede that the banged grains are an instance of the same gap-filling, but
>that is a very minor part of MP, whereas Death on the motorbike is the
>climax of SM. I found it distinctly unsatisfying that such a central even
>had so little internal motivation.
DW has been described as fantasy characters acting in a 20th century
way. I think is a big part of the attraction (I can certainly identify
with certain characters, and recognise parts of people I have met behind
them...).
--
David James Spillett
ad...@djspillett.demon.co.uk
Preserve wildlife:
pickle a squirrel!
Please excuse my tardy reply. My ISP (Demon UK)
have problems resulting in a /60 hour/ news backlog.
Victoria Martin
On 24 Jan 1997, Andreas Dehmel wrote:
>
> Don't know if nationality has much to do with it. I'm german, for instance.
> The thing I always found special about PTerry's books is hard to put your
> finger on, it's the general feel of the thing. And M@A feels like one
> of your favourite rock groups going mainstream: the masses buy, the old
> fans turn away in disgust
I don't really want to comment on this because I shall probably end up
getting unfairly abusive and muttering about "elitist arrogance", so I
shall I restrict myself to saying that
Terry had "gone mainstream" (in the sense of being massively popular)
long before MAA was written.
>
> Maybe that's the Vimes I liked best... ;-)
> Maybe it's that I just don't like crime stories - and M@A is nothing but
> a dead standard crime story: the good guys are hunting someone with a new
> and advanced weapon.
I wouldn't say it was "nothing but a dead standard" crime story, though
it undoubtedly plays with the conventions of the detective genre. Maybe
that's why Brits like it - it's a framework they're very familiar with (
a lot of the pleasure I get from WS comes from the brilliantly twisted
use it puts Shakespeare to). And I'd question how the gonne really
differs from the dragon of G!G! in terms of the function that it fulfils.
Now where do we know this from? About every other
> James Bond movie, maybe?
I hardly think that the treatment of the theme is the same, though, evne
assuming that the gonne is intended to represent a new and advanced
weapon and nothing more.
I think the only really good idea in M@A is
> Detritus (or was it some other troll?) turning super-intelligent as his
> brain is cooled down - although come to think of it that's not very
> likely since semi-conductors don't work that well at very low temperatures:
> you'd need a lot more energy to achieve a current than at room-temperature.
Well, to add a little ammo to your anti-MAA arsenal, there was a very
convincing thread a while back pointing out the parallels between this
episode and the short story "Flowers for Algernon". Of course the
*treatment* of the idea is rather different in Pterry's hands...
>
> >BTW, why doesn't SG count as a "mirror of worlds" book?
>
> Huh? I brought up the issue talking about SM, so clearly SM falls into
> that cathegory.
>
SG stands for Small Gods, which you didn't discuss.
>
Victoria
John Fouhy
In article <RM8z9GAf...@unseen.demon.co.uk>,
Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm told that I was the #3 in the Most Voted For author list -- but you
Coo. Anyone know if this has been HTMLified?
> disorganised lot only went and split the vote up among all the books,
> didn't you?
Hey - 'snot OUR fault! You're the one who had to go and write TWENTY good
books, instead of only one or two! :-)
(and that's only the DW..)
Margaret Tarbet
On 26 Jan 1997 06:01:56 GMT,
jfo...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (John Fouhy) wrote:
>...wizards, by
>their very nature, are overly susceptible to 'occult' influences
>- acting as living barometers, as 'twere..
You misspelt "thaumometer", i think. :-)
John Fouhy
In article <5c8ako$b...@access5.digex.net>,
Tamar <dick...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
> may be more sensitive to such influences. Of course, this doesn't explain
> the Dean's unusual sensitivity, but the Dean is "as impressionable as a
> dollop of hot wax". (Ponder Stibbons seems to be the other way, having
> had no particular response to the clicks at all, and also none to the
> music. OTOH he has been responding to whatever made him work on Hex.)
It is said in one book - probably SM, but possibly H - that wizards, by
their very nature, are overly susceptible to 'occult' influences - acting
as living barometers, as 'twere..
Nicholas Kitchener
I've revised my opinion since the original posting..
Like:
Interesting Times (this _is_ funny),
Good Omens (I've read this ad infinium and still found this
funny),
Sourcery (someone has to- it's a good story if nothing else),
Mort (supprised no-one has mentioned this one- I liked it),
Colour of magic (is this the one with the guy who gets blasted and
gets rebuilt but is slightly green??)
Like, in a apathetic way (kinda demon):
Guards, Guards
Dislike: Mas.., Masker,.. bother. The opera one.
Still to go:
Wyrd sisters, witches one, .. and some others- ah yes pyramids..
Nick.
Dick Eney
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.97012...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 25 Jan 1997, Tamar <dick...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>> Edgerley Keith <edge...@ebu.ch> wrote:
>> >....the only way to handle power successfully is
>> >either to refuse to accept it or to keep it under control by
>>
>> ...Carrot also renounced the trappings, and had no trouble handling
>> the gonne. However, Carrot <snip> has natural power
>> (in the sense of 'krisma') and therefore doesn't need the external
>
>It's hard to see the gonne as representing the "trappings" of power - it
>*is* power, in its rawest form, the power to do exactly what you want to
>realise your ideals. Vimes is offered the chance to clean up the city, to
>make everything right and good; Edward is offered the chance to restore
>the monarchy; Cruces - well, Cruces is the weak link, his motive appears
>to be the same as edward's, even though it's hard to see why Cruces
>should be a fanatical monarchist (my own theory is that Cruces' real
>motive is just to get Vetinari, who humiliated him and let him fall in
>the hoho, and that all the monarchist stuff is just a smokescreen). I'm
>not at all sure what it is about Carrot that makes him able to resist
>that temptation (apart from the trivial statement that he is Good - but
>what is Good?) Maybe, just maybe, the gonne has no power over Carrot
>because he truly believes in human goodness and truly believes that the
>best way to lead people into a better world is *not* to use force. All
>the others accept that things aren't going to improve (by their own
>particular standards) unless you impose your will on people; Carrot
>believes that people will act sensibly and fairly (not least because, in
>his presence, they always do). Perhaps it is this which makes him immune
>to the gonne.
I think what I was trying to say was, Carrot was immune to the gonne
because he already had power naturally, and the gonne couldn't take him
over. Assuming Vimes's experience was typical, most of the others were
offered the chance to use the gonne's power to achieve something they
wanted. Edward wanted to restore the crown so that he would regain the
prestige that he felt he deserved as an aristocrat, however impoverished.
Dr. Cruces _may_ have been offered the chance to get rid of Vetinari by
putting Carrot on the throne, and then controlling or assassinating
Carrot. We know Vimes was offered the power to clean up the streets.
Possibly Carrot was first offered the power to rule Ankh-Morpork (which he
already has) and then the power to conquer other city-states (which he
doesn't want); it seems to me that Carrot was immune because there was
nothing the gonne could offer him that he wanted that he didn't already
have. Carrot doesn't want the trappings because of his previous training
- seeing the dwarf "king" has a hard and responsible job, and seeing the
result in G!G! of the trappings without the responsibility, he would tend
toward the dwarf style of kingship, which is simply to do the job well and
ignore the trappings.
The dwarf style of kingship as described in WA might have something to do
with Carrot's style, too; I'm thinking of the part where a dwarf king was
more concerned about having lost a promising seam of ore than about the
dwarfs that may have died in the cave-in, even though one of them was his
own son (well, the word was translated "son"). Ore was important because
it was a limited resource, whereas you could always get more dwarfs.
=Tamar (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
Terry Pratchett
In article <E4JGx...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, EA Dixon <ed5...@harrier.fen.bri
s.ac.uk> writes>: I read recently in the paper of a British survey of the best books of the
>: century. LotR topped the list (and the Hobbit came in highish too), with
>: (I think) Orwell taking out places 2 and 3 (forget exactly). HHGTTG was
>: 20-something, I believe.
>:
>: Anyone know if Everyone's Favourite Author got onto the list?
>Tragically no... he was nowhere to be seen in the top 100 - an omission
>commented upon by the newspaper (the Grauniad) I was reading...
>
>Still... it was amusing to see conspiracy theories raised about the
>Tolkein Society rigging the vote... LoTR got about 5000 votes out of 30000
>entries, apparently... all the arty literature types were aghast... :)
The omission, as another paper pointed out, was because the list was
about books, not authors. So an author known for a series (Hornblower,
Jeeves, Just William, DW) would find their vote spread across a lot of
books. According to some Waterstones info, I understand, I was the #3
'most voted for' author -- but you lot, instead of doing the decent
thing and organising yourself like the furry-footed folk, went and
wasted your votes across more than thirty books! Good grief, I despair,
I really do...
--
Terry Pratchett
Edgerley Keith
I must be some kind of freak, as I like Maskerade very much indeed.
Perhaps it uses a slightly different set of resonances with which some
people are less in tune than others,
After reading all the Discworld books up to Maskerade, my impression is
that each one is at least as good as, if not better than, the last.
--
Keith Edgerley
EBU, Geneva, edge...@ebu.ch
Alex Burr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970127...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Mmm, my interpretation here is that Vetinari prefers not to use force
>*unless he has too*. It's quite consistent that he would be able to
>resist using the gonne but not strong enough to destroy it (since he
>might have to use force in the future, hekeeps it in reserve, but since
>he doesn't feel the need to use force yet, the gonne isn't able to take
>control of him). My assumption was that he had touched it (hence his
>inability to have it destroyed) and then by an effort of will had had it
>securely (as he thought) hidden away.
Vetinari wanted it destroyed, and was displeased when he found that the
assassins hadn't. He didn't do it _himself_. Although a busy man, he
seems to find time to do a surprising number of things himself, so
perhaps that was weakness. OTOH most of the things he does are talking to
people. He doesn't often seem to feel the need to get things done in his
prescence.
The assassins may have just kept the gun, or perhaps Cruces planned from
the start to get possession of it. In either case it's probably that he
was corrupted the moment he saw it. It isn't clear to me how early Cruces
became involved with Edward, or if other assassins were involved.
Alex Burr
Listicath
Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5c4g3r$h...@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>, John Fouhy <jfouhy@atlanti
>s.actrix.gen.nz> writes
>>
>>I read recently in the paper of a British survey of the best books of the
>>century. LotR topped the list (and the Hobbit came in highish too), with
>>(I think) Orwell taking out places 2 and 3 (forget exactly). HHGTTG was
>>20-something, I believe.
>>
>>Anyone know if Everyone's Favourite Author got onto the list?
>I'm told that I was the #3 in the Most Voted For author list -- but you
>disorganised lot only went and split the vote up among all the books,
>didn't you?
That's what happens when you write so many books:) We should have
organised a preliminary vote, determined the most popular overall, and
all voted for that one. My favourite is usually the last one, it's the
only one I haven't read a hundred times.
When's Jingo due out then?
--
/\ ______/_____________/__/________________________________________
__/_/. / . __ __ / /_ +++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please
___/ / /\ / / / / / / / / Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
\_/\__\_/_/_\_/\_/\__/\_\_\_/ /________[Hogfather]_____A...@dircon.co.uk
Jeff Lipton
deh...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Andreas Dehmel) wrote:
<snip>
>Maybe that's the Vimes I liked best... ;-)
>Maybe it's that I just don't like crime stories - and M@A is nothing but
>a dead standard crime story: the good guys are hunting someone with a new
>and advanced weapon. Now where do we know this from? About every other
>James Bond movie, maybe?
</Highly discountable personal opinion ON>
On the other hand, I felt that M@A was constructed, that PTerry had a
better feel for where he was going and how he was getting there than
in some of the other books. The plot also left more room for
characterization than in I found in E^HF.
PTerry also likes to allude to scenes rather than fill them in. While
this was somewhat frustrating for me in L&L and SM, it worked very
well in M@A. All-in-all, I thought M@A the best book yet.
</Highly discountable personal opinion OFF>
Jeff
=============================
http://www.markomarketing.com/jlipton/
Margaret Tarbet
On 27 Jan 1997 16:32:37 GMT,
aj...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Alex Burr) wrote:
> Perhaps he just has more
>faith in his own powers & sees the gonne as a potential loose
>cannon.
The gonne as a potential loose cannon? Oh very good, do the
BBC know about you?
Alex Burr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.97012...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>what is Good?) Maybe, jst maybe, the gonne has no power over carrot
>best way to lead people into a better world is *not* to use force. All
>the others accept that things aren't going to improve (by their own
>particular standards) unless you impose your will on people; Carrot
>believes that people will act sensibly and fairly (not least because, in
>his presence, they always do). Perhaps it is this which makes him immune
>to the gonne.
Hmm. That clearly isn't why Vetinari also doesn't use the gonne (although
we don't see him touch it; maybe he had, once). Perhaps he just has more
faith in his own powers & sees the gonne as a potential loose cannon.
Alex Burr
Victoria Martin
Mmm, my interpretation here is that Vetinari prefers not to use force
*unless he has too*. It's quite consistent that he would be able to
resist using the gonne but not strong enough to destroy it (since he
might have to use force in the future, hekeeps it in reserve, but since
he doesn't feel the need to use force yet, the gonne isn't able to take
control of him). My assumption was that he had touched it (hence his
inability to have it destroyed) and then by an effort of will had had it
securely (as he thought) hidden away.
Victoria
Ridcully the Brown
In article <32ed1b56...@news.tiac.net>, tar...@swaa.com says...
>>faith in his own powers & sees the gonne as a potential loose
>>cannon.
>
>BBC know about you?
If they don't somebody should let them know. We can't let him get
away.
The gonne...a loose cannon...
*Boom Boom*
Ridcully the Brown
The Official Michelena Riosa Testosterone Brigade
Commander of the Kiwi Cadre & Defender of the New Zealand Position
Jan H. Haul
He failed to destroy it *himself*, as he would perceivably fail to throw
some street theatre cri^h^h^hperformer himself.
He gave it to the assassins, ith the strict order to destroy it, and
they disobeyed.
However, giving the gonne to the assassins instead of, say, a blacksmith
is a bit odd unless Vetinary perceived it as a "living" thing of sorts,
and a somewhat noble at that, as assassins not normally deal with
ordinary people.
Jan
Michelena Riosa
On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:28:14 +0000, Terry Pratchett
<tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>... Good grief, I despair,
>I really do...
I'll see your despair and raise you an impatient toe-tap unless Jingo
makes Cananananada sooner than "Hogfather"!
Michelena who still hears that it will be in "next week"!
mri...@visgen.com
"Be wary of geeks bearing .gifs.."
R Biegler
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>But note that Vetinari failed to destroy the gonne, so that at some level
>he was susceptible to the temptation it offered. Maybe he thought he'd
>keep it in reserve in case a crisis ever arose when it would be useful to
>have a weapon like that.
He instructed the Assassin's Guild to destroy the gonne. They should be
interested in suppressing a weapon that makes killing from a distance so
easy and gives so much power to the lower classes, people without taste
and education (see Downey's musings in Hogfather). Vetinari was using
them to do what he found necessary. In a similar vein, in Soul Music
both Foule Ole Ron and another guy whose name I forgot are both under
the impression that Vetinari pays for information. When Vetinari
pretends he doesn't know how people could think such a thing, he does it
in a way that probably annoys his informant so that he is likely to
perpetuate the myth, so getting other peope to report in. I suppose
they don't stop because they have come to the patrician's attention and
he may very gently ask whether they really don't have any further useful
information. I even wonder whether Vetinari has any professional spies,
or whether he relies on the reputation of the supposed spy network so
that people don't want to look like they hold back information which he
will find out about anyway.
In the case of the gonne this approach didn't quite succeed, because the
assassins did not fully appreciate the threat posed by the gonne. They
kept it as a warning and a reminder to worry about this, for very senior
assassins only, thinking that was enough to keep the threat under
control. And this must have been one of the (few) things Vetinari didn't
know about.
Robert Biegler
Victoria Martin
On 28 Jan 1997, R Biegler wrote:
> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> >But note that Vetinari failed to destroy the gonne, so that at some level
> >he was susceptible to the temptation it offered. Maybe he thought he'd
> >keep it in reserve in case a crisis ever arose when it would be useful to
> >have a weapon like that.
>
> He instructed the Assassin's Guild to destroy the gonne.
[snip]
>
> In the case of the gonne this approach didn't quite succeed, because the
> assassins did not fully appreciate the threat posed by the gonne. They
> kept it as a warning and a reminder to worry about this, for very senior
> assassins only, thinking that was enough to keep the threat under
> control. And this must have been one of the (few) things Vetinari didn't
> know about.
I'm not sure that Vetinari *didn't* know they hadn't destroyed it - he
certainly knew the moment it was stolen. His spies, paid or otherwise,
report its loss to him even before Cruces arrives to tell him. If they
knew what was missing, they must have known what used to be there, and if
they knew the gonne was there, I find it hard to believe this news didn't
filter through to Vetinari. This was essentially what I meant when I said
he decided to hide the gonne away - at the *conscious* level he intended to
have it destroyed, but sub-consciously he had a reason for wanting to
hang on to it (to that extent the gonne had power over him) so he gave it
to the assassins with instructions that it should be destroyed. We
know from his dealings with Vimes that the Patrician is fully aware that
people don't always do what you instruct them to do, so it seems
reasonable to suppose that he might guess the assassins would keep the
gonne. In this rather convoluted way, Vetinari is able to succumb to the
gonne to a certain degree, feel unable to eliminate it himself (though he
thinks that's what he ought to do), gives it to the assassins knowing
that they won't destroy it either, and can pat himself on the back for
having resisted temptation and "destroyed" the gonne, whilst
simultaneously having the reassurance that he can always get it out
and use it if he really needs it. So his weakness was twofold - he wasn't
strong enough to destroy the gonne and he was unusually blind to his own
motives.
Does that make any sense at all?
Victoria
Victoria Martin
On 27 Jan 1997, Dick Eney wrote:
>
> The dwarf style of kingship as described in WA might have something to do
> with Carrot's style, too; I'm thinking of the part where a dwarf king was
> more concerned about having lost a promising seam of ore than about the
> dwarfs that may have died in the cave-in, even though one of them was his
> own son (well, the word was translated "son"). Ore was important because
> it was a limited resource, whereas you could always get more dwarfs.
>
I don't think Carrot goes this far, though FoC definitely seemed to be
pointing up this aspect of his character. In fact, I took "Feet of Clay"
to refer to Carrot as well as the golem. It would be unfair to accuse
Carrot of being willing to sacrifice individuals for the good of the
community in quite such a cavalier fashion as the dwarf king, but i do
agree that there are hints to the effect that it's a bad idea to have an
idealist on the throne.
Victoria
Victoria Martin
On 27 Jan 1997, Alex Burr wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970127...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Vetinari wanted it destroyed, and was displeased when he found that the
> assassins hadn't. He didn't do it _himself_. Although a busy man, he
> seems to find time to do a surprising number of things himself, so
> perhaps that was weakness.
I'm sure it was - not least because Terry goes to the trouble to make it
explicit that Vetinari really should have seen the job through. When
Vetinari is complaining that the assassins didn't destroy the gonne as
instructed, Leonard points out that *he* didn't either, and Vetinari
realises this for the first time and says something like "You're right".
Not only was failing to destroy the gonne a weakness, but his failure to
recognise what was going on inside himself was a weakness.
> OTOH most of the
>things he does are talking to
> people. He doesn't often seem to feel the need to get things done in his
> prescence.
>
This is certainly true, but part of being a good ruler is knowing when to
take the time to oversee things personally. He invests an awful lot of
time in Commander Vimes, for instance.
> The assassins may have just kept the gun, or perhaps Cruces planned from
> the start to get possession of it. In either case it's probably that he
> was corrupted the moment he saw it. It isn't clear to me how early Cruces
> became involved with Edward, or if other assassins were involved.
>
No, the whole Cruces bit is very unclear. As far as I can tell, he gets
involved very early. The assassin who takes pot shots at Vimes, and who
kills Lettice, is Cruces, although it would make more sense if it were
Edward (I know it was Cruces because I went back and checked). Killing
Lettice really only makes sense within the context of the plan to create
instability in order to restore the monarchy, it seems rather pointless
if Cruces' primary intent is to kill Vetinari because he has a personal
grudge (though I suppose you could always see it as practice, getting his
hand in for the Big One, plus the guy is an assassin so at some level he
must have been like a kid with a new toy, wanting to try it out on
anyone. But this is all inference, it isn't contradicted by the text but
it isn't supported either).I have real trouble seeing Cruces as a
fanatical monarchist - it works beautifully with Edward, but edward, it
is made plain, is an oddball, one step away from wearing underpants on
his head and drooling, so why would the Head of the Assassins' Guild
secretly share his monarchist ambitions?
On the other hand, even edward's chief motivation is not to
restore the monarchy but to kill Vetinari, because he blames him for his
family's decline and the current abysmal state of A-M society. He enrols
in the post-graduate course with the specific intention of acquiring the
skills necessary to assassinate the Patrician (there's a line about how
if he'd been a musician he would have sung dangerously satirical songs
about the Patrician, and if he'd been a thief he would have broken into
the palace and stolen something valuable from the Patrician, but since he
was an assassin... - Helen? can you help?). So Edward gets his PhD in
murder and then sets out to find a weapon, or at least some means - he
doesn't really no what he's looking for - of putting his ideas into
practice, and then he finds the notes about the gonne and realises that
*this* is the tool that he needs, and then - and only then - does he meet
Carrot and recognise his ancestry, and he takes this as a sign that his
plan to assassinate Vetinari meets with the approval of destiny ("It was
Right that it should happen just when he had got his Plan"). So in a
sense both Edward and Cruces are after Vetinari because they have a
personal grudge (though that grudge is directly linked to his being the
ruling power, presiding over their various humiliations). It could be
that the gonne doesn't *really* offer them a means of instigating a new
world order, but merely of wiping out the old one. Which makes sense,
because gonnes can't create, only destroy. Even Vimes has a, er, um,
*problematic* relationship with Vetinari - killing him would be the first
step on the road to the brave new Vimesean world (a la
Suffer-Not-Injustice) but it would also be personal vengeance.
Phew - deep breath. So Carrot's immunity could stem not only from the
fact that he has no wish to impose any particular vision on others
(though he does precisely this when he stops the replay of Koom Valley)
but also from the fact that he has no personal motivation for wreaking
vengeance on Vetinari. He is, after all, the only person in A-M who
actually likes the Patrician (Vimes does too, but in a very complex,
twisted way that contains as much loathing as liking).
Victoria
Victoria Martin
On 28 Jan 1997, Andreas Dehmel wrote:
> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >I don't really want to comment on this because I shall probably end up
> >getting unfairly abusive and muttering about "elitist arrogance",
>
> I don't look down on anybody who likes M@A, if that's what you mean. I
> merely said I don't like it much. Funny thing, had about the same effect
> as saying "my God is bigger than yours"...
I haven't noticed anybody flaming you on a public forum, if that's what
you mean by the "effect". All people have done is disagree back at you,
which is hardly
the response you imply. And you *did* say quite explicitly that MAA was very
popular and that you equated popularity with lack of quality, which
rather implies that people who like MAA have popular (= poor quality)
taste.
> >so I shall I restrict myself to saying that
> >Terry had "gone mainstream" (in the sense of being massively popular)
> >long before MAA was written.
>
> Being popular and being mainstream are two different things. The first means
> just that, the second means making a conscious effort to appeal to the
> masses, changing to conform and so on.
Like writing another Rincewind novel at the behest of the masses? Hmm,
maybe I find myself agreeing with you after all :-)
>
> >And I'd question how the gonne really
> >differs from the dragon of G!G! in terms of the function that it fulfils.
>
> So to follow this line of thinking consistently to the end, every foe is
> - functionally - the same, right?
No, I don't think they are. Lily serves nothing like the same function as
the gonne (or the Elf Queen for that matter). But the gonne and the
dragon *are* very similar - both represent an awesome capacity for
destruction, both are used in an attempt to unseat the ruling power and
both end up taking over the person who tried to use them. Moreover, they
both offer the same temptation to Vimes (more or less, there are details
of plot difference) - he could have stood back and let Wonse kill
Vetinari, and he could have used the gonne to kill Cruces. He doesn't,
for essentially the same reasons in both books, but in MAA the decision
is more conscious (in G!G! he refuses to understand why he let Vetinari
live). By FoC - but I'd better stop in case I commit a spoiler.
[snip]
>
> "Anti-M@A"-arsenal sounds a little harsh. I'm not trying to tell people
> what's good and what isn't (only an idiot would even think of that).
No, but you are telling people what you personally think is good and what
isn't (I do this all the time, so does everybody else) and I think it's
interesting if people can point to reasons for those likes and dislikes.
Assuming we're talking about something other than favourite colours.
When
> I said "re-read them again and you'll have to agree" I meant that if people
> looked at M@A by itself rather than a long-awaited sequel they might start
> thinking differently about it.
Well, I didn't actually read MAA as a long-awaited sequel. I've been
reading Terry's books for a long time, but it was actually MAA (which I
stumbled upon accidentally, in paperback, on a supermarket shelf) that
made me decide that from now on I was going to buy every book of
his. Since it coincided with discovering afp, which adds a certain
pressure to the desire to buy the latest work as you get left out of
discussions otherwise, I suppose you could say it was what turned me
into a "fan" (horrible word) rather than just an occasional
appreciative reader.
>Besides it's a well-known fact that when
> a lot of people like something certain people will like it too because "all
> those other people couldn't possibly be wrong, right?". So with all that
> hype about M@A I found it necessary that it be known that not _everybody_
> likes it.
>
Hype? what hype? The only consistent view to emerge anywhere - until
that survey - was that a helluva lot of people like
Rincewind. I was honestly surprised
to see MAA at the top of the Brit List, and just as surprised to see SG
topping the US charts, not least because I would put these, with WS and
FoC, as my joint favourites. (I actually voted for FoC, but that was
because it was way down at the bottom of the list - MAA and SG obviously
didn't need any more support).
> Of course SG mirrors some aspects of "our" world, however I think those are
> intrinsic aspects of human nature and organised religion rather than
> instrinsic to "our" world (like "banged grains" are intrinsic to our world,
> not to movies as such;
I dunno that I'd say that banged grains are "intrinsic" to our world
(popcorn as an immuatble aspect of human nature, anyone??)
but I'd agree that SG deals with what seem to be
universals rather than highly culture-specific parallels.
> Besides in contrast to e.g. SM PTerry left it at that and didn't try to
> mirror certain popes or historic events (unless you count the Inquisition
> and I think the mule who became a bishop; and Ephebe (ancient Athens)). SM
> was getting very specific what with Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Sex
> Pistols, The Foreign Legion, Beatlemania, Rock & bikes, ...
We have a pretty specific list of Epeheban philosophers.. but I do take
your point. And I don't much like SM either, but what i was really
angling for (in a sneaky, underhand way) was whether your objections to
MAA on the grounds of "mass popularity" extend to SG? presumably not,
given your distinction between "mass popularity" and "going mainstream".
Nobody could accuse Pterry of selling out to popular demand with SG - and
yet it turns out to be lots of people's all-time fave, whereas Rincewind
hardly gets a look in. Funny, isn't it? Oh well, maybe we on af/bp just
have exceptionally sophisticated literary tastes :-)
Victoria
Andrew Hogg
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.91.970128...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>...
>
>
<snip>
>
> Phew - deep breath. So Carrot's immunity could stem not only from the
> fact that he has no wish to impose any particular vision on others
Erm..yes he does. He believes everyone should get along but since he can
already do this (thanks to his krisma) the gonne offers him nothing.
Andrew Hogg
Andreas Dehmel <deh...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> wrote in article
<5ckpgo$4...@sunsystem5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>...
<snip>
> Of course SG mirrors some aspects of "our" world, however I think those
are
> intrinsic aspects of human nature and organised religion rather than
> instrinsic to "our" world (like "banged grains" are intrinsic to our
world,
> not to movies as such;
How do you know about this?Gone too many worlds have you?
Personally I think MP and SM are more fun and less serious than the other
books
Andy
Noel Foster
Terry Pratchett (tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> I'm told that I was the #3 in the Most Voted For author list -- but you
> disorganised lot only went and split the vote up among all the books,
> didn't you?
>
You don't expect us to cheat like the Tolkien lot, do you?
> Brought to you by Demon News, sooner or later.
2.5 to 3.5 days. Nothing unusual for them.
You seem to be posting a lot more nowadays. Does this mean that Jingo is
finished and you are resting before starting the next book?
Noel.
--
When a person puts his best foot forward and it gets stepped on - that's life.
Dr. Laurence Peter, 5000 Gems of Wit & Wisdom.
Floe Nestor
Ridcully the Brown
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970128...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>, Victoria says...
>
>On 28 Jan 1997, R Biegler wrote:
<Snip>
Yes it does. But I still tend to think that Vetinari did want the gonne
destroyed but he just couldn't do it himself. I believe he recognised the
hold it had on him and was trying to rid himself of it. He gave it to the
assassins believing that they would be able to destroy it as the gonne
threatened their line of work. After all if people could use the gonne much
of the assassins guilds usefulness is eliminated.
Andreas Dehmel
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>On 24 Jan 1997, Andreas Dehmel wrote:
>>
>> Don't know if nationality has much to do with it. I'm german, for instance.
>> The thing I always found special about PTerry's books is hard to put your
>> finger on, it's the general feel of the thing. And M@A feels like one
>> of your favourite rock groups going mainstream: the masses buy, the old
>> fans turn away in disgust
>I don't really want to comment on this because I shall probably end up
>getting unfairly abusive and muttering about "elitist arrogance",
OK, hint taken. I wouldn't have a problem with that, though... I'm not one
of those politically-correct sissies.
As far as "elitist arrogance" goes: I don't think it's my fault that most
of the really popular things just don't do anything for me. Being different
for being different's sake is one (pretty stupid) thing. Being different
because your interests just don't match most people's is another cup of tea
entirely.
I don't look down on anybody who likes M@A, if that's what you mean. I
merely said I don't like it much. Funny thing, had about the same effect
as saying "my God is bigger than yours"...
>so I shall I restrict myself to saying that
>Terry had "gone mainstream" (in the sense of being massively popular)
>long before MAA was written.
Being popular and being mainstream are two different things. The first means
just that, the second means making a conscious effort to appeal to the
masses, changing to conform and so on.
>> Maybe that's the Vimes I liked best... ;-)
>> Maybe it's that I just don't like crime stories - and M@A is nothing but
>> a dead standard crime story: the good guys are hunting someone with a new
>> and advanced weapon.
>And I'd question how the gonne really
>differs from the dragon of G!G! in terms of the function that it fulfils.
So to follow this line of thinking consistently to the end, every foe is
- functionally - the same, right?
I liked the dragon a lot better. I can't tell you why any more than explain
the reasons for my favourite colour to you. Maybe it's another "mirror of
worlds" thing...
> Now where do we know this from? About every other
>> James Bond movie, maybe?
>I hardly think that the treatment of the theme is the same, though, evne
>assuming that the gonne is intended to represent a new and advanced
>weapon and nothing more.
What then is the Gonne, if not a new and advanced weapon? OK, by talking to
its owner it represents the very idea of killing too but that doesn't change
anything important as far as I'm concerned.
>Well, to add a little ammo to your anti-MAA arsenal, there was a very
>convincing thread a while back pointing out the parallels between this
>episode and the short story "Flowers for Algernon".
"Anti-M@A"-arsenal sounds a little harsh. I'm not trying to tell people
what's good and what isn't (only an idiot would even think of that). When
I said "re-read them again and you'll have to agree" I meant that if people
looked at M@A by itself rather than a long-awaited sequel they might start
thinking differently about it. Besides it's a well-known fact that when
a lot of people like something certain people will like it too because "all
those other people couldn't possibly be wrong, right?". So with all that
hype about M@A I found it necessary that it be known that not _everybody_
likes it.
>> >BTW, why doesn't SG count as a "mirror of worlds" book?
>>
>> Huh? I brought up the issue talking about SM, so clearly SM falls into
>> that cathegory.
>>
>SG stands for Small Gods, which you didn't discuss.
Oops, sorry, mixed up the acronyms there.
Of course SG mirrors some aspects of "our" world, however I think those are
intrinsic aspects of human nature and organised religion rather than
instrinsic to "our" world (like "banged grains" are intrinsic to our world,
not to movies as such; however it is a human trait to think that one's
religion is the only true one and killing everyone who disagrees, as history
has proven beyond doubt). A book will have to mirror things humans can relate
to, after all what would hold our interest otherwise? It doesn't have to
mirror our world for that, though.
Besides in contrast to e.g. SM PTerry left it at that and didn't try to
mirror certain popes or historic events (unless you count the Inquisition
and I think the mule who became a bishop; and Ephebe (ancient Athens)). SM
was getting very specific what with Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Sex
Pistols, The Foreign Legion, Beatlemania, Rock & bikes, ...
So the difference I'd make is that SG is not _specific_ enough to qualify as
"mirror of worlds" book, although I agree the threshold is basically arbitrary.
Andreas
elan (Arve Loken)
[Victoria Martin]
> I'm not sure that Vetinari *didn't* know they hadn't destroyed it - he
> certainly knew the moment it was stolen. His spies, paid or otherwise,
> report its loss to him even before Cruces arrives to tell him.
Yes. Page 77, Corgi paperback, M@A:
A great many rulers, good and bad and quite often dead, know
what happened; a rare few actually manage, by dint of much
effort, to know what's happening. Lord Vetinary considered both
types to lack ambition.
I'm sure Lord Vetinary was notified at once, only delayed by the time it
takes to run from the guild to the palace (which, given the Ankh-Morpork
map, shouldn't take long). In fact, I have a suspicion he knew WHO took
it as well, or at least knew someone *were going to* take it.
And, subsequently, since he knew someone were planning to take it, he
knew it wasn't destroyed. He probably knew it all the time.
Hey...new theory forming in the mists of my brain...Let's assume for the
sake of an argument that Lord Vetinary wanted to keep the gonne, and
didn't trust himself enough to keep it (maybe he'd find out that the
best thing were to destroy it, and later found out he needed it anyway).
Therefore he "gave" it to the one guild he thought'd never destroy it,
much less use it.
--
Arve Løken you ask me do I love you... to reply
a.k.a. élan does the pope live in the woods? remove 'a'
el...@jagweb.com quod erat demonstrandum, baby from end
el...@sn.no (ooh, you speak French) of address
Jeff Lipton
Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>The omission, as another paper pointed out, was because the list was
>about books, not authors. So an author known for a series (Hornblower,
>Jeeves, Just William, DW) would find their vote spread across a lot of
>books. According to some Waterstones info, I understand, I was the #3
>'most voted for' author -- but you lot, instead of doing the decent
>thing and organising yourself like the furry-footed folk, went and
>wasted your votes across more than thirty books! Good grief, I despair,
>I really do...
He expects _this_ lot to be _organized_?! Good grief, we can't even
decide on our favorite color (or is that favourite colour?)...
Jeff
=============================
http://www.markomarketing.com/jlipton/
Victoria Martin
On 28 Jan 1997, Ridcully the Brown wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970128...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>, Victoria says...
> >
> >gonne. In this rather convoluted way, Vetinari is able to succumb to the
> >gonne to a certain degree, feel unable to eliminate it himself (though he
> >thinks that's what he ought to do), gives it to the assassins knowing
> >that they won't destroy it either, and can pat himself on the back for
> >having resisted temptation and "destroyed" the gonne, whilst
> >simultaneously having the reassurance that he can always get it out
> >and use it if he really needs it.
>
> But I still tend to think that Vetinari did want the gonne
> destroyed but he just couldn't do it himself. I believe he recognised the
> hold it had on him and was trying to rid himself of it.
Ih he recognised this, why was he so surpirised when Leonard pointed out
to him that he, like the assassins, had failed to destory the gonne? That
sounds to me as if he was subconsciously looking for a scapegoat.
He gave it to the
> assassins believing that they would be able to destroy it as the gonne
> threatened their line of work. After all if people could use the gonne much
> of the assassins guilds usefulness is eliminated.
Yes, that's the argument he gives to Leonard, and maybe he really
believed it, but it's not really a very convincing argument. It only
works if you assume that all assassins high up in the hierarchy ONLY work
for the good of the Guild as a whole and never for the good of themselves
as individuals. It is quite true that if lots of people had access to
gonnes then the assassins' Guild would be in trouble. But it is also true
that an individual assassin, faced with a particularly tough assignment,
would benefit enormously from having access to the only gonne on the
planet (On another leg of the trousers of time, the Klatchian ambassador
offers Dr Cruces the requisite million dollars to kill the Patrician in
the hope of winning a speedy victory in the war - and Dr Cruces accepts
the contract, inwardly thanking his lucky stars that locked away in the
assassins' museum is EXACTLY the weapon he needs...). Faced with a choice
between a rather abstract benefit for
the social group as a whole, and concrete advantages to oneself as an
individual, humans tend to pick the latter (see the discussion of why
communism doesn't work on the human rights thread for an illustration of
this). So a forward-thinking assassin would be MOST unlikely to destroy
the gonne, precisely because it is the ultimate assassins' tool (as
Edward instantly recognises). In fact, the assassins behave in exactly
the way one might predict - they take the gonne, pretend to destroy it,
and lock it away where only they can get at it. It was really
remarkably unperceptive of Vetinari, Mr Adequate, to assume that the
Assassins would act altruistically faced with this particular
temptation.
No, i agree with - was it Jan? - that if you want the gonne destroyed,
then the assassins are not really the first people you'd think of. A
blacksmith would be much better. Vetinari's past attendance of the
assassins' school may be playing a role here as well. Presumably he knows
most if not all of the Guild secrets, knows about the museum, and knows
only too well how the assassins are likely to react to the order he gives
them to destroy the gonne.
Victoria
Victoria Martin
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, elan wrote:
> [Victoria Martin]
>
> > I'm not sure that Vetinari *didn't* know they hadn't destroyed it - he
> > certainly knew the moment it was stolen. His spies, paid or otherwise,
> > report its loss to him even before Cruces arrives to tell him.
>
> I'm sure Lord Vetinary was notified at once, only delayed by the time it
> takes to run from the guild to the palace (which, given the Ankh-Morpork
> map, shouldn't take long). In fact, I have a suspicion he knew WHO took
> it as well, or at least knew someone *were going to* take it.
>
I don't think Vetinari could possibly have known that someone was
planning to take the gonne, given that Edward is a lone lunatic, acting
in isolation on a plan that is utterly crazy. Remember, at the time of
MAA there doesn't seem to be any kind of monarchist movement in A-M, and
the aristocrats don't take Edward's discovery of Carrot remotely
seriously. Even if there *were* a monarchist movement plotting to replace
the Patrician with a king of some sort, Edward is not part of it.
Vetinari can keep tabs on organised revolutionary groups - which is one
of the reasons why he funds them, it ensures that all the disaffected
elements are attracted to organisations where he can keep an eye on them
- but in a city of over a million people it is not physically possible to
uncover the seditious activities of otherwise blameless citizens with no
record and no affiliation to any organisation. Remember, Vetinari didn't
realise what Wonse was up to, either, and this was someone he saw every
day. How could he be expected to know about Edward?
Victoria
Victoria Martin
But the key word is "impose" (with the implication of force). Unless you
consider Carrot's krisma to be a kind of force, acting on people against
their will, then he can hardly be said to "impose" his views on people.
It's more that in his presence their better nature surfaces and they
decide (albeit only for a brief period) to act according to that better
nature. They cooperate, they are not coerced.
Victoria
Victoria Martin
On 29 Jan 1997, Peter Bleackley wrote:
>
> Vetinari didn't have to know that anyone was planning to take the gonne. He
> probably worked out pretty quickly what was happening when he heard a large
> explosion from the Assassins' Guild.
I follow your chain of reasoning, but I have to question the premise that
Vetinari knew immediately that the explosion came from the Assassins
Guild - how would he have known that it wasn't the alchemists,
fr'instance? Or that Lady Ramkin hadn't been taking one of her swamp
dragons for a walk again (how loudly does a dragon explode anyway?)
> Someone has caused a large explosion at the Assassins' Guild.
> If someone entered the Assassins' Guild without authority, they would be
> dealt with.
Nother little nitpick - maybe the explosion was caused by someone
attempting to enter the guild without authority?
Victoria
Peter Bleackley
In the guildhouse, Victoria Martin writes:
|>
|> I don't think Vetinari could possibly have known that someone was
|> planning to take the gonne, given that Edward is a lone lunatic, acting
|> in isolation on a plan that is utterly crazy. Remember, at the time of
|> MAA there doesn't seem to be any kind of monarchist movement in A-M, and
|> the aristocrats don't take Edward's discovery of Carrot remotely
|> seriously. Even if there *were* a monarchist movement plotting to replace
|> the Patrician with a king of some sort, Edward is not part of it.
|> Vetinari can keep tabs on organised revolutionary groups - which is one
|> of the reasons why he funds them, it ensures that all the disaffected
|> elements are attracted to organisations where he can keep an eye on them
|> - but in a city of over a million people it is not physically possible to
|> uncover the seditious activities of otherwise blameless citizens with no
|> record and no affiliation to any organisation. Remember, Vetinari didn't
|> realise what Wonse was up to, either, and this was someone he saw every
|> day. How could he be expected to know about Edward?
|>
Vetinari didn't have to know that anyone was planning to take the gonne. He
probably worked out pretty quickly what was happening when he heard a large
explosion from the Assassins' Guild. He had assumed that the assassins, who
like to kill people in person, rather from a distance, would destroy the
gonne as antithetical to the principles of their craft. The train of
reasoning thus:
Someone has caused a large explosion at the Assassins' Guild.
If someone entered the Assassins' Guild without authority, they would be
dealt with.
Therefore, it must have been an inside job.
If an assassin wished to kill, he would do so by stealth.
Therefore the motive must have been to gain access to something very
strongly guarded.
What would the assassins wish to guard so strongly that you'd need an
explosion to get at it?
They have failed me.
- is not one that would have taken Lord Vetinari longer to work out than
Dr. Cruces to reach the palace.
--
~PETE "QUANTUM" BLEACKLEY~
Daleks! Repent of your evil ways, and live in peace as plumbers!
X-Ray Astronomy Group University of Leicester
p...@star.le.ac.uk ~ Website coming soon
Wilkinson Family
On 27 Jan 1997 10:39:23 -0500, dick...@access5.digex.net (Dick Eney)
wroue:
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.97012...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
>Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip
>> Cruces - well, Cruces is the weak link, his motive appears
>>to be the same as edward's, even though it's hard to see why Cruces
>>should be a fanatical monarchist (my own theory is that Cruces' real
>>motive is just to get Vetinari, who humiliated him and let him fall in
>>the hoho, and that all the monarchist stuff is just a smokescreen).
<snip>
>Dr. Cruces _may_ have been offered the chance to get rid of Vetinari by
>putting Carrot on the throne, and then controlling or assassinating
>Carrot.
There is a reason why Cruces might be a monarchist [1] . He's an
Assassin, and assassins are definitely drawn from the upper class,
the aristocracy. The aristocracy have things going well for them when
there's royalty around, they get priviliges and get to hobnob with the
seat of power (ie the king) in a way that the common folk don't. I
don't think that Vetinari would show any favouritism to nobility in
concrete terms, but a king probably would. Especially a young,
inexperienced king who needs good advisors.
Tracy
[1] He doesn't need to be fanatical, just inclined that way and the
gonne, having got the idea from Edward could do the rest.
----
wil...@xtra.co.nz -Please can any e-mails have "For Tracy"
or something along those lines in the subject. And if
e-mailing me, remove the i at the end of the reply-to-address,
I'm jumping on a bandwagon again.
Peter Bleackley
In the Assassins' Guild, Victoria Martin writes:
|> On 29 Jan 1997, Peter Bleackley wrote:
|> > Vetinari didn't have to know that anyone was planning to take the gonne. He
|> > probably worked out pretty quickly what was happening when he heard a large
|> > explosion from the Assassins' Guild.
|> I follow your chain of reasoning, but I have to question the premise that
|> Vetinari knew immediately that the explosion came from the Assassins
|> Guild - how would he have known that it wasn't the alchemists,
|> fr'instance? Or that Lady Ramkin hadn't been taking one of her swamp
|> dragons for a walk again (how loudly does a dragon explode anyway?)
Well, when the Guards heard the explosion, they worked out where it
had come from straight away. Of course, it's their bussiness to know
the City in great detail, Carrot and Sam Vimes are particularly good
at it. It's just as much Lord Vetinari's bussiness, although he'd
learn the streets by studying a map, rather than walking down them.
And didn't poor little Chubby leave a plume of smoke, or something?
|> > Someone has caused a large explosion at the Assassins' Guild.
|> > If someone entered the Assassins' Guild without authority, they would be
|> > dealt with.
|> Nother little nitpick - maybe the explosion was caused by someone
|> attempting to enter the guild without authority?
Unless you had a lot of self-confidence, ie you were a troll, or you
had plenty more explosions where that one came from, you wouldn't
want to draw attention to yourself on such an occaision. I can't
think of any explosive available in Ankh-Morpork that you'd want to
carry more than one of at a time.
Dick Eney
In article <01bc0d5d$73ea8440$d82449c2@default>,
Andrew Hogg <Andre...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Personally I think MP and SM are more fun and less serious than the
>other books
On the surface maybe. MP is about image and perception creating reality.
SM is about memory and fame. Both use the powerful effect that something
apparently unimportant and ephemeral (entertainment) can have on a
society.
=Tamar (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
Mr P R Walker
In article <97012810...@nffoster.demon.co.uk>,
no...@nffoster.demon.co.uk (Noel Foster) writes:
>2.5 to 3.5 days. Nothing unusual for them.
>You seem to be posting a lot more nowadays. Does this mean that Jingo is
Is anyone else missing Terry's messages, or is it just me? Because they
virtually never appear here... >:(
Paul
Terry Pratchett
In article <97012810...@nffoster.demon.co.uk>, Noel Foster
<no...@nffoster.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>You seem to be posting a lot more nowadays. Does this mean that Jingo is
>
>Noel.
>
Besides, there's some interesting threads.
--
Terry Pratchett
LNR
Jan H. Haul <jan....@hamburg.netsurf.de> wrote:
[Vetinari and the gonne]
>He failed to destroy it *himself*, as he would perceivably fail to throw
>some street theatre cri^h^h^hperformer himself.
>He gave it to the assassins, ith the strict order to destroy it, and
>they disobeyed.
The impression that I got from the book was that Vetinari gave the Gonne
to the Assassins with strict orders to destroy it because he *knew* that
they wouldn't. Much in the same way that he orders the watch off the
case because he *knows* they will disobey.
LNR
x
--
Keeper of the Purity Scores - http://users.ox.ac.uk/~hert0145/purity/
mail your purity scores to - pur...@lspace.org
Nigel Mercier
In alt.fan.pratchett, Terry Pratchett wrote:
>>: ...survey of the best books of the century...
>...but you lot... went and wasted your votes across more than thirty books!
Right, that does it; next century we'll be ready...
-- "We now hide things from our children --
-- that we used to hide from our parents" --
-- Nigel Mercier <nmer...@dial.pipex.com> --
-- http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/nmercier/ --
Klingon730
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>Nother little nitpick - maybe the explosion was caused by someone
attempting to enter the guild without authority?
Why would anyone need to blow something up just to enter the guild? The
Assassin's Guild gates are permanently rusted open (qv "Pyramids").
******************************************************
* SUB-ZERO - SASQUATCH - ERICK - BAD MISTER FROSTY *
* Revenge is a dish best served cold. *
* ICEMAN - GLACIUS - BLIZZARD - MERCURY - RIMURURU *
* *
* Nathan Rosen kling...@aol.com *
* t+ c T r(-+) f !g m+(?) s -> ++ v(+) M(+) n+:+ o+@ *
******************************************************
James Neale
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Terry Pratchett wrote:
> >You seem to be posting a lot more nowadays. Does this mean that Jingo is
> >finished and you are resting before starting the next book?
> >
> >Noel.
> >
> No, I'm doing a lot of editing and sometimes need to surface for air.
> Besides, there's some interesting threads.
Bloody hell, you mean the signal/noise ratio has gone up a bit? Hmm, that
may be due to the time of year, or the ambient temperature, or the device
inconsistancies, or.....
J. (After far too much electronics for a year, let alone a day....)
--
I'm not scared of heights. It's the ground that hurts....
Stuart Painting
In article <01bc0de4$eafa2d60$LocalHost@default>, Anthony Walton
<URL:mailto:TheW...@msn.com> wrote:
> ..... Another snip ...
>
> > He expects _this_ lot to be _organized_?! Good grief, we can't even
> > decide on our favorite color (or is that favourite colour?)...
> >
> > Jeff
>
> become organize etc. :o)
>
> Do Americans have a "z" mountain or something, and feel the need to use
> extra ones, where they are not needed?
Actually the Concise Oxford Dictionary gets in on the act, too.
If you look up "organise" you'll find it listed as an alternative
spelling of "organize" (in other words, "-ize" is the preferred one).
In my father's copy of said dictionary (but not, I just noticed, in my
copy, which is a later edition) there was a note from the editor that,
in the event of any doubt as to which of "-ise" or "-ize" was the
preferred spelling, "-ize" was chosen for consistency.
stuart
--
Stuart Painting (stu...@zedtoo.demon.co.uk)
Richard Kettlewell
Anthony Walton <TheW...@msn.com> wrote:
>Depends if you have Microsoft's Spell Checker or not! Likewise
>organise, become organize etc. :o)
>
>Do Americans have a "z" mountain or something, and feel the need to
>use extra ones, where they are not needed?
Fowler cites etymology, phonetics and the OED as good reasons to use
`z' here ... he makes a convincing case. `-ise' is apparently a
French import.
--
Richard Kettlewell http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/
May the Carrier be with you.
Victoria Martin
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Wilkinson Family wrote:
>
> >> Cruces - well, Cruces is the weak link, his motive appears
> >>to be the same as edward's, even though it's hard to see why Cruces
> >>should be a fanatical monarchist (my own theory is that Cruces' real
> >>motive is just to get Vetinari, who humiliated him and let him fall in
> >>the hoho, and that all the monarchist stuff is just a smokescreen).
>
>
> There is a reason why Cruces might be a monarchist [1] . He's an
> Assassin, and assassins are definitely drawn from the upper class,
> the aristocracy. The aristocracy have things going well for them when
> there's royalty around, they get priviliges and get to hobnob with the
> seat of power (ie the king) in a way that the common folk don't.
Yes, this is true. And if you look at what the aristocrats say at the
beginning of MAA when Edward shows them his slides, they give the
impression that as a class they have suffered a loss of privilege since
Vetinari came to power. I'll say some more about this at the bottom when
I've added a FoC spoiler warning.
> [1] He doesn't need to be fanatical, just inclined that way and the
> gonne, having got the idea from Edward could do the rest.
The problem I have with this - and I agree that it's a possible
explanation - is that it mucks up my view of the gonne's function. The
way I see it, it represents the temptation offered by absolute power and it
tailors that temptation to the desires of the person using it (hence the
fact that Vimes is offered the chance to clean up the city). If it starts
making suggestions itself - "Look, think what you could do with me, have
you ever thought about what a good idea it would be if A-M had a king
again?" it becomes more complicated and rather contradictory. Is it a
force that can take control of people *without* having to tempt them? And
if so, why is Carrot immune, why was Vetinari relatively untouched? Can
it transform their personalities? If so, why does it gear itself so
specifically towards Vimes' most central desires and prejudices, when it
could just change him?
FoC SPOOOOOOOIIIIILER
> > > I
> don't think that Vetinari would show any favouritism to nobility in
> concrete terms, but a king probably would.
From the aristocracy's point of view, Vetinari actively discriminates
against them. Not only does he allow the lower orders to form guilds,
equal, at least technically, to the older ones, he also insists that they
be subjected to the rule of law (at the beginning of FoC Vimes mentions 2
young aristocrats who have been found guilty of crimes - young Lord
selachii appears to have been convicted of rape and Lord Rust's son of
murder. That's why the assassin is hired to take out Vimes - the immediate
cause of their disgrace - but in the long term the person really
responsible for the erosion of their power and privileges is Vetinari).
The aristocracy has excellent reasons for wishing Vetinari out of the
way, but it does seem that in the period in which MAA is set, they
haven't yet grasped quite how radical Vetinari is. It's the appearance of
Carrot that focusses everyone's minds on the monarchy as a possible
political alternative. Until he turns up, the only alternative to
Vetinari is a different Patrician - at least, this is all the aristos
seem to be able to think of.
Victoria
Anthony Walton
Jeff Lipton <jhli...@voyager.net> wrote in article
<5cmebp$j...@vixc.voyager.net>...
> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
.... Another snip ...
> He expects _this_ lot to be _organized_?! Good grief, we can't even
> decide on our favorite color (or is that favourite colour?)...
>
> Jeff
Depends if you have Microsoft's Spell Checker or not! Likewise organise,
become organize etc. :o)
Do Americans have a "z" mountain or something, and feel the need to use
extra ones, where they are not needed?
Anthony
--
*********************************************************
This is a .sig file that goes ... "Ni" ... and it wants a shrubery!
*********************************************************
elan (Arve Loken)
[Victoria Martin]
> I follow your chain of reasoning, but I have to question the premise that
> Vetinari knew immediately that the explosion came from the Assassins
> Guild - how would he have known that it wasn't the alchemists,
> fr'instance? Or that Lady Ramkin hadn't been taking one of her swamp
> dragons for a walk again (how loudly does a dragon explode anyway?)
Don't forget that the said explosion at the Assassins' Guild *was* a
dragon exploding.
James Gater
In message <01bc0d5c$1eb71ac0$d82449c2@default>
"Andrew Hogg" <Andre...@btinternet.com> writes:
> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote in article
> <Pine.OSF.3.91.970128...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>...
> >
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Phew - deep breath. So Carrot's immunity could stem not only from the
> > fact that he has no wish to impose any particular vision on others
> Erm..yes he does. He believes everyone should get along but since he can
> already do this (thanks to his krisma) the gonne offers him nothing.
(damn the snip, this looked interesting!)
Shirley it's because the gonne offers to give you everything you
want, by killing all that get in your way (e.g. vimes gets law &
order, by killing the bad guys). It's not that Carrot has all that he
wants, but that for him, personal isn't the same as important. The
gonne's offer can simply be ignored, because of his dedication to
what is 'right'.
One of the things I've always found most intriguing about Carrot is
that as a hero you support him - and then he can turn round and be
downright cutting to Angua, and shameless manipulative of others.
Unlike vetinari or granny weatherwax, who you know to be shrewd
'headology' types, carrot seems just too nice and simple most of the
time for his rare, but brutal turns. Sometimes it's almost like a
slap in the face to see him in action - as colon put it, complicated
carrot is unexpected as being savaged by a duck.
--
"PROGRAM (pro'-gram) [vi] To engage in a pastime similar to banging one's
head against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward."
email:- j.g...@zetnet.co.uk
WWW:- http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~ee95jjg
James Gater
In message <zDTfWAAz...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <97012810...@nffoster.demon.co.uk>, Noel Foster
> <no...@nffoster.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >You seem to be posting a lot more nowadays. Does this mean that Jingo is
> >finished and you are resting before starting the next book?
> >
> >Noel.
> >
> No, I'm doing a lot of editing and sometimes need to surface for air.
> Besides, there's some interesting threads.
Hmm, and which ones are those? Bet they're not ones I started[1], sob.
[1] nice to see threads I started two months ago before leaving still
going with the *same* header
Andreas Dehmel
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>On 28 Jan 1997, Andreas Dehmel wrote:
>> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>> >I don't really want to comment on this because I shall probably end up
>> >getting unfairly abusive and muttering about "elitist arrogance",
>>
>> I don't look down on anybody who likes M@A, if that's what you mean. I
>> merely said I don't like it much. Funny thing, had about the same effect
>> as saying "my God is bigger than yours"...
>I haven't noticed anybody flaming you on a public forum, if that's what
>you mean by the "effect".
1) That wasn't meant as a complaint.
2) You don't know my email.
3) It really wasn't meant as a complaint.
>All people have done is disagree back at you, which is hardly
>the response you imply. And you *did* say quite explicitly that MAA was very
>popular and that you equated popularity with lack of quality, which
>rather implies that people who like MAA have popular (= poor quality)
>taste.
And I stand by that assertion. Looking at popular art I can't help it.
>> Being popular and being mainstream are two different things. The first means
>> just that, the second means making a conscious effort to appeal to the
>> masses, changing to conform and so on.
>Like writing another Rincewind novel at the behest of the masses? Hmm,
>maybe I find myself agreeing with you after all :-)
Yes. Or writing another novel with the City Watch because Carrot was such
a crowd-pleaser. A real hero for a change, not a spineless weasel like
Rincewind ;-)
And of course we need a love story; that always helps popularity a lot.
Ask anyone in Holy Wood.
Seriously, I wish PTerry would junk the sub-series at least for the time
being and write stand-alone books - DW or otherwise. Those were always
the best IMHO.
>> So to follow this line of thinking consistently to the end, every foe is
>> - functionally - the same, right?
>No, I don't think they are. Lily serves nothing like the same function as
>the gonne (or the Elf Queen for that matter).
Depends where you draw the line. Lily as well as the Gonne are a threat,
each in her/its own way.
>But the gonne and the
>dragon *are* very similar - both represent an awesome capacity for
>destruction, both are used in an attempt to unseat the ruling power and
>both end up taking over the person who tried to use them.
The Gonne's more passive, though. It still needs someone to pull the
trigger. The Dragon is pretty active, all in all. It needs someone to
summon it but it can return of its own accord and act without anybody's
help. The Gonne takes over its owner who looks the same as everybody
else. The Dragon definitely stands out of any crowd.
You might say this is irrelevant but I think it's no more irrelevant than
if something is a threat or a means of destruction.
Plus the fact that they were both used in the same city by the same type
of person with the same goal in mind doesn't exactly shed the light of
originality upon M@A...
>> "Anti-M@A"-arsenal sounds a little harsh. I'm not trying to tell people
>> what's good and what isn't (only an idiot would even think of that).
>No, but you are telling people what you personally think is good and what
>isn't (I do this all the time, so does everybody else) and I think it's
>interesting if people can point to reasons for those likes and dislikes.
That's not always possible, though. I can't point to many specific bit of
M@A and say "here, _that_ annoys me". Not without people quoting bits
from my favourite books that go in the same general direction. It's mostly
the overall impression of the book as a whole.
But take Cuddy & Detritus: the "two partners who can't stand each
other at the beginning but become friends towards the end" bit. Even the
hardiest of M@A fans should be (wo)man enough to admit that this one is
so old it was tripping over its beard when humanity was still living in
trees.
Bringing back Gaspode with a rather lame excuse (sleeping near the
University) is another one of those things. The explanation in MP was
a lot more logical, IMHO.
I'm just reading it again to refresh my memory (I never said it was bad
as such, only when compared to most other DW books). And as I requested
an adjective that adequately describes my feelings towards this book the
one that elbowed its way into consciousness was "cheesy".
>> So with all that hype about M@A I found it necessary that it be known
>> that not _everybody_ likes it.
>>
>Hype? what hype?
When it came out I do recall quite a hype - at least on a.f.p. Apart from
that if the #1 DW book in the UK is not a hype then I really don't know...
>> Of course SG mirrors some aspects of "our" world, however I think those are
>> intrinsic aspects of human nature and organised religion rather than
>> instrinsic to "our" world (like "banged grains" are intrinsic to our world,
>> not to movies as such;
>I dunno that I'd say that banged grains are "intrinsic" to our world
Do you _have_ to have popcorn to have movies? I think not, so popcorn
is something that just happened on this planet. OK, maybe intrinsic's not
the right word here...
> [...] And I don't much like SM either, but what i was really
>angling for (in a sneaky, underhand way) was whether your objections to
>MAA on the grounds of "mass popularity" extend to SG?
Since I said SG was one of my favourites right from the start I think
what you were really angling for was how I can justify liking a book that's
popular. It's not really "mass popularity" I dislike in M@A. It's "mass
appeal".
>Nobody could accuse Pterry of selling out to popular demand with SG - and
>yet it turns out to be lots of people's all-time fave, whereas Rincewind
>hardly gets a look in.
SG is radically different from all the other DW books, I think. Extra
points to PTerry for making #13 an experiment. I just wish he did this
kind of thing more often (experiment, I mean).
>Funny, isn't it? Oh well, maybe we on af/bp just
>have exceptionally sophisticated literary tastes :-)
I wouldn't count on it ;-)
Andreas
Shooty
Terry Pratchett wrote:
>
> In article <97012810...@nffoster.demon.co.uk>, Noel Foster
> <no...@nffoster.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >You seem to be posting a lot more nowadays. Does this mean that Jingo is
> >finished and you are resting before starting the next book?
> >
> >Noel.
> >
> No, I'm doing a lot of editing and sometimes need to surface for air.
> Besides, there's some interesting threads.
> Terry Pratchett
This being some previously undiscovered use of the word 'interesting'
Victoria Martin
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, elan wrote:
> [Victoria Martin]
> > I follow your chain of reasoning, but I have to question the premise that
> > Vetinari knew immediately that the explosion came from the Assassins
> > Guild - how would he have known that it wasn't the alchemists,
> > fr'instance? Or that Lady Ramkin hadn't been taking one of her swamp
> > dragons for a walk again (how loudly does a dragon explode anyway?)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Don't forget that the said explosion at the Assassins' Guild *was* a
> dragon exploding.
>
Exactly - would it have been audible from inside the palace with the
windows shut? Do they make a sort of squelchy bang or is it like
dynamite? I can't remember where the various watch members were when
Cubby exploded, so I can't say if they were closer and therefore more
likely to hear it than Vetinari, but it does seem to be the case that the
majority of citizens simply ignore the explosion. If it were that out of
the ordinary, you would expect a vast and enquiring crowd to come for a
good stare in the hope of seeing some dead bodies.
Victoria
Victoria Martin
On 29 Jan 1997, Klingon730 wrote:
> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >Nother little nitpick - maybe the explosion was caused by someone
> attempting to enter the guild without authority?
>
> Why would anyone need to blow something up just to enter the guild? The
> Assassin's Guild gates are permanently rusted open (qv "Pyramids").
>
Are they? Ooh - but didn't Detritus barge through them with a seige
engine or something? I can't remember the details at all.
Victoria
Peter Bleackley
In the Patrician's garden, Victoria Martin writes:
|>
|>
|> On 30 Jan 1997, Peter Bleackley wrote:
|>
|> >
|> > Well, the Watch heard the explosion and went to the scene to investigate.
|> > And Lord Vetinari was working in the garden that day. When the watch first
|> > hear the explosion, they at first think it was the Alchemists' Guild
|>
|> So might Vetinari not have assumed it was the alchemists as well? Vimes
|> only realised it wasn't the alchemists when he looked out of the window,
|> and you can't expect the Patrician to rush out and look every time
|> there's an explosion at the alchemists'. Nah, I still think Vetinari knew
|> damn well that the assassins wouldn't destroy the gonne, but wouldn't
|> admit it to himself.
|>
No, as I pointed out, Lord Vetinari was working in his garden at the
time, so there's no need for him to dash to the window. As I said
before, Lord Vetinari probably knows the city layout as well as
Carrot, although he would have learnt it by studying maps. Hence when
Chubby looks in the mirror, Vetinari immediately knows that the
explosion has occurred in a guild where such things are not routine
matters.
Peter Bleackley
In cover, Victoria Martin writes:
|>
|> Exactly - would it have been audible from inside the palace with the
|> windows shut? Do they make a sort of squelchy bang or is it like
|> dynamite? I can't remember where the various watch members were when
|> Cubby exploded, so I can't say if they were closer and therefore more
|> likely to hear it than Vetinari, but it does seem to be the case that the
|> majority of citizens simply ignore the explosion. If it were that out of
|> the ordinary, you would expect a vast and enquiring crowd to come for a
|> good stare in the hope of seeing some dead bodies.
|>
Well, the Watch heard the explosion and went to the scene to investigate.
And Lord Vetinari was working in the garden that day. When the watch first
hear the explosion, they at first think it was the Alchemists' Guild, and
then realise that it came from the wrong direction, so that would be why
most of the population ignored it. The force of a dragon exploding is such
that Lady Ramkin built the Sunshine Sanctuary for Sick Dragons with very
thick walls and a very thin roof, and when one dragon was about to explode,
told everybody to dive for cover.
William Cato-Addison
[ Rampant mode engaged ]
You started??????
Look.. I started the thread with the original question "Is it me or is one
of terry prachett's book not funny?" where I examined the unfunnyness of
Masquerade.. there are 2 other people from logica who can support this, so
nerr.
[ Dis-engaging rampant mode ]
Nick
+-
Nicholas Kitchener, Software Engineer, Logica UK
Contact: kitch...@logica.com http://www.logica.com
Adultery- the wrong two people doing the right thing.
Victoria Martin
On 30 Jan 1997, Peter Bleackley wrote:
>
> Well, the Watch heard the explosion and went to the scene to investigate.
> And Lord Vetinari was working in the garden that day. When the watch first
> hear the explosion, they at first think it was the Alchemists' Guild
So might Vetinari not have assumed it was the alchemists as well? Vimes
only realised it wasn't the alchemists when he looked out of the window,
and you can't expect the Patrician to rush out and look every time
there's an explosion at the alchemists'. Nah, I still think Vetinari knew
damn well that the assassins wouldn't destroy the gonne, but wouldn't
admit it to himself.
Victoria
LNR
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Nah, I still think Vetinari knew
>damn well that the assassins wouldn't destroy the gonne, but wouldn't
>admit it to himself.
Whereas in my opinion he *had* admitted it to himself. What better than
to give it to the assassins, who won't destroy it but *will* keep it
nice and safe just in case you might find a use for it in future.. I'm
sure that's why he keeps the inventor Leonard Da Quirm (sp?) locked up
rather than just killing him...
(apologies if that makes no snese I'm remembering off the top of my head
and I've been told my memory is like a wossname..)
Victoria Martin
On 30 Jan 1997, LNR wrote:
> >Nah, I still think Vetinari knew
> >damn well that the assassins wouldn't destroy the gonne, but wouldn't
> >admit it to himself.
>
> Whereas in my opinion he *had* admitted it to himself. What better than
> to give it to the assassins, who won't destroy it but *will* keep it
> nice and safe just in case you might find a use for it in future.. I'm
> sure that's why he keeps the inventor Leonard Da Quirm (sp?) locked up
> rather than just killing him...
Yes, yes, but in that case why is Vetinari so surprised when Leonard
points out that he failed to destroy it hiself? If he never intended to
destroy it, why would this come as a revelation to him?
Victoria
Steve Fagg
In article <5cqh1l$r...@news.ox.ac.uk>, LNR <hert...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Nah, I still think Vetinari knew
>>damn well that the assassins wouldn't destroy the gonne, but wouldn't
>>admit it to himself.
>
>Whereas in my opinion he *had* admitted it to himself. What better than
>to give it to the assassins, who won't destroy it but *will* keep it
>nice and safe just in case you might find a use for it in future.
It seems to me that this is the more likely. Telling the assassins to
destroy the gonne knowing full well they wouldn't obey seems to me to
be quite in character for Vetinari.
This next bit is pure speculation on my part, but might not the
Patrician's action be his way of ensuring that should anyone else come
up with a similar device in the future he'd know where he could find a
deterrent?
TTFN
Steve
--
Steve Fagg (nigh...@dircon.co.uk)
'73 Chevy Pick-up
In article 3B...@mrent.demon.co.uk, Shooty <an...@mrent.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Terry Pratchett wrote:
[..]
>> No, I'm doing a lot of editing and sometimes need to surface for air.
>> Besides, there's some interesting threads.
>> --
>> Terry Pratchett
>
>This being some previously undiscovered use of the word 'interesting'
Hardly. I thnk he means as in _Interesting Times_
'73
---
alt.flame Special Forces: "The newsgroups are not concerned
with what there is to be learned."
-- The Clash
Tom De Mulder
Victoria Martin wrote:
(propably because of Quantum)
>> Why would anyone need to blow something up just to enter the guild? The
>> Assassin's Guild gates are permanently rusted open (qv "Pyramids").
>Are they? Ooh - but didn't Detritus barge through them with a seige
>engine or something? I can't remember the details at all.
They propably just oiled the hinges and finally had that bl**dy door shut,
when Detritus blew it to smithereens with his siege-crossbow. ;-)
It's all a matter of artistic freedom, IYAM. I can see Detritus stand
there, in front of the open gates of the Assassin's guild, thinking what he
was supposed to do next, and why he brought that crossbow along... :-)
+____ *
. \ / . Tom De Mulder
\/ .
* +
... Have you hugged your money today?
Ridcully the Brown
In article <5cqh1l$r...@news.ox.ac.uk>, hert...@sable.ox.ac.uk says...
>
> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Nah, I still think Vetinari knew
>>damn well that the assassins wouldn't destroy the gonne, but wouldn't
>>admit it to himself.
>
>Whereas in my opinion he *had* admitted it to himself. What better than
>to give it to the assassins, who won't destroy it but *will* keep it
>sure that's why he keeps the inventor Leonard Da Quirm (sp?) locked up
>rather than just killing him...
But he was suprised when Leonard stated that he hadn't destroyed it
himself. In my nsho he thought that by giving it to the assassins the
gonne would be destroyed. Hence his suprise that it wasn't.Anyway with
Leonard locked up why would he need a working copy of the gonne around he
already has access to the source of the weapon.
Ridcully the Brown
The Official Michelena Riosa Testosterone Brigade
Commander of the Kiwi Cadre & Defender of the New Zealand Position
IDS Hallam
Victoria Martin (sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: (how loudly does a dragon explode anyway?)
I imagine it's pretty loud, because apparently the term "blast radius"
applies.
--
______
| /##\ | + Iain Hallam B.F. + ih6...@bristol.ac.uk +
|/####\| + Unseen University + Ankh Morpork +
\ /\ / + "Dave? Dave, I can feel my mind going. Dave? .... +
\/ + Daisy, Daisy, give me your..." Arthur C. Clarke +
Helen Highwater
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970128...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>
sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk "Victoria Martin" writes:
snip
> No, the whole Cruces bit is very unclear. As far as I can tell, he gets
> involved very early. The assassin who takes pot shots at Vimes, and who
> kills Lettice, is Cruces, although it would make more sense if it were
> Edward (I know it was Cruces because I went back and checked). Killing
> Lettice really only makes sense within the context of the plan to create
> instability in order to restore the monarchy, it seems rather pointless
> if Cruces' primary intent is to kill Vetinari because he has a personal
> grudge (though I suppose you could always see it as practice, getting his
> hand in for the Big One, plus the guy is an assassin so at some level he
> must have been like a kid with a new toy, wanting to try it out on
> anyone. But this is all inference, it isn't contradicted by the text but
> it isn't supported either).I have real trouble seeing Cruces as a
> fanatical monarchist - it works beautifully with Edward, but edward, it
> is made plain, is an oddball, one step away from wearing underpants on
> his head and drooling, so why would the Head of the Assassins' Guild
> secretly share his monarchist ambitions?
Without rereading the book I can't be sure, but I don't think Cruces'
primary motivation to kill Vetinari is a personal grudge. IIRC the
only we get is his twice repeated statement that the city needs a
king, he thinks Edward was right but mad,
'He was a romantic, he would have got it wrong! But Ankh-Morpork
needs a king!'
and
'Edward was stupid, he thought it was all crowns and ceremony, he
had no idea what he'd found!...
'The city needs a king!'
ps351 & 359 M@A Corgi pb.
> On the other hand, even edward's chief motivation is not to
> restore the monarchy but to kill Vetinari, because he blames him for his
> family's decline and the current abysmal state of A-M society. He enrols
> in the post-graduate course with the specific intention of acquiring the
> skills necessary to assassinate the Patrician (there's a line about how
> if he'd been a musician he would have sung dangerously satirical songs
> about the Patrician, and if he'd been a thief he would have broken into
> the palace and stolen something valuable from the Patrician, but since he
> was an assassin... - Helen? can you help?).
Since you ask:)
'Edward had been sent to the Assassins' Guild because they had the best
school for those whose social rank is rather higher than their
intelligence. If he'd been trained as a Fool, he'd have invented satire
and made dangerous jokes about the Patrician. If he'd been trained as a
Thief, he'd have broken into the Palace and stolen something very
valuable from the Patrician.
However... he'd been sent to the Assassins...'
p9 M@A
--
Helen Highwater
"I think I may be able to metabolise alcohol".(RM)
Helen Highwater
In article <32ef2f7...@news.xtra.co.nz>
wil...@xtra.co.nzi "Wilkinson Family" writes:
snip
>
> There is a reason why Cruces might be a monarchist [1] . He's an
> Assassin, and assassins are definitely drawn from the upper class,
> the aristocracy. The aristocracy have things going well for them when
> there's royalty around, they get priviliges and get to hobnob with the
> don't think that Vetinari would show any favouritism to nobility in
> inexperienced king who needs good advisors.
Quite apart from the total lack of enthusiasm for the monarchy shown
by the aristocracy that Edward tries to convince, (which might be
assumed to have a political basis,) Lady Sybil Ramkin says
'The kings got thrown out, and a jolly good job too. They could be
quite frightful. [snip]
'Some of them were fearful oiks you know,' she said airily.
'Wives all over the place, and chopping people's heads off, fighting
pointless wars, eating with their knife, chucking half-eaten chicken
legs over their shoulders, that sort of thing. Not /our/ sort of
people at all.'
p158 GG
elan (Arve Loken)
[Victoria Martin]
> > Don't forget that the said explosion at the Assassins' Guild *was* a
> > dragon exploding.
> Exactly - would it have been audible from inside the palace with the
> windows shut?
Yes. See below.
> Do they make a sort of squelchy bang or is it like
> dynamite? I can't remember where the various watch members were when
> Cubby exploded, so I can't say if they were closer and therefore more
> likely to hear it than Vetinari,
Vimes were at the watch house, and the rest of the gang was in Short
Street. They came trotting up Filigree Street as Vimes arrived at the
Guild. For both parties the effect of poor Chubby's survival trait[1] is
described as "the world exploded". Vetinary MUST have heard it.
As per the "why not assume it was the Alchemists' Guild" question asked
somewhere, this is what the book says (I've finally looked it up):
Right, that did it! The alchemists had blown up their Guild
House for the last time, if Vimes had anything to do with it...
But when he peered over the window sill he saw, across the
river, the column of dust rising over the Assassins' Guild...
(page 56, Corgi paperback)
[1] See original footnote, page 36 in Corgi paperback.
Tony Finch
William Cato-Addison <ca...@logica.com> wrote:
>
>[ Rampant mode engaged ]
That word you said: I don't think it means what you think it means.
FTony.
--
shift = \h.\k. h (\v.\c. c (k v)) (\z.z)
perv = \x. null x (if (\k. k x) (shift (\f.\k. hd x (\h. tl x
(\t. perv t (\t. f t (\t. cons h t k)))))))
perverse = \x. perv x (\z.z)
Alex Burr
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970130...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>On 29 Jan 1997, Klingon730 wrote:
>
>> Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>> >Nother little nitpick - maybe the explosion was caused by someone
>> attempting to enter the guild without authority?
>>
>> Assassin's Guild gates are permanently rusted open (qv "Pyramids").
>>
>
>Are they? Ooh - but didn't Detritus barge through them with a seige
>engine or something? I can't remember the details at all.
Detritus _is_ a seige engine. He did have a six foot arrow, though.
<dink>
Alex Burr
Curiosity
In the referenced article, "Anthony Walton" <TheW...@msn.com> writes:
>
>
>Jeff Lipton <jhli...@voyager.net> wrote in article
><5cmebp$j...@vixc.voyager.net>...
>> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>
>.... Another snip ...
>
>> He expects _this_ lot to be _organized_?! Good grief, we can't even
>> decide on our favorite color (or is that favourite colour?)...
>>
>> Jeff
>
>Depends if you have Microsoft's Spell Checker or not! Likewise organise,
>become organize etc. :o)
>
>Do Americans have a "z" mountain or something, and feel the need to use
>extra ones, where they are not needed?
I think you'll find that the reason that Merkins have sooooo many 'z's
in their words is that thier language is closer in some ways to a
snapshot of English 200 years ago, than our English is today.
In other words, when the old Mayflower wandered over there we all used
'z's. Our language has evolved a little more, that's all :)
So, I makes me wander where our 's' mountain came from .... anyone got
any good ideas ?
Cheers, Curiosity
--
Curiosity * Bath Information & Data Services (BIDS) * Email: ccs...@bath.ac.uk
Phone: +44 1225 826826 ext 4658 * Web: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsjwg/home.html
GCS/M d- H+ s:+>: g+ p? au-- a? w++ !v c+++$ US+++ P+ L++ 3 E+++ N+++ !K W+ !M
V-- !o w !O PS+ PE Y+ !PGP t+>++ 5++ X++ R+ TV b+++ !DI !D G e*>+++ h* r+ y++
Michael The Roach Janszen
On 27 Jan 1997 16:08:16 -0800, Ridcully the Brown
<ridc...@ihug.co.nz> shook the Earth by stating:
(chomp!)
>
>The gonne...a loose cannon...
>*Boom Boom*
Hey! <fx: frantically dodges> Watch where you're pointing that thing!
Sheesh, you'd think he knew to look out for roaches by now, wouldn't
you?
Live long and prosper
Michael "The Roach" Janszen
The Official Michelena Riosa Testosterone Brigade
Producer of the Only Michelena Riosa Table Water
Spammer trap - when replying by e-mail, drop the last letter
of the address...
Allan M Rennie
>
> Victoria Martin (sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
> : (how loudly does a dragon explode anyway?)
>
> I imagine it's pretty loud, because apparently the term "blast radius"
> applies.
Any explosion has a blast radius it just depend on how big or small the
bang is. For a practical demonstration come to Hypotheticon in Glasgow.
the last week in September. Or Year of the Wombat (But don't tell their
committee they don't know yet!)
> \/ + Daisy, Daisy, give me your..." Arthur C. Clarke +
Why has daisy got an Arthur C Clarke and what does she use it for?
Michael The Roach Janszen
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 00:49:26 GMT, James Gater <j.g...@zetnet.co.uk>
shook the Earth by stating:
>[1] nice to see threads I started two months ago before leaving still
>going with the *same* header
Yes, but only because people are too lazy to change the headers when
the subject changes. But then, we want at least something resembling a
thread, and not a long string(1) of unrelated posts(2).
(1) pa'n the pun
(2) unrelated to the previous post(3), that is. The relations here on
afp...
(3) but given the mutation speed, probably related - by chance - to
something posted five postings back.
Gideon Hallett
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:07:15 GMT, ccs...@bath.ac.uk (Curiosity) spoke in
tongues:
>In the referenced article, "Anthony Walton" <TheW...@msn.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>Jeff Lipton <jhli...@voyager.net> wrote in article
>><5cmebp$j...@vixc.voyager.net>...
>>> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>.... Another snip ...
>>
>>> He expects _this_ lot to be _organized_?! Good grief, we can't even
>>> decide on our favorite color (or is that favourite colour?)...
<snip>
>>Depends if you have Microsoft's Spell Checker or not! Likewise organise,
>>become organize etc. :o)
>>
>>Do Americans have a "z" mountain or something, and feel the need to use
>>extra ones, where they are not needed?
>
Ermm, scuse me filks, isn't "-s-" usu the Merkinism and "-z-" usu the
English?
As in "pulverize", "prioritize", etc etc etc?
Gideon.
--
Gideon_...@3mail.3com.com (Gothcode v3.0 by Synic is out)
GoPS7Au5Mu4 TYyuAdH PShSa B8/18Bk cBKs3 V6s M3p4 ZGooExc
C8omecp a23= n7 b64 H195 g6A0684A m4? w6AT v5 r6EBISP
p58585Ed D76!* h5 sM8n SrNn k6BmpFNWT N0992CNE HSM Luk9
Derek Lavin
In message <32f1fb1d.20057017@news>
Gideon_...@3mail.3Com.com (Gideon Hallett) writes:
> Ermm, scuse me filks, isn't "-s-" usu the Merkinism and "-z-" usu the
> English?
> As in "pulverize", "prioritize", etc etc etc?
> Gideon.
Ah... No, it isn't. In England we tend not to use Z's.