[R] Article on Terry Pratchett and Nightwatch in Guardian
Kincaid
the G2 section, which can be found in all good newsagents, or here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,835862,00.html
Sherilyn
Kin...@kincaid.org.uk (Kincaid) writes:
"Recent Discworld novels have spun on such concerns as the nature of
belief, politics and even journalistic freedom. But put in one lousy
dragon and they call you a fantasy writer." -Terry Pratchett.
Hehe!
--
Sherilyn
"Anything goes in an unmoderated alt. group.
Even Science." -Janice on alt.out-of-body.
Torak
news:2070e31c.02110...@posting.google.com...
> Todays Guardian newspaper has an article on Terry and Nightwatch in
> the G2 section, which can be found in all good newsagents, or here
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,835862,00.html
Good article. Well, whaddya know - a journalist who seems to take Discworld
seriously...
Lodestone
> the G2 section, which can be found in all good newsagents, or here
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,835862,00.html
Every article I have ever read about Pterry has claimed that he is a writer
much-maligned by other reporters. But I've never read one that maligned
him. Hmm...
--
Lodestone
Lesley Weston: "If minimalism is reduced, what does it become?"
Steve: "Crotchetism"
alt.books.pratchett
Lady Kayla
> "Kincaid" <Kin...@kincaid.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:2070e31c.02110...@posting.google.com...
[x-post removed]
>> Todays Guardian newspaper has an article on Terry and Nightwatch in
>> the G2 section, which can be found in all good newsagents, or here
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,835862,00.html
> Good article. Well, whaddya know - a journalist who seems to take Discworld
> seriously...
Well, the person who wrote the gumph on the competition bit needs to
redo their homework.
"... Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, Pratchett's first novel
for younger readers."
Shouts to the effect of "Oh no it isn't!" (though not as polite) from
this house.
--
Lady Kayla http://designs.ladykayla.org/
"You went and *checked?* This is afp, where the truth is arrived at by a
process of hubbub!" Terry Pratchett.
Diane L.
"Lodestone" <lode...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:aqgsgo$a93$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Every article I have ever read about Pterry has claimed that he is a
writer
> much-maligned by other reporters. But I've never read one that maligned
> him. Hmm...
There's a review of Night Watch in the Big Issue which isn't very
complimentary. While admitting (somewhat grudgingly) to enjoying
the book, the writer falls back on insulting the fans and denying
that Terry's writing could possibly be thought of as great.
Diane L.
Laevolus
Hmm....ever so slightly worried by this bit...
"Will Discworld ever end? Yes, he says. It's got to. Eventually it
will be too restrictive. "
Noooooo....it must never end!!!
Can we clone him do you think? All we need is to ge this hat, there's
sure to be more then enough DNA on there!!
Terry, don't leave us!!!
Later,
Laev.
Torak
news:slrnasnvdg.7...@bunnywub.megabitch.org.uk...
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:12:18 -0000, Torak <a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > "Kincaid" <Kin...@kincaid.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:2070e31c.02110...@posting.google.com...
>
> [x-post removed]
> >> Todays Guardian newspaper has an article on Terry and Nightwatch in
> >> the G2 section, which can be found in all good newsagents, or here
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,835862,00.html
>
> > Good article. Well, whaddya know - a journalist who seems to take
Discworld
> > seriously...
>
> Well, the person who wrote the gumph on the competition bit needs to
> redo their homework.
>
> "... Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, Pratchett's first novel
> for younger readers."
>
> Shouts to the effect of "Oh no it isn't!" (though not as polite) from
> this house.
Agreed, and I've had it in paperback for a while yet. But a good article in
general.
Lodestone
news:103678030...@damia.uk.clara.net...
Ooh, grrr, and I do love the Big Issue so. They;re reviews are usually so
fair and good and trustworthy. Grrr.
Sylvain Chambon
> On 8 Nov 2002 05:44:27 -0800, Kin...@kincaid.org.uk (Kincaid) wrote:
>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,835862,00.html
>
> Hmm....ever so slightly worried by this bit...
>
> "Will Discworld ever end? Yes, he says. It's got to. Eventually it
> will be too restrictive. "
>
> Noooooo....it must never end!!!
Why not?
Seriously: if Pterry feels tired with Discworld, then so be it, let him
write other stuff. I have no doubt whatsoever than "other stuff" by
Pterry would be much better than Discworld by a dishearted Pterry.
I'm a Pratchett fan, not a Discworld fan. It's just coincidence that
Pratchett wrote mostly Discworld.
Sylvain (got hooked by Good Omens and thinks that the Johnny Maxwell
books are bloody brilliant, possibly the most brilliant children's books
I've had the occasion to read ever).
Torak
> writer
> > much-maligned by other reporters. But I've never read one that maligned
> > him. Hmm...
>
> There's a review of Night Watch in the Big Issue which isn't very
> complimentary. While admitting (somewhat grudgingly) to enjoying
> the book, the writer falls back on insulting the fans and denying
> that Terry's writing could possibly be thought of as great.
Standard fare, then. I shall have to read it. ;-)
Which issue? (And don't say "the big one"... I know you lot...) <GRIN>
steve.yoxon
Laevolus" <laev...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vb4osuc8r0j6nutdf...@4ax.com...
MMMMMmmmmmm...
There must be a novel somewhere in Pterry's head tat involves cloning.
Maybe FoC was the closest thing to cloning in a world set, as I believe to
it be, in Mid Victorian times.
BTW. It is 10 past 3 in the morning and I have just got in from a HEAVY
nights drinking, so excuse me if I got it wrong :)
Luna
Laevolus <laev...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one else
starts writing it. As long as it doesn't get franchised and taken over by
other writers like some other series have. That would suck.
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.designbyluna.com
Diane L.
"Torak" <a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aqhsnj$jo7$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
> "Diane L." <di...@lindquist.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:103678030...@damia.uk.clara.net...
> > There's a review of Night Watch in the Big Issue which isn't very
> > complimentary. While admitting (somewhat grudgingly) to enjoying
> > the book, the writer falls back on insulting the fans and denying
> > that Terry's writing could possibly be thought of as great.
>
> Standard fare, then. I shall have to read it. ;-)
>
> Which issue? (And don't say "the big one"... I know you lot...) <GRIN>
Ummm ... the one I bought last week. Which means the one that
stopped being sold yesterday. Sorry. I didn't mention it earlier
because it's a short piece and it didn't mention much about the
book itself. If I've still got it I'll post a copy if you're interested.
Diane L.
Terry Pratchett
<lode...@microsoft.com> writes
>Every article I have ever read about Pterry has claimed that he is a writer
>much-maligned by other reporters. But I've never read one that maligned
>him. Hmm...
You do get a few, I have to say, although they're usually knocking my
perceived readership rather than me. But you're right. All these 'who
is Terry Pratchett?' articles run on almost the same lines. No one can
ever point to a quote where I seriously complain about not being given
any awards [1] but it's assumed that somehow I should. And despite the
sales, it's always assumed that I'm being introduced to readers who've
never heard of me. There are generally two major articles a year on
these lines. I know who I sell and don't outsell in the UK, on a
book-by-book basis, and this approach is really strange.
[1] because when you 'grow up' in the f/sf genre the concept of winner a
literary award is not built into your view. It's just not something
that you can get your head around.
--
Terry Pratchett
Terry Pratchett
<luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes
>
>I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one else
>starts writing it. As long as it doesn't get franchised and taken over by
>other writers like some other series have. That would suck.
>
only me (even the obvious spin-offs, like the diaries, have a very large
input from me.)
--
Terry Pratchett
Lodestone
news:ChohaWA0...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
> In article <aqgsgo$a93$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Lodestone
> <lode...@microsoft.com> writes
> >Every article I have ever read about Pterry has claimed that he is a
writer
> >much-maligned by other reporters. But I've never read one that maligned
> >him. Hmm...
>
> You do get a few, I have to say, although they're usually knocking my
> perceived readership rather than me.
Ooh, nasty, what do they say about us? I've somehow managed to mis these
reviews too. I remember the review of Thief of Time in the Times, which ran
along much the same lines as this Guardian article, and it mentioned other
reporters being mean about us: reciting the glorious "I'm Kevin and so's my
wife" story as evidence to the contrary.
Lodestone
Well, and by irritating fans like me who insist on sullying the internet
with hack fan fiction :-p
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 09/11/02 09:23 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <ChohaWA0...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
>
> All these 'who
>is Terry Pratchett?' articles run on almost the same lines. No one can
>ever point to a quote where I seriously complain about not being given
>any awards [1] but it's assumed that somehow I should. And despite the
>sales, it's always assumed that I'm being introduced to readers who've
>never heard of me. There are generally two major articles a year on
>these lines. I know who I sell and don't outsell in the UK, on a
>book-by-book basis, and this approach is really strange.
>
TAMAHER came out, and the interveiwer gave an amazing feel of a fan playing
along to the conventions of mainstream journalism. "Terry Pratchett, for those
of you still pretending you've no idea who we're talking about, is..."
He was the one you "accused" of being bohemian IIRC...
--
Dave
Now Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc for three years
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"I hate playing *frivolous* Mornington Crescent. It wrecks the whole thing."
-Humphrey Lyttleton
Trevor Marsh
As long as I have been reading SF/Fantasy it has always been regarded as
being "not real writing" by the literary congnegency. I watched a TV
program about Tolkien just before the release of The Fellowship Of The Ring
last year (Terry made an appearance if memory serves) and pretty much all
the so called people "in the know" derided it in some way or other, most
falling back on criticising his use of the English language and writing
style. They made comparisons between LOTR and other "so called" classic
writers such as Bronte, Hardy and Shakespeare for some god forsaken reason,
claiming that LOTR can't, and shouldn't, be considered their equal because
"well, it's fantasy in'it?"
I doubt that things will ever change, unfortunately the Art World is so
full of people with their heads stuck up each others rectums that they will
never accept SF/Fantasy as being *real* literature, probably because it is
so popular they are afraid they would have to let "normal people" into
their elitist little club.
I'll never forget Barry Normans ravings upon learning that Starwars had
been voted "Film Of The Millennium" by the public.
Trev
Lodestone
news:103684265...@damia.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Terry Pratchett" <Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ChohaWA0...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <aqgsgo$a93$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Lodestone
> > <lode...@microsoft.com> writes
> > >Every article I have ever read about Pterry has claimed that he is a
> writer
> > >much-maligned by other reporters. But I've never read one that
maligned
> > >him. Hmm...
> >
> > You do get a few, I have to say, although they're usually knocking my
> > perceived readership rather than me. But you're right. All these 'who
> > is Terry Pratchett?' articles run on almost the same lines. No one can
> > ever point to a quote where I seriously complain about not being given
> > any awards [1] but it's assumed that somehow I should. And despite the
> > sales, it's always assumed that I'm being introduced to readers who've
> > never heard of me. There are generally two major articles a year on
> > these lines. I know who I sell and don't outsell in the UK, on a
> > book-by-book basis, and this approach is really strange.
> >
> > [1] because when you 'grow up' in the f/sf genre the concept of winner a
> > literary award is not built into your view. It's just not something
> > that you can get your head around.
> >
> > --
> > Terry Pratchett
>
> writers such as Bronte, Hardy and Shakespeare for some god forsaken
reason,
> claiming that LOTR can't, and shouldn't, be considered their equal because
> "well, it's fantasy in'it?"
An lovely example of irony born of ignorance, considering that Spokeshave
was written as much for the public rather than elitist critics as Lotr was,
if not more so. And considering that Bill himself performed what some might
call torture on the English of the day. And so on and so forth...
However, I would say (personally) that Lotr is classic in the same way that
Star Wars is classic: through massive sales, massive audiences and huge
popularity, rather than through real, real quality.
Terry Pratchett
<lode...@microsoft.com> writes
>
>Ooh, nasty, what do they say about us?
I don't actually keep a scrapbook, you understand, but I recall 'spotty
anoraks and menopausal adolescents' a few years back. Kind of sticks in
the mind:-)
--
Terry Pratchett
Melody S-K
"Terry Pratchett" <Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote
news:nd5oFaCy...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
*humph*
Melody
--
Sig on Hols
Torak
> > > complimentary. While admitting (somewhat grudgingly) to enjoying
> > > the book, the writer falls back on insulting the fans and denying
> > > that Terry's writing could possibly be thought of as great.
> >
> > Standard fare, then. I shall have to read it. ;-)
> >
> > Which issue? (And don't say "the big one"... I know you lot...) <GRIN>
>
> Ummm ... the one I bought last week. Which means the one that
> stopped being sold yesterday. Sorry. I didn't mention it earlier
> because it's a short piece and it didn't mention much about the
> book itself. If I've still got it I'll post a copy if you're interested.
Oh, don't worry. I'll see if it's on the net anywhere.
Actually, I might have bought that one - I bought one a while ago, could bbe
the same issue. Is it the one with the money on the front?
David Harcombe
And given that PTerry outsells all of the people *they* read by a factor of probably 10 to 1, do we really give a monkeys what they think? No, not really.
I ceased being an adolescent many moons ago, I haven't reached anything like the age where I could be considered menopausal, and just because I read PTerry's work as well as other books that the critics like, I'd say that makes me more well read than most of them.
--
David Harcombe
David.H...@bigfoot.com
Lesley Weston
luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com wrote on 08/11/2002 8:16 PM:
>
> I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one else
> starts writing it.
And as long as he goes on writing other things.
Lesley Weston.
Luna
"Trevor Marsh" <ghj29...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
And yet, SF and Fantasy have their own elitists now. There are the Hugos
and the Nebulas, you know. And does anyone remember something about some
uproar when an issue of the comic Sandman won some best Fantasy story
award? International Fantasy Award? Something like that. Anyway, that
really got people in a snit, because comic books aren't "real" books.
Tuppenny
> I'm a Pratchett fan, not a Discworld fan. It's just coincidence that
> Pratchett wrote mostly Discworld.
I agree....but I know a lot of ppl (myself included), who've got
worryingly attached to some characters (Vimes, in my case), and it
would just be a shame to see it finished. While the Discworld is
completely unpredictable... there is something reassuring about
knowing where you are!
Tuppenny
Laevolus
>> Noooooo....it must never end!!!
>
>Why not?
>
>Seriously: if Pterry feels tired with Discworld, then so be it, let him
>write other stuff. I have no doubt whatsoever than "other stuff" by
>Pterry would be much better than Discworld by a dishearted Pterry.
<snippage alert>
Sorry, I should have made that a bit more tongue in cheek.
I know it will end, but I still don't want it to though...how will I
cope without my weekly DW fix? AFP can only do so much (it's kinda
like a DW-Nicorette patch really)
Still, i would like to see more non-DW stuff as well, as long as it's
funny that is. ;-0)
And I still think my cloning idea is a good one....can some grab his
hat at a signing for me? I've got a cloning recipe in an old Blue
Peter annual somewhere I think.....
Later,
LAev.
Diane L.
> "Diane L." <di...@lindquist.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:103682884...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> > "Torak" <a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > "Diane L." <di...@lindquist.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
Quotes from a review give a quick overview of the plot. Anyone who
doesn't want to know what happens, please look away now.
> >
> > > > There's a review of Night Watch in the Big Issue which isn't very
> > > > complimentary. While admitting (somewhat grudgingly) to enjoying
> > > > the book, the writer falls back on insulting the fans and denying
> > > > that Terry's writing could possibly be thought of as great.
> > >
> > > Standard fare, then. I shall have to read it. ;-)
> > >
> > > Which issue? (And don't say "the big one"... I know you lot...)
<GRIN>
> >
> > Ummm ... the one I bought last week. Which means the one that
> > stopped being sold yesterday. Sorry. I didn't mention it earlier
> > because it's a short piece and it didn't mention much about the
> > book itself. If I've still got it I'll post a copy if you're interested.
>
> Oh, don't worry. I'll see if it's on the net anywhere.
>
> Actually, I might have bought that one - I bought one a while ago, could
> be the same issue. Is it the one with the money on the front?
No, it has Vin Diesel (bald bloke) on the front. Actually, it looks like
it's from the week before last. Since I've found it, this is the full
article, by one Ally Fogg:
"Long derided as a disposable children's author, in recent years there has
been an embarrassing charge by the literary intelligentsia to reclaim
Britan's best-selling novelist Terry Pratchett as one of their own.
Each new Discworld novel (we're onto 27 now, selling an average of a
million copies apiece) must be accompanied by a broadsheet eulogy
from an AS Byatt or a Melvyn Bragg declaring the genius of the comic
fantasist.
I realise that by demurring I risk invoking the wrath of an army of computer
programmers - many of whom call themselves Axa Deathmallet at weekends
and so deserve unqualified respect.
The simple truth is this: Terry Pratchett's books are OK. Night Watch is no
exception.
Commander Sam Vimes of the Ankh-Morpork City Guard is back.While pursuing
a murderer, he gets caught between a lightning bolt and a magic cloud which
transport him andhis quarry back through time by 30 years. Vimes must get
himself back on the force, train his own younger self to become a proper
copper, avert a violent rebellion, and eventually get himself back to his
own timezone. Cue lots of hugely predictable and often entertaining
time-travel paradoxes.
After 50 pages I had a strong urge to hurl this book from the window of the
top deck of a 192 bus. The thought that over the years Pratchett has
turned out around three million words of such utter pointlessness led to
a sense of profound despair.
But sticking with it, the author's undeniable humanity and charm does begin
to kick in and eventually I began to look forward to the next page instead
of the last. The cultural reference points are plentiful and fun to spot;
the action scenes are gripping, and a few of the jokes generate a satisfying
groan. But please spare us the assertions of greatness."
See, some of his fans are computer programmers, so he can't be any
good. Still, I suppose Terry will be glad to know that he's undeniably
human.
Diane L.
Paul E. Jamison
>
> I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one else
> starts writing it. As long as it doesn't get franchised and taken over by
> other writers like some other series have. That would suck.
>
> --
> -Michelle Levin (Luna)
Agreed. In addition, one would hope that someone would come along
to write a series as good as Discworld. Not Discworld-like, in the
sense of a poorly-disguised imitation set on an odd-shaped planet
(Tunnelworld? Squareworld? Spare us...), but one with the level of
humor and substance that Pterry puts into his work. Nothing will
ever replace Discworld, of course, but hopefully he will inspire
other writers.
Paul E. Jamison
--
"There's more pressure on a vet to get it right.
People say 'It was God's will' when Granny dies,
but they get *angry* when they lose a cow."
- Terry Pratchett
Matthew Blissett
> Luna wrote:
>>
>> I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one else
>> starts writing it.
>
> And as long as he goes on writing other things.
But I'd like him to stop writing things when he's dead.
--
Matt
Sherilyn
I don't think the world is ready for a zombie with a huge hat.
--
Sherilyn
"Anything goes in an unmoderated alt. group.
Even Science." -Janice on alt.out-of-body.
James Kuyper Jr.
...
> However, I would say (personally) that Lotr is classic in the same way that
> Star Wars is classic: through massive sales, massive audiences and huge
> popularity, rather than through real, real quality.
You might want to try reading LotR someday.
Matthew Blissett
> "Matthew Blissett" <mattbl...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Lesley Weston wrote this:
>>> Luna wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one
>>>> else starts writing it.
>>>
>>> And as long as he goes on writing other things.
>>
>> But I'd like him to stop writing things when he's dead.
>>
> I don't think the world is ready for a zombie with a huge hat.
Depends on the colour. Magenta, anyone?
--
Matt
James Kuyper Jr.
Actually, if there's any choice in the matter, I'd prefer it if he
didn't. :-)
Mary Messall
<snip>
> And given that PTerry outsells all of the people *they* read by a
> factor of probably 10 to 1, do we really give a monkeys what they think?
> No, not really.
Low sales are no more an indicator of poor quality than high sales,
IME. Jonathan Lethem sells few books, Danielle Steele sells many. Terry
Pratchett sells many, Gertrude Stein sells few. There is no
correlation. Either originality or cliche (AKA "familiarity") can help
boost your sales... Either can hurt them.
> I ceased being an adolescent many moons ago, I haven't reached anything
> like the age where I could be considered menopausal, and just because I
> read PTerry's work as well as other books that the critics like, I'd say
> that makes me more well read than most of them.
Literary critics put a higher premium on imagery, mood, language, and
an unusual premise than the average reader. People who only buy books
when facing long plane journeys or days at the beach put a high premium
on exotic setting, likable characters, clarity of language, and
titillating or thrilling plot twists.
Dedicated science fiction readers, in my experience, but the emphasis
on realistic characterization (perhaps because the settings and actions
are unrealistic? I don't know, but mainstream novels seem to have far
less likely characters--often obsessed and sometimes almost
psychopathic, all too often humorless--than the people who inhabit a
Bujold or Willis or Pratchett story) and on plausible theories... About
human nature, about God, space, time, belief, history, death, destiny,
grief... Plausible ideas about big questions seem to be the genre's
raison d'etre.
Now Terry Pratchett books definitely have likable characters, exotic
settings, clear language, and more or less thrilling plot twists, and
are pretty light on elaborate imagery and moody metaphors. So critics
who *don't* think real characters and genuine insight into the way
stories and beliefs work are important, and who find the happy endings
predictable and the language prosaic, tend to assume that all of us who
do read them must be reading them for the thrills and gags and dragons.
So the fact that you like something in addition to liking what they
like, means not so much that you're better read, I think, but that you
have a wider set of criteria for judging books. Someone who liked
Danielle Steel and Terry Pratchett *and* James Joyce would have a set
that was wider yet. <g>
-Mary
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz/ -> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
David Chapman
Not a fan, then?
--
I guess a Cleric Mercenary would be like a cross between a Jehovah's
Witness and a Hell's Angel... Someone who wakes you up at 6:30 a.m. on
a Saturday morning and then tells you to go f*** yourself.
David Jensen
"James Kuyper Jr." <kuy...@wizard.net> wrote in
<3DCD7D3D...@wizard.net>:
If I have any complaints about LotR, it's that the author took the story
far too seriously.
Lodestone
news:3DCD177A...@ups.edu...
> David Harcombe wrote:
> <snip>
> > And given that PTerry outsells all of the people *they* read by a
> > factor of probably 10 to 1, do we really give a monkeys what they think?
> > No, not really.
>
> Low sales are no more an indicator of poor quality than high sales,
mumblemumblemutterJeffArchermuttermumble
> So the fact that you like something in addition to liking what they
> like, means not so much that you're better read, I think, but that you
> have a wider set of criteria for judging books. Someone who liked
> Danielle Steel and Terry Pratchett *and* James Joyce would have a set
> that was wider yet. <g>
:-D
What about Pratchett *and* Christie *and* Bradbury *and* Lenin *and* Figes
*and* Dostoyevsky (oh, hang on, I'm becoming too Russian here) *and* Grisham
*and* Spokeshave *and* Ad Nauseum?
I think it's safe to say that AFPers are among the widest read newsgroupers
there are. Unless there's an alt.fan.books, which there ought to be.
Personally, I find most of the written word at least readable, probably
enjoyable, if not wonderful.
Lodestone
> In article <aqiq6e$qko$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Lodestone
> <lode...@microsoft.com> writes
> >
> >Ooh, nasty, what do they say about us?
>
> I don't actually keep a scrapbook, you understand,
You mean you don't? Blast!
> but I recall 'spotty
> anoraks and menopausal adolescents' a few years back. Kind of sticks in
> the mind:-)
Who, me?
(I will ever remember the first comment I read by you on alt.fan.pratchett,
whcih was "Slow down. At least you haven;t mentioned Star trek)
Lodestone
news:3DCD7D3D...@wizard.net...
Hehe. I did slip in a "peronsally" to avoid a comment like that. Look, I
don't want to instigate the LotR debate *again*, it's just that I,
personally, in my own personal opinion which need be of no consequence to
anyone else, which, incidentally, is an opinion soleley of me, and is in no
way indicative of the truth, which is of course solely subjective, don't see
much beyond the beautiful language, 'K?
Torak
> settings, clear language, and more or less thrilling plot twists, and
> are pretty light on elaborate imagery and moody metaphors. So critics
> who *don't* think real characters and genuine insight into the way
> stories and beliefs work are important, and who find the happy endings
> predictable and the language prosaic, tend to assume that all of us who
> do read them must be reading them for the thrills and gags and dragons.
I'd actually disagree with that bit about being "pretty light on ... moody
metaphors". I've always hated lit crit, and been a staunch opponent of
anything remotely resembling a "deeper meaning", but many of the DW books
strike me as being pretty heavy on the metaphors, social commentary,
whatever you feel like calling it. And considering that the critics are used
to finding hidden meaning in the ingredients list on a crisp packet (which
may or may not be warranted in these days of E-numbers), it's surprising
that they consistently fail to spot themes in the Discworld books.
Torak
> "Torak" <a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > "Diane L." <di...@lindquist.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > "Torak" <a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > > "Diane L." <di...@lindquist.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> Quotes from a review give a quick overview of the plot. Anyone who
> doesn't want to know what happens, please look away now.
>
> > >
> > > > > There's a review of Night Watch in the Big Issue which isn't very
> > > > > complimentary. While admitting (somewhat grudgingly) to enjoying
> > > > > the book, the writer falls back on insulting the fans and denying
> > > > > that Terry's writing could possibly be thought of as great.
> > > >
> > > > Standard fare, then. I shall have to read it. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Which issue? (And don't say "the big one"... I know you lot...)
> <GRIN>
> > >
> > > Ummm ... the one I bought last week. Which means the one that
> > > stopped being sold yesterday. Sorry. I didn't mention it earlier
> > > because it's a short piece and it didn't mention much about the
> > > book itself. If I've still got it I'll post a copy if you're
interested.
> >
> > Oh, don't worry. I'll see if it's on the net anywhere.
> >
> > Actually, I might have bought that one - I bought one a while ago, could
> > be the same issue. Is it the one with the money on the front?
>
> No, it has Vin Diesel (bald bloke) on the front. Actually, it looks like
> it's from the week before last. Since I've found it, this is the full
> article, by one Ally Fogg:
Thanks for the effort!
> I realise that by demurring I risk invoking the wrath of an army of
computer
> programmers - many of whom call themselves Axa Deathmallet at weekends
> and so deserve unqualified respect.
Ooooh, a bit of witty sniping there?
> Commander Sam Vimes of the Ankh-Morpork City Guard is back.While pursuing
> a murderer, he gets caught between a lightning bolt and a magic cloud
which
> transport him andhis quarry back through time by 30 years. Vimes must get
> himself back on the force, train his own younger self to become a proper
> copper, avert a violent rebellion, and eventually get himself back to his
> own timezone. Cue lots of hugely predictable and often entertaining
> time-travel paradoxes.
Please tell me the book makes it seem more plausible? I'm afraid Star Trek
has made me overdose on time travel.
> See, some of his fans are computer programmers, so he can't be any
> good. Still, I suppose Terry will be glad to know that he's undeniably
> human.
Very magnanimous of Ms Fogg, I thought.
Jonathan Ellis
"Matthew Blissett" <mattbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aqjv8m$8bp$1...@library.lspace.org...
The hat or the zombie? Or both ;-) ?
Jonathan.
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:26:16 +0000, Terry Pratchett
<Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one else
>>starts writing it. As long as it doesn't get franchised and taken over by
>>other writers like some other series have. That would suck.
>>
>This is guaranteed.
Thank the gods for that!
Cheers,
Graham.
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 17:03:15 -0500, "James Kuyper Jr."
<kuy...@wizard.net> wrote:
>> But I'd like him to stop writing things when he's dead.
>
>Actually, if there's any choice in the matter, I'd prefer it if he
>didn't. :-)
It would be a bit of a slow process, trying to write a book by
spelling out letters on a Ouija board!
Although it would give him a *major* insight on one particular
character!
Cheers,
Graham.
James Kuyper Jr.
Yes, he took it very seriously. It was the culmination of a creative
effort he spent a large fraction of his entire life on. The legends and
history that form the background of the LotR aren't merely vague ideas;
they were full-fledged tales that Tolkien had already written over the
previous three decades. As a result, the detail and depth of the
background is simply breathtaking. He spent the rest of his life
re-writing those earlier tales (which is why they never got published in
his lifetime). You can argue that the results weren't worth the effort,
and you're entitled to that judgment, but I'd have to disagree with you
on that.
I can understand not liking Tolkien's writing; his style was very
distinctive, and not to everyone's tastes. But LotR was a classic
decades before it ever had sales that you could justifiably call
"massive". The amount of success it's had has been the result of it's
quality, not something that was achieved despite a lack of quality.
rcsmiley
> clear language,
Clear? Foul Ol' Ron?? CLEAR??? (yes, OLF and excessive use of puctuation...
sue me *grin*)
rcsmiley
Bit selfish of you
You watch... as soon as I can find a Bananananana Dackeri flavour Zombie
Powder... 4 books a year and non-stop signing tours!!!! :o)
rcsmiley
Trevor Marsh <ghj29...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:103684265...@damia.uk.clara.net...
>
>
> I'll never forget Barry Normans ravings upon learning that Starwars
had
> been voted "Film Of The Millennium" by the public.
>
And quite right he was, too... everyone with an ounce of sense knows Empire
Strikes Back was far superior :o)
rcsmiley
Laevolus <laev...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:82pqsuogv3acdg0i2...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Nov 2002 01:37:16 GMT, Sylvain Chambon <gou...@lepcf.org> wrote:
> I've got a cloning recipe in an old Blue
> Peter annual somewhere I think.....
>
Tried it... doesn't work properly
30,000 identical copies of John Noakes
/shudder
Paul E. Jamison
> "Matthew Blissett" <mattbl...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > But I'd like him to stop writing things when he's dead.
>
> There's nothing wrong with ghost writing. Except for the whole
> business of going on the seance circuit.
>
Is there a market for seance fiction?
Tim Cain
"rcsmiley" <rcsm...@steelweb.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uMjz9.1283$E_2.166799@newsfep2-gui...
"Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father,
Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett.
It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is,
a series of down endings."
Eric Jarvis
it's the rules...the Discworld books contain jokes...ergo they are not
allowed to contain anything of any importance...the only way you are
allowed to have jokes and still be properly literary is to also write lots
about sex and drugs (basically be Will Self)
sometimes I get the impression that the primary function of most English
literature teaching is to destroy the pupil's sense of humour
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
>
> business of going on the seance circuit.
>
I can see it...queueueues of fans waiting for Pterry to drip some
ectoplasm on their copy of the latest hardback
Mary Messall
> I'd actually disagree with that bit about being "pretty light on ... moody
> metaphors". I've always hated lit crit, and been a staunch opponent of
> anything remotely resembling a "deeper meaning", but many of the DW books
> strike me as being pretty heavy on the metaphors, social commentary,
> whatever you feel like calling it. And considering that the critics are used
> to finding hidden meaning in the ingredients list on a crisp packet (which
> may or may not be warranted in these days of E-numbers), it's surprising
> that they consistently fail to spot themes in the Discworld books.
I meant metaphors as in, oh "A honeyed silence flowed slowly." Call it
"enriched language" or whatever; it's common in literary novels. It's
very easily overdone, in my opinion, and *is* overdone in almost all
"serious" novels published today. Unless the author has a really
unerring ear (Margret Atwood comes to mind) that kind of language feels
forced and artificial to me, distracting. But of course, those who read
that particular genre often take it for granted, in the same way I take
the development of whole societies and histories in a few lines for
granted in SF&F. I suppose it's just a matter of convention.
Perhaps I should have said "poetic language" instead of "moody
metaphors," but actually I don't much care for the kind of poetry which
relies on elaborate use of adjectives.
Terry Pratchett
<lode...@microsoft.com> writes
>"
>I think it's safe to say that AFPers are among the widest read newsgroupers
>there are. Unless there's an alt.fan.books, which there ought to be.
>Personally, I find most of the written word at least readable, probably
>enjoyable, if not wonderful.
This is a point I make in just about every interview. It's seldom used,
because the interviewers just *know* it isn't true. Some of the most
widely read people I know are f/sf fans. Journalists *know* it's not
true because they have this mental picture of sf fans as Duane Dibbley
out of Red Dwarf:-)
--
Terry Pratchett
Trevor Marsh
I am often amazed by what people *know*.......:)
Trev
Trevor Marsh
"Eric Jarvis" <use...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.18380a3e5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Torak wrote:
> > "Mary Messall" <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3DCD177A...@ups.edu...
> > >
>
> sometimes I get the impression that the primary function of most English
> literature teaching is to destroy the pupil's sense of humour
And to bore them rigid.
Trev
Trevor Marsh
ROFL.....
Trev
Aquarion
steve...@btopenworld.com says...
> SPECULATION
>
>
Don't speculate here. At all. Please.
--
Yours in total sincerity,
Aquarion
--
"I used to live in a grade 2 listed building,
which means that everybody in it had to be
/quite good/ at the piano" -- Milton Jones
LoneCat
<some spoilers for The Empire Strikes Back>
You utter sod!
Bizarre as it may seem, there are still a few of us out here who haven't
seen the Star Wars trilogy yet. I know about Luke's father because it's
practically impossible to avoid that one, but one of the things
mentioned I didn't know.
Please warn people if you're giving spoilers, even for things like Star
Wars. I'm aiming for all of them in the right order, so I'm still
waiting for episode 3.
--
Susan/LoneCat, AFPgoddess of indecision
http://www.lonecat.org/
Music: http://www.numfrunct.co.uk/
The cat who walks by herself
Aquarion
sher...@suespammers.org says...
> [fu out of abp]
> Kin...@kincaid.org.uk (Kincaid) writes:
>
> > Todays Guardian newspaper has an article on Terry and Nightwatch in
> > the G2 section, which can be found in all good newsagents, or here
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,835862,00.html
>
> "Recent Discworld novels have spun on such concerns as the nature of
> belief, politics and even journalistic freedom. But put in one lousy
> dragon and they call you a fantasy writer." -Terry Pratchett.
>
> Hehe!
>
More worryingly,
"Because it can change, I can keep it reasonably fresh and because it is
a world, I'm not stuck to one character or a group of characters, but
there's a limit to that." In any case, it is starting to take its toll."
--
Yours in total sincerity,
Aquarion, 3 points at A-Level
Sherilyn
> In article <87u1isk...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk>,
> sher...@suespammers.org says...
> > [fu out of abp]
> > Kin...@kincaid.org.uk (Kincaid) writes:
> >
> > > Todays Guardian newspaper has an article on Terry and Nightwatch in
> > > the G2 section, which can be found in all good newsagents, or here
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,835862,00.html
> >
> > "Recent Discworld novels have spun on such concerns as the nature of
> > belief, politics and even journalistic freedom. But put in one lousy
> > dragon and they call you a fantasy writer." -Terry Pratchett.
> >
> > Hehe!
> >
> More worryingly,
>
> "Because it can change, I can keep it reasonably fresh and because it is
> a world, I'm not stuck to one character or a group of characters, but
> there's a limit to that." In any case, it is starting to take its
> toll."
What's the worry? It's not as if there weren't already a very large
number of Discworld novels.
--
Sherilyn
"Anything goes in an unmoderated alt. group.
Even Science." -Janice on alt.out-of-body.
The Stainless Steel Cat
"James Kuyper Jr." <kuy...@wizard.net> wrote:
>Matthew Blissett wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote this:
>>
>>>Luna wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one else
>>>>starts writing it.
>>>
>>>And as long as he goes on writing other things.
>>
>>
>> But I'd like him to stop writing things when he's dead.
>
>Actually, if there's any choice in the matter, I'd prefer it if he
>didn't. :-)
It'd give his publishers a bit of a shock though...
"GOOD EVENING. I WAS ASKED TO DROP THIS MANUSCRIPT BY WHEN I WAS PASSING.
HELLO? FUNNY, I COULD'VE SWORN THERE WAS SOMEONE HERE A MINUTE AGO."
The Stainless Steel Cat
Aquarion <aq+u...@gkhs.net> wrote:
>In article <aqhu8t$b51$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
>steve...@btopenworld.com says...
>> SPECULATION
>>
>Don't speculate here. At all. Please.
OK. (Tries desperately to be less shiny...)
Torak
news:3DCDC551...@wizard.net...
> David Jensen wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 16:25:17 -0500, in alt.books.pratchett
> > "James Kuyper Jr." <kuy...@wizard.net> wrote in
> >>
> >>>However, I would say (personally) that Lotr is classic in the same way
that
> >>>Star Wars is classic: through massive sales, massive audiences and huge
> >>>popularity, rather than through real, real quality.
> >>
> >>You might want to try reading LotR someday.
> >
> >
> > If I have any complaints about LotR, it's that the author took the story
> > far too seriously.
>
> Yes, he took it very seriously. It was the culmination of a creative
> effort he spent a large fraction of his entire life on. The legends and
> history that form the background of the LotR aren't merely vague ideas;
> they were full-fledged tales that Tolkien had already written over the
> previous three decades. As a result, the detail and depth of the
> background is simply breathtaking. He spent the rest of his life
> re-writing those earlier tales (which is why they never got published in
> his lifetime). You can argue that the results weren't worth the effort,
> and you're entitled to that judgment, but I'd have to disagree with you
> on that.
>
> I can understand not liking Tolkien's writing; his style was very
> distinctive, and not to everyone's tastes. But LotR was a classic
> decades before it ever had sales that you could justifiably call
> "massive". The amount of success it's had has been the result of it's
> quality, not something that was achieved despite a lack of quality.
I must admit to really liking the Middle Earth books; I found the style
particularly pleasant to read. Very classical in a modern way, so to speak,
though I can't think of any better way to put it.
Torak
news:3dcda97f...@news.cable.ntlworld.com...
> On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 17:03:15 -0500, "James Kuyper Jr."
>
> >
> >Actually, if there's any choice in the matter, I'd prefer it if he
> >didn't. :-)
>
> It would be a bit of a slow process, trying to write a book by
> spelling out letters on a Ouija board!
>
> Although it would give him a *major* insight on one particular
> character!
But... what if he came back and said "You know, he *doesn't* actually use
CAPS when he speaks - he's actually a two-foot gnome with a roll of ethereal
duct tape who speaks in Comic Sans MS."
Torak
...not to mention any enjoyment of reading they might have had.
I used to devour several books a week until I started having to read them in
English class. Since then I hardly read anything; my total extracurricular
reading since lit crit started has consisted of the LOTR trilogy, the Harry
Potter books and four Discworld books.
Angua
Harcombe <David.H...@bigfoot.com> writes
>On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:45:19 -0000
>"Melody S-K" <Mel...@wibble.org> wrote:
>> "Terry Pratchett" <Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> news:nd5oFaCy...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
>> > In article <aqiq6e$qko$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Lodestone
>> <lode...@microsoft.com> writes
>> >Ooh, nasty, what do they say about us?
>> >
>> > I don't actually keep a scrapbook, you understand, but I recall 'spotty
>> > anoraks and menopausal adolescents' a few years back. Kind of sticks in
>> > the mind:-)
>>
>> *humph*
>>
>> Melody
>
>And given that PTerry outsells all of the people *they* read by a
>factor of probably 10 to 1, do we really give a monkeys what they
>think? No, not really.
>
>I ceased being an adolescent many moons ago, I haven't reached anything
>like the age where I could be considered menopausal, and just because I
>read PTerry's work as well as other books that the critics like, I'd
>say that makes me more well read than most of them.
>
I just think its great that Terry appeals to all ages - my 12 year old
son enjoys his books as much as I do at age 38. I know people in their
60s and 70s who still read his books. There is no stereotypical
Pratchett reader IMHO.
--
Angua
For users, by users For teachers, by teachers
www.by-users.co.uk http://welcome.to/staffroom
Torak
> Torak wrote:
> > I'd actually disagree with that bit about being "pretty light on ...
moody
> > metaphors". I've always hated lit crit, and been a staunch opponent of
> > anything remotely resembling a "deeper meaning", but many of the DW
books
> > strike me as being pretty heavy on the metaphors, social commentary,
> > whatever you feel like calling it. And considering that the critics are
used
> > to finding hidden meaning in the ingredients list on a crisp packet
(which
> > may or may not be warranted in these days of E-numbers), it's surprising
> > that they consistently fail to spot themes in the Discworld books.
>
> I meant metaphors as in, oh "A honeyed silence flowed slowly." Call it
> "enriched language" or whatever; it's common in literary novels. It's
> very easily overdone, in my opinion, and *is* overdone in almost all
> "serious" novels published today. Unless the author has a really
> unerring ear (Margret Atwood comes to mind) that kind of language feels
> forced and artificial to me, distracting. But of course, those who read
> that particular genre often take it for granted, in the same way I take
> the development of whole societies and histories in a few lines for
> granted in SF&F. I suppose it's just a matter of convention.
Ah. Agreed, I hate that stuff. And Hemingway had his own horrible
idiosyncracies as well - that tortuous "stream of consciousness" rubbish,
and his interminable style... Urgh.
All IMO, of course.
Torak
newsgroupers
> >there are. Unless there's an alt.fan.books, which there ought to be.
> >Personally, I find most of the written word at least readable, probably
> >enjoyable, if not wonderful.
>
> This is a point I make in just about every interview. It's seldom used,
> because the interviewers just *know* it isn't true. Some of the most
> widely read people I know are f/sf fans. Journalists *know* it's not
> true because they have this mental picture of sf fans as Duane Dibbley
> out of Red Dwarf:-)
Agreed - looking at just about any literary discussion on AFP, there will be
vast numbers of references to other books - more than you'd be likely to
find on a dedicated literary group, in some cases.
I think the only solution is to have an interview conducted by an AFPer. How
about an interview in Palatinate, perhaps?
Angua
<ghj29...@lycos.co.uk> writes
>
>"Eric Jarvis" <use...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MPG.18380a3e5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> Torak wrote:
>> > "Mary Messall" <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:3DCD177A...@ups.edu...
>> > >
><snip>
>
>>
>> sometimes I get the impression that the primary function of most English
>> literature teaching is to destroy the pupil's sense of humour
>
>And to bore them rigid.
>
>Trev
>
Just to protect English teachers out there - Terry's books have appeared
on many English curricula recently - since introduction of the Literacy
hour - plus they are even reading Harry Potter at my son's school.
Just wish I had that curriculum when I was at school instead of the
standard To Kill A Mockingbird and Shakespeare (Henry IV part1)
Stuart Painting
> Tim Cain wrote:
>
> <some spoilers for The Empire Strikes Back>
>
> You utter sod!
> Bizarre as it may seem, there are still a few of us out here who haven't
> seen the Star Wars trilogy yet. I know about Luke's father because it's
> practically impossible to avoid that one, but one of the things
> mentioned I didn't know.
>
> Please warn people if you're giving spoilers, even for things like Star
> Wars.
Er, no. That's an argument for putting spoiler space on just about
*any* message, and that simply isn't going to happen. Sorry.
Torak
news:7U0OEhMX...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Harcombe <David.H...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >> >Ooh, nasty, what do they say about us?
> >> >
> >> > I don't actually keep a scrapbook, you understand, but I recall
'spotty
> >> > anoraks and menopausal adolescents' a few years back. Kind of sticks
in
> >> > the mind:-)
> >>
> >> *humph*
> >>
> >> Melody
> >
> >And given that PTerry outsells all of the people *they* read by a
> >factor of probably 10 to 1, do we really give a monkeys what they
> >think? No, not really.
> >
> >I ceased being an adolescent many moons ago, I haven't reached anything
> >like the age where I could be considered menopausal, and just because I
> >read PTerry's work as well as other books that the critics like, I'd
> >say that makes me more well read than most of them.
> >
> I just think its great that Terry appeals to all ages - my 12 year old
> son enjoys his books as much as I do at age 38. I know people in their
> 60s and 70s who still read his books. There is no stereotypical
> Pratchett reader IMHO.
Well, there is - it's just that very few of his readers fit it! ;-)
Nigel Stapley
"Torak" <a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aqlqjj$ub6$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
<snips>
> > sometimes I get the impression that the primary function of most English
> > literature teaching is to destroy the pupil's sense of humour
>
> ...not to mention any enjoyment of reading they might have had.
>
> I used to devour several books a week until I started having to read them
in
> English class. Since then I hardly read anything; my total extracurricular
> reading since lit crit started has consisted of the LOTR trilogy, the
Harry
> Potter books and four Discworld books.
>
This is why I have *never* been able to read Dickens for profit or pleasure
since having "A Christmas Carol" forced on me at the age of 11...
--
Regards,
Nigel Stapley
(remove <gwrthsbam.> to reply)
"Why can't I be different and original...like everybody else?"
(V. Stanshall (1943-95))
Laevolus
<rcsm...@steelweb.co.uk> wrote:
>30,000 identical copies of John Noakes
>
>/shudder
>
Dear God.....the horror!!!!!
Laev.
Eric Jarvis
> In message <103693118...@dyke.uk.clara.net>, Trevor Marsh
> <ghj29...@lycos.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Eric Jarvis" <use...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.18380a3e5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> >> Torak wrote:
> >> > "Mary Messall" <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote in message
> >> > news:3DCD177A...@ups.edu...
> >> > >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> sometimes I get the impression that the primary function of most English
> >> literature teaching is to destroy the pupil's sense of humour
> >
> >And to bore them rigid.
> >
> on many English curricula recently - since introduction of the Literacy
> hour - plus they are even reading Harry Potter at my son's school.
>
> Just wish I had that curriculum when I was at school instead of the
> standard To Kill A Mockingbird and Shakespeare (Henry IV part1)
>
you were lucky...we had an English literature teacher with an unerring eye
for the worst possible books on the curriculum...we had Steinbeck (The Red
Pony), Thomas Hardy (Under The Greenwood Tree) and Shakespeare (A Comedy
of Errors)...three of my favourite authors represented in each case by the
one single work of theirs that is unrepresentatively awful...then I used
to get marked down for referring to their other works, most of which I had
already read by then
which is how I failed both language and literature O level and spent
nearly ten years recovering my confidence in my ability to read and
understand literature
I now realise that it's something I'm at least competent at, and probably
above average...seeing as I was offered a place on a theatre directors
course [1] where 2000 applicants competed for 6 places and the interview
consisted entirely of an in depth discussion of a production proposal...I
also got offered a place on a Masters Degree course in Theatre Studies
so some teachers do a sterling job...others do more harm than
good...unfortunately I sometimes feel that the latter are more in tune
with the literary/academic establishment...in that they teach that
literature is difficult and should only be dealt with by serious minded
people and should never on any account be fun
[1] and then my grant got withdrawn due to spending cuts
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"I am a man of many parts,
unfortunately most are no longer in stock"
Eric Jarvis
>
> I used to devour several books a week until I started having to read them in
> English class. Since then I hardly read anything; my total extracurricular
> reading since lit crit started has consisted of the LOTR trilogy, the Harry
> Potter books and four Discworld books.
>
your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go to the library and
order anything and everything by Lois McMaster Bujold, Connie Willis and
Ian Rankin [1]...then we'll move you on to Bill Bryson, Neil Gaiman and
Carl Hiaasen...I'm not sure we'll ever turn you into a Will Self or James
Joyce fan...but reading fairly widely is a good thing to do
[1] chosen carefully to appeal to Torak btw...Bujold and Rankin because of
the military aspect, Willis because of the sharp sense of humour, and
because all three have a strong sense of the importance of personal
ethics...though they deal with it in very different ways
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
Alec Cawley
> In article <vb4osuc8r0j6nutdf...@4ax.com>,
> Laevolus <laev...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Nov 2002 05:44:27 -0800, Kin...@kincaid.org.uk (Kincaid) wrote:
>>
>> >Todays Guardian newspaper has an article on Terry and Nightwatch in
>> >the G2 section, which can be found in all good newsagents, or here
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,835862,00.html
>>
>> Hmm....ever so slightly worried by this bit...
>>
>> "Will Discworld ever end? Yes, he says. It's got to. Eventually it
>> will be too restrictive. "
>>
>> Noooooo....it must never end!!!
>>
>> Can we clone him do you think? All we need is to ge this hat, there's
>> sure to be more then enough DNA on there!!
>>
>> Terry, don't leave us!!!
>>
>> Later,
>> Laev.
>>
>
> I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one else
> starts writing it. As long as it doesn't get franchised and taken over by
> other writers like some other series have. That would suck.
I would be very happy if Terry wrote something other than Discworld if, in
his opinion, he has worked out the characters and/or used up the
storylines. In a way, it would be very interesting - the Discworld was
invented by a, relatively speaking, very inexperienced writer (as he
himself admits). It would be interesting to see what he could do it he were
to start a new imaginary universe at his current high level of literary
ability. OTOH, I think that fitting into restrictions has actually been
very creative for his writing. As someone else pointed out, to fit a real
species into the conventions of dwarfdom, both as inherited from earlier
fantasy books and as casually thrown out in the earler books, resulted in
some quality inventions in T5E and TT. Likewise, the development of TAMAHER
and Mrs Cosmopilite from what, I am sure, were just one-paragraph gags when
they originally appeared has been, IMO, immensely entertaining. So it is
possible that a complete blank sheet would be *too much* freedom. If,
however, Terry decides to try the experiment, he can be assured of my
£16.99 (or whatever it is)
[Is this speculation - or possibly meta-speculation]
--
@lec ©awley
From address is valid
Alec Cawley
> Lesley Weston wrote this:
>> Luna wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one else
>>> starts writing it.
>>
>> And as long as he goes on writing other things.
>
> But I'd like him to stop writing things when he's dead.
It didn't stop Reg Shoe or Mr Slant. Are you implying the author is *not*
greater than his creations? Though Reg's pamphlets and Slan's writs cannot
be called great literatire, there is no reason to believe they wer aby
better in life.
--
@lec Šawley
From address is valid
Alec Cawley
> "Mary Messall" <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote in message
> news:3DCD177A...@ups.edu...
>>
>> Now Terry Pratchett books definitely have likable characters, exotic
>> settings, clear language, and more or less thrilling plot twists, and
>> are pretty light on elaborate imagery and moody metaphors. So critics
>> who *don't* think real characters and genuine insight into the way
>> stories and beliefs work are important, and who find the happy endings
>> predictable and the language prosaic, tend to assume that all of us who
>> do read them must be reading them for the thrills and gags and dragons.
>
> I'd actually disagree with that bit about being "pretty light on ... moody
> metaphors". I've always hated lit crit, and been a staunch opponent of
> anything remotely resembling a "deeper meaning", but many of the DW books
> strike me as being pretty heavy on the metaphors, social commentary,
> whatever you feel like calling it. And considering that the critics are
> used to finding hidden meaning in the ingredients list on a crisp packet
> (which may or may not be warranted in these days of E-numbers), it's
> surprising that they consistently fail to spot themes in the Discworld
> books.
And while it is predeictable that a DW book will have *a* happy ending - a
feeature of which I definitely approve - I cannot remember when I have been
able to predict *what* happy ending. Unlike trash romances, when you have
identified the bopu and girl who will get each other by about a third oiof
the way through the book, or trash thrillers where you know who the hero is
and wht he is going to destroy, even if they chuck in a few turncoat
baddies in an attempt to be unpredictable. Possibly the ending of TT was a
bit predictable (and, of course, the end of P was entirely predictable, but
only by hindsight), but the rest have always kept me on my toes to the end.
Stevie D
> LoneCat wrote:
>
>> Please warn people if you're giving spoilers, even for things like Star
>> Wars.
>
> Er, no. That's an argument for putting spoiler space on just about
> *any* message, and that simply isn't going to happen. Sorry.
No, LoneCat was right. This is an argument that has cropped up several
times before, and the consensus has always been that you should use
spoiler space if your message contains a spoiler, *whatever* it is a
spoiler for.
Most messages here do not contain spoilers for anything at allน, so do
not need spoiler space. I would say that that goes for 95% or more of
messages, although it may be a smidgen less than that briefly and at 6
month intervals when a new Discworld book has been released.
If anything, spoilers are more important for non-Pterry stuff here
than. If I was desperate to not read any spoilers for Night Watch
until such time as I have read the book, I might go so far as to set
up a filter on '"Night Watch" or "NW"'; that would be an entirely
reasonable thing to do. But I should not be expected to set up filters
for, eg, Star Trek, Tolkien, or anything else. This is not the most
logical place to discuss such stuff, so I don't expect to read it here
without sufficient spoiler space, where appropriate.
น other than possibly your enjoyment of life.
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 10/11/02 16:07 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <1660258.a...@aleccawley.com>
>I would be very happy if Terry wrote something other than Discworld if, in
>his opinion, he has worked out the characters and/or used up the
>storylines. In a way, it would be very interesting - the Discworld was
>invented by a, relatively speaking, very inexperienced writer (as he
>himself admits). It would be interesting to see what he could do it he were
>to start a new imaginary universe at his current high level of literary
>ability.
Didn't he say a while ago he was planning a novel set in the alternate world
created in his Authurian short story "Once And Future"? Or possibly a series?
--
Dave
Now Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc for three years
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"I hate playing *frivolous* Mornington Crescent. It wrecks the whole thing."
-Humphrey Lyttleton
Meagen AKA SailorM
news:aqlqe5$u9r$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
And feels a victim of media stereotyping, no doubt...
Meagen
Meagen AKA SailorM
news:MPG.18389ce49...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Torak wrote:
> >
> > I used to devour several books a week until I started having to read
them in
> > English class. Since then I hardly read anything; my total
extracurricular
> > reading since lit crit started has consisted of the LOTR trilogy, the
Harry
> > Potter books and four Discworld books.
> >
>
> your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go to the library and
> order anything and everything by Lois McMaster Bujold, Connie Willis and
> Ian Rankin [1]...then we'll move you on to Bill Bryson, Neil Gaiman and
> Carl Hiaasen...I'm not sure we'll ever turn you into a Will Self or James
> Joyce fan...but reading fairly widely is a good thing to do
>
> [1] chosen carefully to appeal to Torak btw...Bujold and Rankin because of
> the military aspect, Willis because of the sharp sense of humour, and
> because all three have a strong sense of the importance of personal
> ethics...though they deal with it in very different ways
>
Ooh, could you do one for me? I think my literary culture has
been slipping these past few years, I only read Agatha Christie
and PTerry now, and as I haven't seen "Night Watch" anywhere
and have read all the others, not even that.
(I blame school, of course.)
What I like is... Well, I like books that acknowledge that
life really is funny sometimes. I don't mean I can only
read comedy, but I do try to stay away from overly serious
stories. Could you reccomend something that will bring back the
little erudite I once was?
Meagen
Paul E. Jamison
>
> I don't mind if Terry stops writing Discworld, as long as no one else
> starts writing it. As long as it doesn't get franchised and taken over by
> other writers like some other series have. That would suck.
>
> --
> -Michelle Levin (Luna)
I've just thought of something else I wouldn't want to see - Pterry's
name attached to a book series supposedly based on an idea of
his, but written by other writers. Maybe this practice is legit, but
it always strikes me as cheating.
*coffcoffAsimovcoffhackRoddenberrycoffcoff*
Paul E. Jamison
--
"There's more pressure on a vet to get it right.
People say 'It was God's will' when Granny dies,
but they get *angry* when they lose a cow."
- Terry Pratchett
Steve James
> "Terry Pratchett" <Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ChohaWA0...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <aqgsgo$a93$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Lodestone
> > <lode...@microsoft.com> writes
> > >Every article I have ever read about Pterry has claimed that
> > he is a writer much-maligned by other reporters. But I've
> > never read one that maligned him. Hmm...
> >
> > You do get a few, I have to say, although they're usually
> > knocking my perceived readership rather than me.
<snip>
> As long as I have been reading SF/Fantasy it has always
> been regarded as being "not real writing" by the literary
> congnegency.
>
Every year there is an uproar that the finalists for the Turner prize
are a bunch of rip-off artists. And yet they are always talked about
as serious artists. It seems to me that either Terry should employ
Tracey Emin's or Martin Creed's publicist agent or should start to
include dirty beds, rooms where lights go on and off, or walls
covered in lots of writing on.
Steve (Steeljam) *BF DAcFD (UU) *
Resident Opsimath in Redivivus Studies
Andrew Nevill
wrote:
{Concerning Elitism]
>And yet, SF and Fantasy have their own elitists now. There are the Hugos
>and the Nebulas, you know. And does anyone remember something about some
>uproar when an issue of the comic Sandman won some best Fantasy story
>award? International Fantasy Award? Something like that. Anyway, that
>really got people in a snit, because comic books aren't "real" books.
It was the Midsummer Nights Dream issue of Sandman. It won the 1991 World
Fantasy Award for Best Short Story. It was the first comic ever to win a
literary award
It caused quite a reaction.
"... all those artsy-fartsy writers and artists sitting there expecting a
standard-print short story to win, choked on their little almond cups as
this renegade funny book carted off the Diamond as Big as the Ritz. Much
snorting through the nose. Much umbrage taken. And screams and cries of foul
play at the polls. So infuriated were the Faithful at such a choice having
been made ... , that the Great Grey Eminences who run the FantasyCon ...
have rewritten the rules so that ... no "comic book" will ever again be
nominated...."
(... indicates where I snipped part of what is a very long though
deliciously funny paragraph)
Sources:
The Sandman Companion by Hy Bender 1999 Titan Books paperback
Harlan Ellison from his Introduction to Season of Mists. 1992 Vertigo Books
paperback.
HTH
Andrew Nevill B.F. D.W. FdV. Reply address: (ane...@btopenworld.com)
Spooky's AFPWorshipper, Sarah (Nanny Ogg) & Charissa/Perdita's AFPfiance.
Pia's AFBBro. Nattie's AFPSadistic Bast**d. You cannot value friends as
pennies, nor can you replace them as easily (Spooky in email, Aug 2001.)
Lodestone
I'm feeling a touch of Ridcully-about-Hogswatch syndrome, here.
Am I the only one who finds English lessons a stimulating and enjoyable
experience?
--
Lodestone
Lesley Weston: "If minimalism is reduced, what does it become?"
Steve: "Crotchetism"
alt.books.pratchett
Tim Cain
"LoneCat" <susan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DCE5705...@hotmail.com...
> Tim Cain wrote:
>
> <some spoilers for The Empire Strikes Back>
>
> You utter sod!
> Bizarre as it may seem, there are still a few of us out here who haven't
> seen the Star Wars trilogy yet. I know about Luke's father because it's
> practically impossible to avoid that one, but one of the things
> mentioned I didn't know.
>
> waiting for episode 3.
>
Oh come on - this film was released in 1980!
At some point, the "spoiler period" is over,
and what were once spoilers become assumed knowledge.
I think twenty-odd years is long enough.
BTW, make sure you don't see the movie "Clerks",
which is where the quoted text in my original
post came from. ISTR it gives away a lot of
stuff about "Jedi" as well.
Best,
Tim.
Mary Messall
> [Lodestone - Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:31:03 -0000]
> > I'm feeling a touch of Ridcully-about-Hogswatch syndrome, here.
> > Am I the only one who finds English lessons a stimulating and enjoyable
> > experience?
> part, people don't like being *told* that what they're reading is for
> their own good and a wonderful classic etc etc etc, and are forced to
> write long essays and reports that are usually marked "D+". The mind
> tends to rebel.
> I always thought of English class as being a relaxing break from
> physics, <snip>
I had great English teachers, for the most part. There are two to whom
I will, one day, dedicate a book. But even in their classes, I found
the curriculum frustrating.
I think it's because... An author puts some ideas and images and
suggestions into a book. Readers get ideas and images and ideas and
suggestions out of a book, some intended by the author, some not, and
different for different readers. What I dislike about English class is
that it too often seems to consist of picking out one particular idea,
usually not intended by the author, which someone got out of the book
once and insisting that this idea is "really there" in some objective
sense. That white *is* a symbol for death in Huckleberry Finn, in spite
of Twain's protestations. I resent these priveleged interpretations,
basically.
We read The Once and Future King in a great English class, with a great
teacher, and spent ten horrible days discussing political messages
which I didn't detect at all. White didn't put them there deliberately,
I didn't pick them up there, and yet some kind of objective truth was
claimed for them. These *were* symbols, whether T.H. White and I knew
it or not. I resented that this interpretation was treated as some how
more correct than my own, with not even the author's intent to justify
it. I resent the idea of priveleged interpretations. I guess I'm a
literary protestant, and English teachers represent a literary
priesthood.
-Mary
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz/ -> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
Viv
uttered:
>> > sometimes I get the impression that the primary function of most English
>> > literature teaching is to destroy the pupil's sense of humour
>>
>> ...not to mention any enjoyment of reading they might have had.
>
>I'm feeling a touch of Ridcully-about-Hogswatch syndrome, here.
>
>Am I the only one who finds English lessons a stimulating and enjoyable
>experience?
No. I loved them. But I was definitely in a minority in my class who felt
that way.
As Ava said, I think it depends on the teachers. In my experience, most
english teachers were English/History doublers, and I think it was a
coin-toss whether you got the English buffs, the History buffs, or the
this-was-the-only-degree-I-could-get bluffs.
Poetry was the worst, definitely. I had several good teachers for
dissecting novels and plays, but I only had one who was really good at
enjoying the poetry she was teaching. I only enjoyed school poetry that
year.
Vivienne Smythe
--
"Some believe all manner of hearsay evidence; others twist truth
into fiction; and both sorts of error are magnified by time."
[Cornelius Tacitus, _The Annals of Imperial Rome_ c.100CE]
Sherilyn
>
> We read The Once and Future King in a great English class, with a great
> teacher, and spent ten horrible days discussing political messages
> which I didn't detect at all. White didn't put them there deliberately,
> I didn't pick them up there, and yet some kind of objective truth was
> claimed for them.
T H White? When I read OAFK, it seemed to be peppered with outright
polemic.
--
Sherilyn
"Anything goes in an unmoderated alt. group.
Even Science." -Janice on alt.out-of-body.
Lady Kayla
[...spoiler space for such as Star Wars]
> No, LoneCat was right. This is an argument that has cropped up several
> times before, and the consensus has always been that you should use
> spoiler space if your message contains a spoiler, *whatever* it is a
> spoiler for.
No, it has _not_ been the consensus. Every time this argument has
cropped up (IIRC, last time was spoilers for FotR) there is a pretty
even split between people on the one hand saying "Oh FFS, get some
perspective." and others saying "But it's a _spoiler_! We must have
spoiler space."
From the FAQ (which only mentions DW books):
"Originally we asked that you didn't post information to the group
about new books not yet available in paperback. Though you should be
especially careful about the newer books you might wish to take care
in revealing information about older books as well. Many people new to
the group will not have read each and every DW book so keep this in
mind when discussing them and warn people appropriately."
If you're going beyond DW books, then the above is as good a guide as
any regarding what should need spoiler space. But for a movie that
not only was released well over a decade ago, but has been discussed
to hell and back and had the major plot points dismantled under a
microscope by many many people (to have missed this, someone would
have to have been living in a cave for the last umpteen years),
spoiler space is really not necessary.
If someone is so worried about a comment/post totally ruining their
enjoyment of something, then perhaps locking themselves in a cellar
for the rest of their life is the way to go. Tell me, if you're at
the pub/work/school/wherever and a group of people within your earshot
start discussing the plot of a book/film that you've not read/seen
yet, do you go over and tell them to shut up or to continue their
discussion in a whisper because you'd rather not hear about it yet
thank you very much?
_I_ will, if I remember, use spoiler space for a newly released DW
book that is not yet out in paperback. I will, if I remember, mark the
subject line as "spoiler" if it is for a less new, but still recent,
DW book. I may even put a couple of lines, or mark the subject if I
am posting spoilers for a new movie/book that is not DW. But I
wouldn't even consider putting such spoiler warnings on a post
regarding something that is a) not DW and b) has been "out there" for
public consumption for more than three years or so.
If you don't like that, then you'd better killfile me now before
you're subject to reading anything from me that spoils your enjoyment
of something.
Wash, rinse, repeat... the cycle continues.
--
Lady Kayla http://designs.ladykayla.org/
"Does anybody else think that W2K actually is doing what Y2K only
dreamed of?" - Larry Sheldon on nanog
Stuart Painting
> Stuart Painting wrote:
>
> > LoneCat wrote:
> >
> >> Please warn people if you're giving spoilers, even for things like Star
> >> Wars.
> >
> > Er, no. That's an argument for putting spoiler space on just about
> > *any* message, and that simply isn't going to happen. Sorry.
>
> No, LoneCat was right. This is an argument that has cropped up several
> times before, and the consensus has always been that you should use
> spoiler space if your message contains a spoiler, *whatever* it is a
> spoiler for.
Yes, and I wasn't happy about it before (check Google Groups).
I accept that spoiler space is appropriate for current (or
near-current) stuff. And I can see that going around spilling the
beans about certain not-so-current stuff (e.g. the identity of the
murderer in "The Mousetrap") is going to annoy some people.
But you have to draw the line somewhere.
For example, the knowledge that character A ever spoke to character B
could be construed as being a spoiler (and not just in whodunnits,
either). That would more-or-less mandate spoiler space for direct
quotes, unless you weren't giving the context (and quoting things
out-of-context isn't a good idea).
Characterisation can go the same way as plot. A statement such as
"X is a nasty piece of work in 'Othello'" could conceivably require
spoiler space under the same strictures.
You could stretch it even further. Some characters are so "famous"
that you wouldn't even need to mention the title of the work they
appeared in. More spoiler space.
So, the question is, where *do* you draw the line?
PussInSpooks
>I think my literary culture has
>been slipping these past few years, I only read Agatha Christie
>and PTerry now, and as I haven't seen "Night Watch" anywhere
>and have read all the others, not even that.
>
> (I blame school, of course.)
>
> What I like is... Well, I like books that acknowledge that
>life really is funny sometimes. I don't mean I can only
>read comedy, but I do try to stay away from overly serious
>stories. Could you reccomend something that will bring back the
>little erudite I once was?
>
You could try 'The Eyre Affair' by Jasper Fforde. I picked it up as one of my
local Waterstones recommendations (I only noticed as I finished that Pterry had
done a quote for the back sleeve - 'Ingenious- I'll watch Jasper Fforde
nervously'). It has time travel, Dodos, people getting really 'into' books and
a happy ending that you really aren't sure of 'til it happens
PussInSpooks
>
>[Lodestone - Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:31:03 -0000]
>> I'm feeling a touch of Ridcully-about-Hogswatch syndrome, here.
>>
>> Am I the only one who finds English lessons a stimulating and enjoyable
>> experience?
>
>It really, really depends on your English teacher. And for the most
>part, people don't like being *told* that what they're reading is for
>their own good and a wonderful classic etc etc etc, and are forced to
>write long essays and reports that are usually marked "D+". The mind
>tends to rebel.
I fell out with English classes when we were asked (in reference to a scene in
'Member of the Wedding') what tallow was. I stuck me mit in the air and said it
was animal fat used for candles and soap and such, 'wrong' says the teacher and
selects another mit-waver who offers 'leather'....... and is told they are
correct.
The scene in the book referred to a black women who had a disease that made her
look as if she was turning white and the affected skin looked like tallow.
David Jensen
"Meagen AKA SailorM" <meagen_stuff@ITS_BRAIN.yahoo.com> wrote in
<aqm8ot$sk2$1...@news.tpi.pl>:
Dorothy Sayers pops to mind. Unfortunately, she didn't write nearly
enough books.