SPOILERS Disturbing Trend in UA and Snuff: **Major Spoilers**

[high eight]

Using the link that you provided to Eight's comments, I think you are overreacting.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ObfuscatingStupidity

gramatically I might have missed up...

But still, the characters in the book don't feel like they're the same as before (and it's beyond characterisation progress )

From what I can tell, the Ponder you know and like is the one that exists in your fan fics.

LilMaibe is a fanfic writer? That explains a lot.

Hey, I agreed on not judging snuff till I read it (started Nation now, though, might take a while till I get to Snuff) So please don't judge me till you read my fanfics

No thanks. I don't read fanfics. Sturgeon's law applies and life is far too short.

Having read these two comments by high eight, I can't see why you are taking them so seriously. I have also said that I don't read fanfic and that I won't read yours or anyone else's. You don't seem to have taken that so personally.

Swreader read me bits of your story about the shandy drinking and it made no sense to me at all. I think the idea that shandy may be a completely different drink in AM is stretching the imagination too far.

Sometimes the simplest explanation really it the correct one.


I would reiterate what others have said - I do not think anyone is attacking you personally because you write fanfic.

Honestly - I keep off a thread for a week and come back to find that somebody has set Willikins on me.

Excuse me for breathing but I was just being sarcastic. Yes, I was having a dig at fanfiction - but having tried to read some once with little to show for it but eye strain and nausea, I long came to the conclusion that it just wasn't worthwhile picking my way through all the dross in search of one or two good pieces (that may or may not actually exist).

I'm afraid I just don't see the point of writing bits of fiction (most of which don't agree with canon anyway) in the style of an author. Any author. Why not develop one's own style and write original fiction?

To me, fan fiction is like rubber stamp "art" - facile, pointless and far too easy.

Rant over, subject closed (I hope)

And anyway, If people don't like my opinions, they don't have to read them - isn't there an ignore button on this forum?

 

[Anonymous]

No there isn't and I don't try to copy Sir Terry's style. Thank you very much.

 

[Tonyblack]

Sure there is.

 

[Anonymous]

Shame on you, Tony, it's not even linking to any youtube-video

 

[Tonyblack]

Shame on you, Tony, it's not even linking to any youtube-video

You mean you pressed it? You are supposed to ignore it.

 

[Anonymous]

It's a big red button telling me to ignore it. What do you think it the natural reaction to that?!

 

[windscion]

Gotta admit, he's got you there.

 

[Tonyblack]

Going back to the original topic. I think there's been a trend for justice, be it 'rough' or legal throughout the books. Sam Vimes isn't adverse to causing a fire that completely destroys a bunch of records in Feet of Clay for example. It might not be legal, but it is satisfying.

 

[raisindot]

Going back to the original topic. I think there's been a trend for justice, be it 'rough' or legal throughout the books. Sam Vimes isn't adverse to causing a fire that completely destroys a bunch of records in Feet of Clay for example. It might not be legal, but it is satisfying.

AVAST, THAR BE SPOILERS AHEAD

That is true, but at that point in the series the focus was more on procedural aspects and larger philosophical issues (such as whether golems or gonnes have souls) and less about Vimes' own thoughts about the nature of the Law.

You really don't see significant exploration of the nature of the Law emerge until near the end of Jingo, when Vimes transitions from this role as a 'thief-taker' to someone who has to struggle to figure out how his own concept of the Law applies to nations as a whole.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm still rather upset by the other thing that happened in UA (and snuff too, from what I know):
The story telling us what lesson to learn while showing the complete opposite leading to success.

 

[cabbagehead]

You really don't see significant exploration of the nature of the Law emerge until near the end of Jingo, when Vimes transitions from this role as a 'thief-taker' to someone who has to struggle to figure out how his own concept of the Law applies to nations as a whole.

That's more or less a good place for such a transition, because earlier the Watch could have been ignored almost entirely by the Morporkians, and Vimes' opinions about the nature of the law hardly mattered. But once Watchmen become a power with significant impact the philosophical views of its commander mean something to the populace.

 

[Anonymous]

On a side-note:

http://terrypratchett.co.uk/index.php/b ... -discworld

Just stumbled about this upon linking the page for 'snuff' to another friend who didn't knew it's out yet.
Do I see that correctly?
I was already a bit bothered by the publisher's note at the beginning of UA (To me it read a bit like: If you haven't given us money for that book you have little chance of understanding this one)
but now I see the 'new' thing on the cover here and have to wonder:

How much IS new in that version compared to the one that came out BEFORE UA?
And isn't it a bit unfair in trying to cash in like that?
Dear Randomhouse, rather kick your german daughter-publisher manhattan to give us nicer covers and a good translator.

 

[high eight]

Re:

I'm still rather upset by the other thing that happened in UA (and snuff too, from what I know):
The story telling us what lesson to learn while showing the complete opposite leading to success.

I don't think that Terry tells us what lesson to learn - he is not in the business of giving moral (or any other type of) lessons. He is a storyteller first and foremost and to describe is not to condone.

 

[Anonymous]

I wondered before but have we read the same story?
My copy of UA kept repeating the bits about bullying, the crabbucket thing (On a note here: I saw the little buggers crawl out of their containers by the dozens AND tip it over, so that analogy doesn't work for me. Are german crabs more intelligent and socially tolerant than english?) and so on over and over and over.
All while having the characters preaching these morals do the exact opposite.
'Think for yourself, because it is your life and don't let other get you down and/or make decisions for you' is one of the things constantly said in the text (not directly, but that's the moral of the crabbucket but)
Nice and Dandy, if it weren't for the small point that in the end everyone let's either the orc or Pepe make the decisions for them.

 

[high eight]

I wondered before but have we read the same story?

Evidently not.

My copy of UA kept repeating the bits about bullying, the crabbucket thing (On a note here: I saw the little buggers crawl out of their containers by the dozens AND tip it over, so that analogy doesn't work for me. Are german crabs more intelligent and socially tolerant than english?) and so on over and over and over.

The crab bucket anaolgy was quite common and widespread even before UA. TP didn't invent it. And growing up in a fairly deprived working class enviorment, I watched it in action and, believe me, it does happen. Or did, when I was young. less so now, I think.

And not just from people saying "You have ideas above your station": People actually lose confidence and pull themselves back down into the morass. My mother who was intelligent and well-read but not well educated did it to herself several times throughout her life.

I don't know about real crabs, not being a coastal person, but I suspect it is simply that that they don't have the imagination of humans. its just an analogy after all.

All while having the characters preaching these morals do the exact opposite.

So? They're people (albeit fictional ones) people are complex. I'd call it good writing. I'd certainly not call it preaching.

'Think for yourself, because it is your life and don't let other get you down and/or make decisions for you' is one of the things constantly said in the text (not directly, but that's the moral of the crabbucket but)

It is not the moral of the crab bucket at all. The moral of the crab bucket is: "It is hard work trying to better yourself and get out of the slum (bucket) because the other crabs will pull you down and tell you that you should know your place".

Nice and Dandy, if it weren't for the small point that in the end everyone let's either the orc or Pepe make the decisions for them.

We are reading a different book. In my version, Nutt doesn't make any decisions for anybody. He is barely assertive enough to make decisions for himself for over half of the book. As for Pepe, he just doesn't care enough about anybody but himself to do anything for anybody else.

 

[Anonymous]

I guess we will never agree on anything when it comes to the book, will we?
(On a note on the crabbucket: I know it has been called 'tall poppy syndrom' or simply 'envy' before)

But two things I wonder what your opinion is on:
When the orc gives that 'wise, insightful and couraging speech' about Trevor's father, would you say that if one thinks about the orc just showed why Trev should actually despise his old man and football altogether

and

The scene after the orc ran away, came back and we learn from a pretty devasted Ponder that he(Ponder) could train the team because he couldn't remember all the stuff the orc came up with: hitting a character in the face with the idiot ball solely to have another character shine undeserved or valid and logical scene, action and reaction?

 

[high eight]

I guess we will never agree on anything when it comes to the book, will we?
(On a note on the crabbucket: I know it has been called 'tall poppy syndrom' or simply 'envy' before)

Doubt it. I can't see your problem with it.

I've also seen it as crab bucket before UA, but I forget who invented the term.

But two things I wonder what your opinion is on:
When the orc gives that 'wise, insightful and couraging speech' about Trevor's father, would you say that if one thinks about the orc just showed why Trev should actually despise his old man and football altogether

What the part where Nutt Psychoanalyses Trev? No. Why should it?

IThe scene after the orc ran away, came back and we learn from a pretty devasted Ponder that he(Ponder) could train the team because he couldn't remember all the stuff the orc came up with: hitting a character in the face with the idiot ball solely to have another character shine undeserved or valid and logical scene, action and reaction?

I don't really understand this comment. Ponder isn't devasted when Nutt comes back as far as I can tell: he is more "Where the hell have you been?" and he actually says at one point he has delegared the training to Nutt.

Do you mean he could or couldn't train the team? And I don't get the 'hitting a character in the face with the ball' comment at all.

 

[Anonymous]

The bit with the speech:
The orc compares Trev's father to the first person to tame fire and the first one who tried to eat an oyster, saying that Trev's dad was a fool, but fools are necessary as without them some advancements would not have been made. He concludes with saying the name Dave Likely means football to many many many people and therefore Trev's dad was a good man and Trev shouldn't hate him for dieing.
Even upon the first reading (when I was still looking forward to the book after having heard and read many good things about it) I couldn't help but wonder the following:
-To how many people did Dave Likely mean 'father' 'husband' and 'family'
-As it is very highly doubtable that the first person to tame fire/eat an oyster did so so his clan could play football at night/have a new snack at a football match, they must have done so so the clan would be warm and safe at night/have an additional source of food so more of them would survive. AKA these people did it because they cared for their clan's/family's wellfare. Did Dave Likely ever care for his family's wellfare? As there is no mention he actually got paid for playing.
-Did Dave Likely furthermore care for anything aside from football? Or did he just care for the crowd's cheering?


As for the training bit:

Yes, meant 'couldn't train'. Missed that typo.
With the idiot ball I mean following:
Holding/Catching/Getting hit by the idiot ball basically means you have a character, who before has always been shown to be rather clever/intelligent/skilled, who suddenly acts uncharacteristically stupid/clumsy with no real explanation.
In Ponder's case here it is especially dull:
I know whoever came up with the bit likely wanted to say that the orc's ideas of training are so outstanding and unique that the 'average mind' could never come up with them, but it backfires:
-If these ideas are so unique, they are memorable.
-Even if we take that Ponder has no taste for sports, he should still be able to remember what he saw. And if not him the team should be capable of that. For what good is training if you can't remember what the hell you did/learned?
-Ponder worked on the new rules, what means he has to have at least a basic idea of what is supposed to happen on the field. What means he should have been able to come up with something on his own. (Running with the ball, shooting the ball, passing the ball, shooting at the goal, headers, stopping the ball, avoiding getting tackled and so on)

Yet Ponder gets portrayed as a total stuck-up, selfish, uncreative dimwit who is so inferior to the magnificent, perfect, wise, creative, talented orc.

 

[cabbagehead]

-As it is very highly doubtable that the first person to tame fire/eat an oyster did so so his clan could play football at night/have a new snack at a football match, they must have done so so the clan would be warm and safe at night/have an additional source of food so more of them would survive. AKA these people did it because they cared for their clan's/family's wellfare. Did Dave Likely ever care for his family's wellfare? As there is no mention he actually got paid for playing.

Not really. The first person to do those things was probably just fiddling around. 'What will happen if I do X?' The majority of discoveries are made without any aim in mind or with an aim that had nothing to do with what the discovery actually ended up serving. It just makes a better story to tell about discoveries and inventions born out of necessity, or even want. 'Hey, I did X, Y happened and resulted in useful thing Z. But now everyone wants to know what made me think X might cause Z when I wasn't even trying to get Z.' So playing a game that is a substitute for gang warfare isn't as different from any other cultural activity.

 

[Anonymous]

Whether or not they were 'fiddling around' In the end it was for the wellfare of their clan.
And applying a bit of real world knowledge, the first humanoid to 'tame' fire, aka make it instead of waiting for a lightning to strike somewhere and carry the burning branch/bush/whatever back to the clan, did things intentionally. Perhaps after seeing sparks come from two stones hit together, but after that it was intentionally trying around with a set goal: Making fire.