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

[Ziriath]

I do not know exactly, what 'fanon' is. I thought it's fan speculations, which are said to be true, but in canon it was never said (Everyone knows, that Vetinari has black hair, but it has never been said in any Discworld book).
For explanation of what I wrote, just some examples from some other fandoms: Many of us Trekkies have to deal with Final frontier or Spock's Brain. Yes, It's official Star trek, it's canon, but it doesn't fit into the world, that has been established by previous movies and TV series. We pretend Kirk never climbed the mountain and there's no Spock's insane brother. We pretend, that remote-controlled brainless Spock has never walked the Enterprise's corridors..
Or Star Wars, episodes I-III (well, some people would argue). It's Star Wars, it's canon, it has the same authors, but it has disappointed many fans. Midichloriams? Meh.
The same with UA in the Discworld series. It simply doesn't fit the world, which I have in my head after reading the previous Discworlds. It's a Discworld, it's a Pratchett's book, and I have to deal with it. But it ruins my image of Discworld, the city of Ankh-Morpork and the characters, so I try to pretend the terrible orc (I apologise to his fans) doesn't exist, Vetinari doesn't drink so much alcohol and this book did not happen at all, cos, frankly, there's nothing I would miss, if this book did not exist. Even Making Money has good bits, though I do not like that book, but UA gave me nothing. There's a Czech saying, which can be translated: Even a master carpenter sometimes cuts wrongly. Everyone makes mistakes.

 

[Anonymous]

Fanon is just what you said, fan-made theories, speculation and interpretation.

For example (in addition to yours)

In The Last Continent we get to know that Ponder Stibbons is 24 (or about 24 for something closer to the actual quote)
that means:
Canon: Ponder is 24 when the events of The Last Continent take place.

Now, if we go and say he was 21 when he passed his exam, that would be fanon, as canonically we can't say for certain how much time has passed between Moving Pictures and TLC. We can make a guess based on the seasons mentioned in the books and those between, but it is all speculation.

In short, canon is everything that is said outright in the source material or by the author. Or in authorised tie-ins like comics, books or the like.
Likewise something can be thrown out of canon.
Star Trek Voyager's 'Treshold' for example got expelled from canon.

I, personally, accept that UA is part of the Discworld Canon, but that doesn't necessarily mean I see it as taking place in the same trouserleg of time as, let's say, Reaper Man or even Going Postal.

Now people might come and say that my view is wrong, but in the end the only person allowed to say which legit and thought-through interpration or view on something is completely wrong is Sir Terry himself.

 

[high eight]

Fanon = fan-fiction writer's version of plot or characters. Usually nothing to do with the real author's intentions.

For example - it is fanon that Crowley and Aziraphale are gay. They aren't.

 

[Ziriath]

Other trouserleg of time, sounds good.

 

[cabbagehead]

Now people might come and say that my view is wrong, but in the end the only person allowed to say which legit and thought-through interpration or view on something is completely wrong is Sir Terry himself.

I'm a 'death of the author' reader. Pratchett can say how he intended things to be, but what he says outside of his creation isn't canon. If it contradicts an in-world factoid it is simply untrue. If it is compatible with canon I consider it a valid interpretation. But if there is a smoother, more comprehensive, more consistent interpretation that contradicts something Pratchett said in an interview or otherwise in a non-fiction setting the more consistent interpretation takes precedence. Of course Pratchett can write another in-world book that includes the additional information. That would make it canon.

As far as I'm concerned, the novels, short stories, the wizards parts of the science books, the cookbook and Mappes are canon. The Art of Discworld and the companions aren't.

 

[Anonymous]

Folklore seems to be semi-canon (and quite honestly? the whole -note from the publisher- in UA was pretty much a d*ckmove, seeing at the time UA was published it held little to no information).

Oh, and H8, two things:
Fanon isn't necessarily wrong, as much as you'd love it to be to have something to support your views. Fanon also includes things that, for example, are obviously there in canon, but aren't spelled out. See TVTropes' 'FridgeBrilliance' for examples.
And if you define it like that I have to say that your whole argument as to -why andy deserved what pepe did to him- falls flat as it is as much fanon as saying he didn't.
And before you go and come up with more insults etc, pick up the book and read the scene in question again. Try to find a line that very clearly and without a single doubt states outright that Andy didn't learn his lesson.

 

[Ziriath]

Some things were canonised in novels, after the non-canon materials were made.
Vetinari's beard, for example. It wasnt mentioned in the older Discworlds. I think almost nobody, even The Author, knew how to exactly imagine V., before the Kidby's illustrations were released. (Well, I have always imagined him quite differently)
Or Vimes. We do not know anything about his appearance, do we? He lacks any description. And still we would not know, if there weren't the illustrations.

 

[Anonymous]

The illustrations are tricky, though.
Take the wizards for example (i think i mentioned in another thread) Going by the Kidby illustrations or those of the one who illustrated the A-M game: the wizards look pretty, well, victorian. Stephen Player depicts them more fantasy-parody-esc (to put it like that) and while that might be closest to the description in the books, I must say I have yet to meet someone who imagines them like that (hands up if you do, folks)
(Not to mention canonical Ponder seems to wear nothing underneath his robe at all :shhh: )

 

[David Brown]

If it contradicts an in-world factoid it is simply untrue.

But a factoid is by definition itself untrue. Norman Mailer coined the word and gave it the meaning "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper" (cf the old adage "don't believe everything you read in the 'papers"), which has been amplified by the Washington Times as "something that looks like a fact, could be a fact, but in fact is not a fact".

 

[high eight]

Folklore seems to be semi-canon (and quite honestly? the whole -note from the publisher- in UA was pretty much a d*ckmove, seeing at the time UA was published it held little to no information).

Oh, and H8, two things:
Fanon isn't necessarily wrong, as much as you'd love it to be to have something to support your views. Fanon also includes things that, for example, are obviously there in canon, but aren't spelled out. See TVTropes' 'FridgeBrilliance' for examples.

You're assuming that fanon and the author dropping hints, foreshadowing and leaving things unsaid are the same thing. I am not.

And if you define it like that I have to say that your whole argument as to -why andy deserved what pepe did to him- falls flat as it is as much fanon as saying he didn't.
And before you go and come up with more insults etc, pick up the book and read the scene in question again. Try to find a line that very clearly and without a single doubt states outright that Andy didn't learn his lesson.

Try and find a line that says he did. Either way he deserved what he got.

 

[Ziriath]

Lil: Agree, I see discworld more fantasy-like, than victorian (That's another thing about new discworlds- they take place de facto in 19th century- compare Guards! Guards! and Making Money..) Was it caused by the illustrations, or vice versa? Kidby's drawings are technically very good, but IMHO, many of them are too victorian or do not fit the images I've in my mind while reading.

 

[Anonymous]

Folklore seems to be semi-canon (and quite honestly? the whole -note from the publisher- in UA was pretty much a d*ckmove, seeing at the time UA was published it held little to no information).

Oh, and H8, two things:
Fanon isn't necessarily wrong, as much as you'd love it to be to have something to support your views. Fanon also includes things that, for example, are obviously there in canon, but aren't spelled out. See TVTropes' 'FridgeBrilliance' for examples.

You're assuming that fanon and the author dropping hints, foreshadowing and leaving things unsaid are the same thing. I am not.

And if you define it like that I have to say that your whole argument as to -why andy deserved what pepe did to him- falls flat as it is as much fanon as saying he didn't.
And before you go and come up with more insults etc, pick up the book and read the scene in question again. Try to find a line that very clearly and without a single doubt states outright that Andy didn't learn his lesson.

Try and find a line that says he did. Either way he deserved what he got.

1. An example: before the 7th Harry Potter book the theory 'Harry is a horcrux' was fanon. As it was just a theory. Made by fans based on the books.
2. Did he? Tell us why then.

Lil: Agree, I see discworld more fantasy-like, than victorian (That's another thing about new discworlds- they take place de facto in 19th century- compare Guards! Guards! and Making Money..) Was it caused by the illustrations, or vice versa? Kidby's drawings are technically very good, but IMHO, many of them are too victorian or do not fit the images I've in my mind while reading.

Everyone their own, I'd say. (And to be honest, I doubt any of the illustrations fits Sir Terry's idea 100% anyway)

 

[high eight]

1. An example: before the 7th Harry Potter book the theory 'Harry is a horcrux' was fanon. As it was just a theory. Made by fans based on the books.

You're still assuming that fanon and speculation about an as yet unwritten book is the same thing.

2. Did he? Tell us why then.

Because of who he is. What he is.

 

[Anonymous]

Andy is an overclichéd bully-stereotype who we never actually SEE do anything to live up to the reputation the narrative tries to give us. There is not a single line in the whole book that actually SHOWS us how he is doing something evil.
All we get is other characters and the story TELLING us what an evil and despicable bully he is. But even at the thing with Carter we just get told that Andy is evil. We are not even told that it actually was Andy who cutted Carter. All we know is that Andy somehow started something in which Carter got beat up.

Andy is a character put into the story to have a villain, who is never shown doing anything specific, to have the story tell us what he is like. Namely, the, as said, over-clichéd, stereotype of a bully.
Which brings us back to -UA doesn't really read like Discworld-
Sir Terry knows well how to write characters.
Andy is an alibi-character nowhere near anything Sir Terry knows how to create.
Andy isn't even a character as much as he is an assoziation.
We all know bullies. From experience or from hear-say. But in any case we 'know' it is something bad.
What the story does is list clichés, things, people think bullies typically do.
Thereby, most people will hate, despise him, even though when the story actually shows him do something, it is mostly harmless.

Look at other villains.
They were SHOWN doing something.
Even in Snuff the bad guy DID something.

In UA?

Hells, PEPE does much more despicable things than Andy.

Though, as I believe you see your own opinions, definitions and interpretations far above all others (and people tell me I can get aggressive/stubborn when it comes to my point of view), I doubt that definition fits with yours.

 

[high eight]

Andy is an overclichéd bully-stereotype who we never actually SEE do anything to live up to the reputation the narrative tries to give us. There is not a single line in the whole book that actually SHOWS us how he is doing something evil.
All we get is other characters and the story TELLING us what an evil and despicable bully he is. But even at the thing with Carter we just get told that Andy is evil. We are not even told that it actually was Andy who cutted Carter. All we know is that Andy somehow started something in which Carter got beat up.

Andy is a character put into the story to have a villain, who is never shown doing anything specific, to have the story tell us what he is like. Namely, the, as said, over-clichéd, stereotype of a bully.
Which brings us back to -UA doesn't really read like Discworld-
Sir Terry knows well how to write characters.
Andy is an alibi-character nowhere near anything Sir Terry knows how to create.
Andy isn't even a character as much as he is an assoziation.
We all know bullies. From experience or from hear-say. But in any case we 'know' it is something bad.
What the story does is list clichés, things, people think bullies typically do.
Thereby, most people will hate, despise him, even though when the story actually shows him do something, it is mostly harmless.

Look at other villains.
They were SHOWN doing something.
Even in Snuff the bad guy DID something.

In UA?

Hells, PEPE does much more despicable things than Andy.

Though, as I believe you see your own opinions, definitions and interpretations far above all others (and people tell me I can get aggressive/stubborn when it comes to my point of view), I doubt that definition fits with yours.

I'm not going to start this argument again. I'll just say that I recognised Andy Shank the moment he appeared. I went to school with him. I stood on the terraces watching football surrounded by him. I've been bullied, mugged and burgled by him.

He is no stereotype. He is one of Terry best villains just because he is so real. Perhaps you have to be English.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, that is your opinion. I'll accept it as such if you agree on accepting mine as just as legit. Can we agree on that?

 

[raisindot]

Andy is an overclichéd bully-stereotype who we never actually SEE do anything to live up to the reputation the narrative tries to give us. There is not a single line in the whole book that actually SHOWS us how he is doing something evil.All we get is other characters and the story TELLING us what an evil and despicable bully he is.

I tend to side with Meebs on this one. Andy is UA's equivalent of the Doug and Dimsdale sketch from Monty Python. His character is largely painted by both exposition and others' stories about him. In the few scenes he's in, he really comes off as little more than a one-dimensional street-level thug. He's not the crazy, potato-worshipping art savant that Mr. Tulip is, or the totally psychotic sociopath Carcer is, or even the over-reaching crazed genius that Teatime is. Other than the one scene with Trevor and his 'dirty tricks' coaching of his football team, he doesn't really come alive as either a character or the true menance and threat to society that he should be. In all fairness, there wasn't a great deal of narrative wiggle room in UA for his character to develop. Nutt was already more powerful than him (having the ability to come back from near death is always a good advantage), so Andy wasn't that much of a threat. Trevor was more intimidated by Andy than actually threatened by him. Juliet and Glenda were never in any danger from him. There just wasn't all that much menace to him.

 

[high eight]

That is why he is so menacing in that setting. The banality of evil applies. How many crazy, potato-worshipping art savants have you met? How many sociopaths? OK, now how many street thugs and football hooligans?

The likes of Tulip and Carcer were not needed and they would look damned silly in that setting. What was needed was your basic bone-headed street chav.

 

[Anonymous]

Andy is an overclichéd bully-stereotype who we never actually SEE do anything to live up to the reputation the narrative tries to give us. There is not a single line in the whole book that actually SHOWS us how he is doing something evil.All we get is other characters and the story TELLING us what an evil and despicable bully he is.

I tend to side with Meebs on this one. Andy is UA's equivalent of the Doug and Dimsdale sketch from Monty Python. His character is largely painted by both exposition and others' stories about him. In the few scenes he's in, he really comes off as little more than a one-dimensional street-level thug. He's not the crazy, potato-worshipping art savant that Mr. Tulip is, or the totally psychotic sociopath Carcer is, or even the over-reaching crazed genius that Teatime is. Other than the one scene with Trevor and his 'dirty tricks' coaching of his football team, he doesn't really come alive as either a character or the true menance and threat to society that he should be. In all fairness, there wasn't a great deal of narrative wiggle room in UA for his character to develop. Nutt was already more powerful than him (having the ability to come back from near death is always a good advantage), so Andy wasn't that much of a threat. Trevor was more intimidated by Andy than actually threatened by him. Juliet and Glenda were never in any danger from him. There just wasn't all that much menace to him.

In addition, IMHO, Andy is a wasted chance to create another neat addition to the 'villain gallery'.
Instead of telling us that he is as much of a threat as Carcer (while not outright, that was the impression the text tried to, well, force on us) the text could have, for example, went and have Andy draw a knife from his old football boots and try to stab Trevor, instead of (the IMHO pretty tame and lame) attempt at kicking him in the family jewels, and have that be foiled by the micromail.
I might have mentioned the above before, I'm not certain.

Or perhaps have us actually 'be there' when that meeting Carter tells Trevor about takes place. Have us actually see that Andy attacked Carter and not just hear that 'andy didn't like what carter said', what leaves open the (if small) possibiliyt that Andy merely threw a tantrum which lead to a brawl and someone else injured Carter. The text itself doesn't make that clear. We just assume that it was Andy because the text, quite frankly, kept hammering into us how evil Andy is.

It's a pity. He could have been a neat villain, to put it like that

 

[David Brown]

Or perhaps have us actually 'be there' when that meeting Carter tells Trevor about takes place. Have us actually see that Andy attacked Carter and not just hear that 'andy didn't like what carter said', what leaves open the (if small) possibiliyt that Andy merely threw a tantrum which lead to a brawl and someone else injured Carter. The text itself doesn't make that clear. We just assume that it was Andy because the text, quite frankly, kept hammering into us how evil Andy is.

I disagree. Sometimes leaving it to the reader's imagination is more effective. If s/he has one, that is.