Mark Reads Discworld

[high eight]

Urrghh.. How does he so clearly miss the point of Colon and and Nobby in this section? It's painful >_< I'm torn between wanting him to read more so that he can understand what Pratchett is doing (though how he doesn't already grasp this, I do not know), and quitting because his inability to understand the words before his eyes is causing me actual physical pain.

I can't even imagine looking at Colon and Nobby - two of the most blatantly comical characters there ever were - and thinking "I should take what they say seriously". Pretty much everything they say is a joke/highlighting ignorance. How does he even think otherwise....?

Read the comments by his fans - some of those are even dafter. They're now debating whether they should warn Mark about Interesting Times (There is a significant minority who think it is (I paraphrase) "racist from start to finish") and that Mark will be so enraged by it he will stop reading Discworld altogether.

 

[Tonyblack]

I posted a comment on there this morning which seems to have annoyed people. I think that Mark is likely to lose commissions for Discworld books with his comments. As the commissions are his bread and butter, I think he's being foolish.

 

[Penfold]

I posted a comment on there this morning which seems to have annoyed people. I think that Mark is likely to lose commissions for Discworld books with his comments. As the commissions are his bread and butter, I think he's being foolish.

I gave up reading his comments a while back and almost stopped listening to him completely after one of his exercises in self-censorship which totally threw the point Terry was making totally out of context.

However, I did pop into the comments to see if I could find yours; are you "deleted3223771"? (Just the poster's name was this, the rest of the post was there, btw).

 

[poindexter]

Well.. I will be surprised if he makes it past Interesting Times. It's totally dumb, because it's bloody difficult to find a writer who can dig right into the heart of humanity and all it's flaws with quite the same deftness as Pratchett. They're effectively complaining about the stuff that makes Discworld great, wtf?

And I can't be the only one who sees the hypocrisy going in with the commenters who say it's okay to criticize Pratchett because he's not perfect while jumping over anyone who even thinks about criticizing Mark? What's up with that?

 

[Penfold]

I noticed that as well and it's also something that irritated me about the site.

 

[high eight]

I can imagine them reading the first part of "A Modest Proposal" and saying "I hope it is addressed before the end that eating babies is wrong....."

I mean, what do they expect? A footnote somewhere saying "Look kids, this behaviour is really dumb"? They must want very simple stories. Its sad, really.

 

[Tonyblack]

That was probably me, Penners. I deleted my account. I pointed out in my post that Terry writes satire to the standard of Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain - so High Eight's comment about A Modest Proposal is right on target.

 

[high eight]

Thanks for the kudos Tony.

"Straight-faced satire" I think its called. Let the audience make up their own mind - don't whack them over the head with the message. (And Gawd 'elp 'em if they decide that eating babies is right!).

 

[Penfold]

That was probably me, Penners. I deleted my account. I pointed out in my post that Terry writes satire to the standard of Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain - so High Eight's comment about A Modest Proposal is right on target.

I thought as much, Tony. I do not know of too many people who are knowledgeable enough to use Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain in a debate.

That site might well go overboard when it comes to Interesting Times but I anticipate a complete meltdown at Jingo.


Edited to make some sort of sense!

 

[RathDarkblade]

I can imagine them reading the first part of "A Modest Proposal" and saying "I hope it is addressed before the end that eating babies is wrong....."

I mean, what do they expect? A footnote somewhere saying "Look kids, this behaviour is really dumb"? They must want very simple stories. Its sad, really.

There is a rule in literary circles called "show, don't tell" - i.e. show the audience what the characters do and think, don't tell them. For instance... in a romantic scene, don't say that John is attracted to Marsha; say that his heart skips a beat when she enters the room, that he thinks "Darn sweaty palms!" as he tries to talk to her, etc.

The second approach gets the message across a little more subtly; the first approach picks up the message and just bludgeons the readers over the head with it.

What is happening here is very similar. Terry doesn't tell us to disapprove of Colon's casual racism; he expects us to be smart enough to accept it and look past it, and expect Colon to get his comeuppance for it. This is why I love Pterry's books; he doesn't whack you over the head with his message, but he does get the message across in subtle ways, and that's a very hard thing to do.

Some of Mark's fans, though, sound like the kind of people raised on the black-and-white morality of Sylvester Stallone films and "Last Action Hero", etc. There's a place for such brainless mush, I suppose, but expecting the entire world to conform to that morality is pathetic.

 

[=Tamar]

I think high eight is right. The ones who post the most complaints seem to want very simple stories that tell everyone to think as they do.
They want cartoon morality tales tailored to their own sensitivities.

It really is a higher level of reading to watch for subtle indications of character. It takes patience and forbearance to read about a character you dislike long enough to see them either learn better or be defeated in some way. It takes strong forbearance to accept that a character you dislike won't be punished for disagreeing with you, because he lives in a world where those unpleasant views are common, even though the hero may be a shining example of all that you approve of.

Still, the ones who post the most are only a small percentage of his audience. There appear to be large numbers of people who read without posting, yet pay up to have books read. (Incidentally, quite a few more Pratchett books have been fully paid for in advance already.)

Some of those who do post are willing to try harder, but many of them are not careful readers or just aren't used to the idea that there are clues to things other than outright murder - clues to character, clues to incidents that aren't part of the main story. I think too many people in general are only used to the kind of mystery stories that are on television where you are shown every detail just before the detective finds the clue. I know I once read a complaint (on a completely different site) by someone who thought an author wasn't playing fair because the clues weren't made obvious enough for him and he only saw them when he went back and looked. That's the level of expectation that seems to be common in the posting audience on that site.

On the other hand, there are some posters who read carefully and post well-reasoned observations. That's one reason I keep reading there; I've learned things from those posts that I hadn't picked up in 30 years of rereading.

 

[DaveC]

Good summary Tamar. I appreciate where people are coming from with their comments but so many aren't realistic. I've learnt not justify now anything that Pratchett does that's offended someone with "that's just how people are" because that's never good enough, people need to fit how they should be or someone needs to comment that what's being said is wrong...never happens in real life.

 

[RathDarkblade]

It really is a higher level of reading to watch for subtle indications of character. It takes patience and forbearance to read about a character you dislike long enough to see them either learn better or be defeated in some way. It takes strong forbearance to accept that a character you dislike won't be punished for disagreeing with you, because he lives in a world where those unpleasant views are common, even though the hero may be a shining example of all that you approve of.

Exactly! Show, don't tell.

I know I once read a complaint (on a completely different site) by someone who thought an author wasn't playing fair because the clues weren't made obvious enough for him and he only saw them when he went back and looked. That's the level of expectation that seems to be common in the posting audience on that site.

On the other hand, there are some posters who read carefully and post well-reasoned observations. That's one reason I keep reading there; I've learned things from those posts that I hadn't picked up in 30 years of rereading.

Hmm. Was this someone complaining about an Agatha Christie book, by any chance? I know that in most of her books, the clues aren't always obvious. Then again, you could say the same thing about Raymond Chandler or Dashiell Hammett, or even the science-fiction mysteries penned by Isaac Asimov or Larry Niven, or Philip K. Dick or any of that crowd.

 

[Aquamarine]

To be fair - at least hypothetically - you can plant a clue so ambiguous or glancing that it's unfair and unhelpful, or at least it's likely to get lost in the noise of a general story. As much as there's a risk of failing to spot a pattern that's really there, there's equally a risk of seeing a pattern where there isn't one.

That said, anyone taking Colon and Nobbs seriously is making the protesters of A Modest Proposal look like careful analysts.

 

[=Tamar]

Yes, but the art of planting ambiguous clues is allied to the art of planting red herrings, which seem to be clues but don't point to the real perpetrator. Making them get lost in the general noise is exactly what a clever mystery writer does. Reading good mystery stories can be practice for noticing things in real life, once you learn both lessons: there are patterns to observe, and there are patterns that are not useful, or that aren't really a pattern. There's also a potential lesson about not jumping to conclusions. Sir Terry wrote good police procedurals; they just happened to have fantasy elements. ("You put in one lousy dragon...")

 

[high eight]

Hes getting it! Mark is finally getting it!

Quote from his most recent column: [Cuddy & DEtritus] assault and insult their way into the Alcehmists Guild. What happens when they get there?

They start working together really well.

It’s a quiet, subtle thing that happens, and Pratchett doesn’t call attention to it. He doesn’t place a flashing arrow in the narrative to tell us that LOOK, LOOK, I’M DOING A THING.

Yes Mark, that is EXACTLY what Terry did in every book he ever wrote.......

 

[Tonyblack]

I had a face palm moment when I heard that. :doh:

 

[RathDarkblade]

Hes getting it! Mark is finally getting it!

Quote from his most recent column: [Cuddy & DEtritus] assault and insult their way into the Alcehmists Guild. What happens when they get there?

They start working together really well.

It’s a quiet, subtle thing that happens, and Pratchett doesn’t call attention to it. He doesn’t place a flashing arrow in the narrative to tell us that LOOK, LOOK, I’M DOING A THING.

Yes Mark, that is EXACTLY what Terry did in every book he ever wrote.......

As I said before - show, don't tell! It's one of the rules of effective writing, albeit one that can be broken (rarely) for effect.

 

[Tonyblack]

And Terry was a writer who didn't explain (generally) some of the mysterious things in the books. You either got it or you didn't, or you would get it eventually. It's like trying to explain a joke to someone.

 

[=Tamar]

Speaking of things that aren't overtly explained... sometimes there are things that don't fit neatly into a day-by-day discussion. I just realized today some effects of having the gonne's communications be in italics. First, if you remember that Edward thinks in italics, it may strengthen the impression that it's Edward speaking to Cruces when something says in italics Kill him. Second, thinking in italics has already been specified as a mark of someone (or something) that "needs watching. Preferably from a safe distance." The effect is only slightly defused by the use of italics as simple emphasis for statements by, for instance, Carrot and Detritus, both of whom are not as simple as they first appeared.