SPOILERS Night Watch Discussion *spoilers*

[=Tamar]

I might have misunderstood the document in question (http://www.ankh-morpork.de/downloads/an ... FDM-WR.pdf)

On page 88 of night watch there't this piece of text supposedly not in the UK version (safe for the first sentence):

Sweeper sat down.
"Good. And now, Mister Vimes, I'll need you take back in-side and we`ll work out what you need to know from all this, and Qu'll set up the spinners and we'll just... bounce you in time a little so that you give yourself the message. You know you did it, because you saw it. We can't have you running around knowing all about us."
"I'll get suspicious."
"You'll have to make it convincing"
"I'll still be suspicious."
"You won't trust even yourself?"
"I'm a devious character. I could be hiding something. How are you going to get me back to the Watch House? Don't even think about giving me some kind of potion."

I only have the german fan-translation of the text that should be here, but it includes a little speech by Sweeper about "cut and paste". It's on page 75 of the PDF. I think this might be a case of a last-minute manuscript change by Pterry which did make it into one version but not the other.

The document you quoted has the US h/c version.

Pterry worked with both editors, but he has commented in the past about having to pick his battles. He wants the major themes and important messages to stay, but lesser details can be changed. Unfortunately, sometimes the editors have a tin ear for words and nuances.

 

[=Tamar]

...there is reason to believe that the original version is the one in the US edition not the other way around as the ISIS audiobook read by Stephen Briggs and recorded before the book came out has the passage as you quote above and he normally works off proof copies to get the audiobooks out as close as possible to the publication date of the printed versions. I don't have a proof copy of Night Watch so cannot check.

The version in the UK 1st edition reads as follows:

[snip]

Sweeper gave him a long, thoughtful look. 'Y'know,' he said, 'it's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is.

If your theory is correct that the US version is the original, I now have a head-canon that the Sweeper is saying what Sir Terry was thinking when he had to rewrite the scene for the UK editor...

 

[=Tamar]

US h/c p.214 "The world moved. Vimes still felt like a drifting ship. But at the end of the tether there was now the tug of the anchor, pulling the ship around so that it faced the current."
UK h/c p.233 "The world moved. But now Vimes no longer felt like a drifting ship. Now, he felt the tug of the anchor, pulling him round to face the rising tide."

The "rising tide" has more meaning in context, as it is during the barricade-building scene, and the rising tide of resistance is happening.

...in this context the U.S. edit actually makes more sense. At this point in the story Vimes is so used to being in the past (and enjoying it) that he is beginning to forget the life has in the future. After realizing this, he arrives at an existential crisis. The U.S. edit does a better job of showing how the cigar case didn't immediately solve this crisis, but provided him with something "real" to latch on to, and to direct him NOT to go with the flow (the current in this situation), which would have kept him in the past, but to go against it (as Vimes always does) to arrive, through struggle, at his destination. Pterry's original British words are less effective because they imply an 'instant cure', rather than the more dramatic "gradual change" of the U.S. version. And "rising tide" isn't as strong here, because it does suggest the barricade and the rebellion, when the thoughts that should be expressed here about the general "disorder" of this alternate timeline, which VImes must go against.

That's a good point about the focus of the scene. It's also true that although both versions are formulaic, "rising tide" is probably a more obvious cliche than "facing the current" is.

(If you want a real shocker, though, compare the two editions of The Truth. Or consider that a now-canon long footnote in Good Omens was added later, if I recall correctly, for the US paperback edition.)

 

[raisindot]

I'm listening to the audiobook version and I found a real bad reading error that I have to assume was NOT in the original UK text. It's in the scene just after Vimes, having been knocked out by Dotsie, wakes up and has his conversation with young Vetinari's aunt at Rosie Palm's house. Vetinari has been hiding in the shadows, and after Vimes leaves he talks to his aunt.On the audiobook, when Vetinari is talking about Vimes ability to "see" hidden things, he refers to him as "Vimes" rather than "Keel." In the US version, "Keel" is in the text. So, unless the UK editor did a terrible job, I have to assume that Briggs made the error when reading. Can anyone confirm this in the UK text?

 

[The Mad Collector]

Yes I spotted that one when I first heard it, the book does say Keel so this one has to be down to Stephen Briggs getting confused.

 

[=Tamar]

Yes I spotted that one when I first heard it, the book does say Keel so this one has to be down to Stephen Briggs getting confused.

No, I have a proof copy. The error is in the proof copy. It was corrected in the final h/c.

=Tamar

 

[Tonyblack]

This is the impression I got. A proof copy was used to do the audio version. I have a proof of Thud and well as the audiobook. They are more alike and have things that the published edition doesn't. It makes a degree of sense that the audiobook would use the pre-published version if they are to get the book and audiobook out at then same time.

 

[raisindot]

Well, that just goes to show how authors can make mistakes in their own manuscripts that editors don't pick up until the last minute. Might explain how some of the versions "evolved" over time from proof to UK to US version. After all, everyone's still working from a base Word processing file--it's not too hard to "clean up" errors along the way from edition to edition.

 

[raisindot]

Here, Vimes has just been given back his cigar case by the dancing monks:

US h/c p.214 "The world moved. Vimes still felt like a drifting ship. But at the end of the tether there was now the tug of the anchor, pulling the ship around so that it faced the current."
UK h/c p.233 "The world moved. But now Vimes no longer felt like a drifting ship. Now, he felt the tug of the anchor, pulling him round to face the rising tide."

Okay, to add more editorial time-shifting to the mix, I'm at this point in the audiobook. Briggs DEFINITELY reads the sentence with the "faced the current" phrase and NOT the "rising tide" phrase. Yet, as I pointed out earlier, he also read "Vimes" instead of "Keel" in the scene at Rose Palm's. It was conjectured that the audiobook was based on a proof, which suggests that the "face the current" line was in the original proof and somehow it got changed to "rising tide" in the UK edition and then back to "faced the current" in the U.S. version.

It's like the History Monks (or people from Jasper FFordes's Bookworld) are jiggling with the text! :think:

 

[RathDarkblade]

I have a question, and a very specific one.

During this book, Vimes discusses 'mumping' with his younger self. Is this a real word? Apart from this book, I can't find this word being defined anywhere online except on Urban Dictionary, which defines it as:

"Brit slang for begging stuff, usually used to refer to policemen extracting low-value goods or services (cf. mooching).
Local businesses hated Constable Dixon; he was always coming round mumping free meals and cups of tea.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm busily constructing a story set during the early Roman Empire (roughly 70 AD), in which an Urban Cohort character (roughly the same as a 'day-watch' policeman) mentions that "You won't catch me mumping free food!"

So I'm wondering whether I should change that - perhaps 'mooching for', 'scrounging', 'freeloading', 'nicking' etc.

Thanks!

 

[=Tamar]

Early Roman Empire would be kind of early for that specific word. It's said to come from a Dutch word meaning "cheating".
It may or may not be related to mumming, but it is definitely a real word, used for several centuries.

It's one of the many "begging days" in old English customs; this one is St. Thomas's Day, Dec 21st.

"And in Herefordshire a similar custom exists, where this day is called "mumping Day," that is, begging day."
--The Book of Christmas Thomas K. Hervey, 1888, describing a very old custom related to mummers' plays.

Since you're writing for modern readers, you may want to use a word that would be understood in more places.
Which one you choose would depend on which nuance you intend: mooching and freeloading both seem to me to imply a version of permission, but without the implication of buying off an authority figure. Scrounging on the other hand doesn't necessarily involve getting permission, but is usually of materials that are not immediately needed by the actual owner. Scrounging in older usages is close to nicking, which is outright theft.

=Tamar

 

[RathDarkblade]

Right! Thank you for the detailed answer, =Tamar. Your answers are always interesting and worth reading. Thank you again!

Hmm... since the alleged theft of food is alleged about an Urban Cohort (a proto-"day watchman"), perhaps 'nicking' is the most appropriate word. He is accused (not very seriously) of taking a donut* from a stall, and denies it vociferously because it was 'evidence'.

Does 'nicking' sound like the right word to you?

_______________________________________
* And before I'm accused of transporting modern-day food into ancient Rome - donuts actually did exist in those days, but they were nothing like today's donuts (obviously). Rather, they were deep-fried dough slathered in honey (interesting) or garum, a kind of fish sauce (yuck).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for something completely different. :twisted: I've just learned that Carcer - yes, that Carcer - probably gets his name from the Mamertine prison in ancient Rome. Why? Because the word for prison in Latin is also carcer (from which we get the word 'incarcerate'). Here are some details on this famous (and rather gruesome) prison, which housed such famous people as Vercingetorix of Gaul, King Jugurtha of Numidia, and St Peter and St Paul (yes, those guys). It was the prison used for holding murderers and traitors to the state, shortly before they were executed.

All in all, I'd say that Carcer is very well-named...

 

[raisindot]

Interesting, Rath. My second novel takes place in Judea in 0 AD, and the protagonist is a Judean "Watchman." It's really not known whether such folks or any kind of investigative type body existed in Judea back then (other than religious cops arresting people for eating impure foods), so I'm essentially making it up. Who is going to fact check me?

It is rather insidious how Pterry's influence--particularly that of Vimes--can influence one's own literary thinking.

 

[=Tamar]

History is so interesting!

Both mumping and nicking are distinctly UK slang, but nicking is more familiar to me as a USanian reader of UKian novels. Since nicking seems to have a mildly humorous nuance attached, it sounds about right for the situation in your novel, Rath. The question is, did he eat the "donut" or was it actually preserved as evidence? If he ate it, was the taste (texture, age since it was made) a relevant piece of information (e.g., "this batch was made at least four hours ago, not one hour ago") that might affect the time something was done? (if so, eating it qualifies as a quasi-scientific test.) Or is it just about whether he had the right to take it at all? I don't need to know the answers, but they are related to what he did and why. Which word is used may depend on the opinion and motivations of the character, too - someone might know that the time element is significant and want to cover up by preventing anyone official from knowing the age of the donut. If they can get it back by yelling theft, they may be off the hook. If a superior officer calls it stealing, he's taking it seriously; if he calls it nicking, he's not taking it seriously (and may be corrupt). If the watchman says something like "I didn't nick it, it's evidence," that shows him trying to downplay the seriousness of the accusation, which paradoxically makes him seem more guilty than if he had taken it seriously and said 'I didn't steal it, it's evidence."

By the way, I've been told that garum is very similar to Worcestershire sauce. A fish-based sauce on a ring-shaped lump of deep-fried dough sounds perilously close to bagels and lox.

 

[=Tamar]

Interesting, Rath. My second novel takes place in Judea in 0 AD, and the protagonist is a Judean "Watchman." It's really not known whether such folks or any kind of investigative type body existed in Judea back then (other than religious cops arresting people for eating impure foods), so I'm essentially making it up. Who is going to fact check me?

There's what seems to be a fairly comprehensive discussion in the Jewish Encyclopedia (see link below).
"Mention is also made of watchmen who patrolled the city at night and attacked all suspicious persons (Cant. iii. 3, v. 7)."
The Temple police seem to have been the most strictly maintained; if one was found asleep, the superior office who caught him had the right to beat him and set fire to his clothes! There were also suburban mounted police.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... olice-laws

 

[RathDarkblade]

Well... that accusation of theft is actually a very minor point in the overall story, a novella-length story about law and order, justice and injustice in ancient Rome (roughly mid-70s AD) - but also with many jokes. What's it about? It touches on many points: food, love, trade, marriage, politics, friendship, war, and toilets. Here is a (very short) summary:

"A guard in ancient Rome stumbles on a conspiracy to embarrass the Emperor and usurp the throne. With his collection of misfits, and his best girl by his side, he must stop the villain and unmask the conspiracy before it is too late!"

(By the way - lest you think that the guard's "best girl" is simply ornamental, let me assure you that she's no shrinking violet; in fact, she kicks @rse with the best of them). :twisted:

As for rating - I would rate it R18+ for swear-words. There are one or two mentions of "@rse", and one or two mentions of the word "s***kicker". If that sort of language upsets some people, well... there's nothing I can do about that. It's all in the mind, you know. Besides, teenagers hear these words and more on the schoolyard, so...........

What do you think?

 

[=Tamar]

Okay, Rath. From the level of humor in the story and the relative unimportance of the theft, I think "nicking" works.
If "@rse" and ""s***kicker" are the worst words in it, I'd call it more PG-13.

 

[RathDarkblade]

Hmm... I'm surprised. IIRC, pTerry's books hardly ever had any words much more adult than that, but I would be very wary before giving some of pTerry's later books (e.g. "I Shall Wear Midnight" or "Night Watch") to a 13-year-old. "I Shall Wear Midnight", naturally, because it

Spoiler

depicts the aftermath of a teenage pregnancy and the reaction of the girl's father.

 

[Tonyblack]

Why ever not? I wouldn't have a problem at all. Is it really any worse than people being killed in books? It's a fact of life and certainly age appropriate for young teens/adults.

 

[RathDarkblade]

Sure, it's a fact of life - but that's exactly what happens in I Shall Wear Midnight, IIRC. I can't remember if it's this book or another, but early on,

Spoiler

Tiffany has to deal with an old man who learned that his teenage girl was pregnant, and he beat her so hard that she died and the baby died... And he almost hanged himself out of despair at what he'd done...

It's not exactly the best introduction to Discworld, wouldn't you say? I was in my mid-30s when I read this book, but that chapter made me very sad.

Spoiler

It didn't help that, for about 7-8 years prior to this book, I'd been a carer for my grandmother who had dementia, and was slowly passing away and having a hard time even recognising any of us. So... That, plus that scene, were maybe too much for me.