Question about Snuff
- Thread starter Malky79
- Start date
A
Raisin, it was an example. :doh:
And to be honest, IMHO it doesn't matter who uses toilet humour for cheap laughs. It's still toilet humour used for cheap laughs. And agree with me or not, I'd say it becomes rather grating especially when Sir Terry does it. Especially when it seems to be there for no other reason than to be there.
I could give examples from UA, if you want.
On a personal note: (just read if you want to)
And to be honest, IMHO it doesn't matter who uses toilet humour for cheap laughs. It's still toilet humour used for cheap laughs. And agree with me or not, I'd say it becomes rather grating especially when Sir Terry does it. Especially when it seems to be there for no other reason than to be there.
I could give examples from UA, if you want.
On a personal note: (just read if you want to)
You folks known how to discourage someone who once wanted to write.
No one cares if you write or not. Does that shock you? And please, NO examples from UA - there can't be any one left who still wants your opinion on that.
What Terry thinks about poo is something you'll have to get over. Do you know what he said about people who use the expression "in my humble opinion"?
What Terry thinks about poo is something you'll have to get over. Do you know what he said about people who use the expression "in my humble opinion"?
I just wanted to say this was a very interesting post, Paranye 
I do my research on Ancient Greek comedy, where even gods poop, and what you said was quite illuminating about the mechanics of this kind of subversive humour. (In Aristophanes' Frogs, the main character is Dionysus, the god of theatre, in whose honour every play was performed, so you'd think, rightly, he would be especially revered; and yet, he's depicted as a ridiculous buffoon who craps himself when he's frightened. And asks his slave for something to wipe his bottom with. I'm not even going into the other instances of scatological comedy in the other plays, because I'd be here all day)
...Meeps, don't give up writing over a small disagreement!
I do my research on Ancient Greek comedy, where even gods poop, and what you said was quite illuminating about the mechanics of this kind of subversive humour. (In Aristophanes' Frogs, the main character is Dionysus, the god of theatre, in whose honour every play was performed, so you'd think, rightly, he would be especially revered; and yet, he's depicted as a ridiculous buffoon who craps himself when he's frightened. And asks his slave for something to wipe his bottom with. I'm not even going into the other instances of scatological comedy in the other plays, because I'd be here all day)...Meeps, don't give up writing over a small disagreement!
A
Small disagreement?
I'm getting smacked around the face with the 'fact' that it doesn't matter what you write once you got a certain readership as they'll praise everything you'll do. If it doesn't matter if what you write is a textbook example of beginner's mistakes once you got published, I don't want to write.
And Dotsie:
No, I don't, though as you bring it up I can guess. Say, did he say anything about people who instead of judging a person for the person itself rely on generalisation, clichés and prejudice?
I'm getting smacked around the face with the 'fact' that it doesn't matter what you write once you got a certain readership as they'll praise everything you'll do. If it doesn't matter if what you write is a textbook example of beginner's mistakes once you got published, I don't want to write.
And Dotsie:
No, I don't, though as you bring it up I can guess. Say, did he say anything about people who instead of judging a person for the person itself rely on generalisation, clichés and prejudice?
Amazing how you can add huge assumptions to peoples replies to you here and yet miss a lot of the subtleties obvious to others in the books. Write if you want to write. If its good people will like it and you might be succesful if its bad it probably won't .
Simples.
From listening to all the numerous arguments you are the only one discouraging yourself in terms of writing. Everyone will agree and disagree on points in books . If we disagree what has that got to do with you as a writer . We're talking about Terry not you.
So seriously if you feel the need to write do . See where it brings you . But if it causes you so much pain then don't . This is not an attack its an observation by the way . Don't weigh yourself against the others here and do what you want to do .
Simples.
From listening to all the numerous arguments you are the only one discouraging yourself in terms of writing. Everyone will agree and disagree on points in books . If we disagree what has that got to do with you as a writer . We're talking about Terry not you.
So seriously if you feel the need to write do . See where it brings you . But if it causes you so much pain then don't . This is not an attack its an observation by the way . Don't weigh yourself against the others here and do what you want to do .
You know, what really annoys me. is the small regard you hold for people who don't agree with you. In this post that I've quoted you essentially say that people who disagree with you don't have the intelligence to make their own minds up. You think that people who disagree with you are somehow brainwashed into thinking their favourite author can do no wrong - that we are unable to think for ourselves.
Could you possibly be more insulting?
And you wonder why people here are fed up with listening to your exalted opinions?
What gives you the right to have this god-like opinion that you know better than everybody else? That everybody else here is some sort of sheep just because we don't agree with you?
And that you, who has never (as far as I know) had anything published, know far more about writing than Terry Pratchett, who has.
You also seem to think that you know what goes on between Terry and his publishers, and that these evil publishers are somehow forcing Terry to write books he doesn't want to.
I can't take any of your arguments seriously any more because you just talk nonsense and I'm sick of your whining about the same things over and over and over again. :hand:
Could you possibly be more insulting?
And you wonder why people here are fed up with listening to your exalted opinions?
What gives you the right to have this god-like opinion that you know better than everybody else? That everybody else here is some sort of sheep just because we don't agree with you?
And that you, who has never (as far as I know) had anything published, know far more about writing than Terry Pratchett, who has.
You also seem to think that you know what goes on between Terry and his publishers, and that these evil publishers are somehow forcing Terry to write books he doesn't want to.
I can't take any of your arguments seriously any more because you just talk nonsense and I'm sick of your whining about the same things over and over and over again. :hand:
Are you talking about me? Do you think I am in some way prejudiced against you?
BTW, I don't know anyone who likes everything that Terry writes. Why should we all agree with you? What are your qualifications?
I thought I was safe from this tired old argument by staying out of the UA threads. Apparently not!
Do you think I am in some way prejudiced against you?BTW, I don't know anyone who likes everything that Terry writes. Why should we all agree with you? What are your qualifications?
I thought I was safe from this tired old argument by staying out of the UA threads. Apparently not!
Meebs, you bring it on yourself. Over and over. For one thing, when you don't like a character, you refer to them not by their name but as a type. So, Nutt is "the orc." Harry King is the "S&P man." In a sense, you're doing what Granny Weatherwax feels is one of the worst things people can do--treat people not as individuals but as "things." Do this and you should expect to be boxed around by us.
Personally, I don't like any of the Rincewind books, but I would never refer to him solely as the "fraidy-cat wizard." Some people love these books; all the power to them. YMMV.
As far as your ongoing self-pity over the slings of critical arrows heading your way: GET OVER IT. This is a literary forum. If you want to participate in the discussion, be prepared to have your views agreed with, disagreed with, and, sometimes, when you push enough buttons, harshly criticized. So be it. Don't like it? Come back with logical textual arguments that support your position. You may get hit again. Fine. So what? It's words on a screen.
Obviously, none of us have met you in person, but your own screen persona sometimes comes off as a pouting, self-pitying masochist who takes every disagreement with your point of view as a personal insult. You've fed this with comments such as those above--as if it's our fault that you're not succeeding as a writer.
Well guess what? If you can't take criticism of your points of view on a forum, how are you going to handle the endless stream of rejection letters you're going to get from publishers who reject your story or novel submissions (this isn't a value judgment of your capability; this is a reality that most writers face). If you ever get published, how are you going to handle bad reviews you may receive?
Personally, I don't like any of the Rincewind books, but I would never refer to him solely as the "fraidy-cat wizard." Some people love these books; all the power to them. YMMV.
As far as your ongoing self-pity over the slings of critical arrows heading your way: GET OVER IT. This is a literary forum. If you want to participate in the discussion, be prepared to have your views agreed with, disagreed with, and, sometimes, when you push enough buttons, harshly criticized. So be it. Don't like it? Come back with logical textual arguments that support your position. You may get hit again. Fine. So what? It's words on a screen.
Obviously, none of us have met you in person, but your own screen persona sometimes comes off as a pouting, self-pitying masochist who takes every disagreement with your point of view as a personal insult. You've fed this with comments such as those above--as if it's our fault that you're not succeeding as a writer.
Well guess what? If you can't take criticism of your points of view on a forum, how are you going to handle the endless stream of rejection letters you're going to get from publishers who reject your story or novel submissions (this isn't a value judgment of your capability; this is a reality that most writers face). If you ever get published, how are you going to handle bad reviews you may receive?
Oh dear. Just in the door and already I've walked into a pile of... disagreement.
LilMaibe, I'm sorry if my post bothered you in some way, but I don't quite understand why you were so insulted by it. You didn't really address the point I was trying to make, though that may well be because I did not express myself with sufficient clarity, in which case I again apologize.
As for all the... non-Pratchett-related discussion, I'm not touching it with a bargepole. Newbies should be on the pianissimo side for a while when it comes to conflicts, no?
Edited for html fails.
LilMaibe, I'm sorry if my post bothered you in some way, but I don't quite understand why you were so insulted by it. You didn't really address the point I was trying to make, though that may well be because I did not express myself with sufficient clarity, in which case I again apologize.
As for all the... non-Pratchett-related discussion, I'm not touching it with a bargepole. Newbies should be on the pianissimo side for a while when it comes to conflicts, no?
Edited for html fails.
A
@Paranye:
I just have some serious problems telling apart which comments are directed directy at me and which not, what is sarcasm/fooling around and what not.
Some seriously bad experiences in the past. Once bitten twice shy. When you always were the bottom of the joke you tend to get aggressive about your points and views rather quickly. (especially if they are just as legit as any other opinion, but people try to tell you they are not)
There a bit more to it, but ah well.
(On a note: Love your avatar)
I just have some serious problems telling apart which comments are directed directy at me and which not, what is sarcasm/fooling around and what not.
Some seriously bad experiences in the past. Once bitten twice shy. When you always were the bottom of the joke you tend to get aggressive about your points and views rather quickly. (especially if they are just as legit as any other opinion, but people try to tell you they are not)
There a bit more to it, but ah well.
(On a note: Love your avatar)
Paranye said:
Oh dear. Just in the door and already I've walked into a pile of... disagreement.
LilMaibe, I'm sorry if my post bothered you in some way, but I don't quite understand why you were so insulted by it. You didn't really address the point I was trying to make, though that may well be because I did not express myself with sufficient clarity, in which case I again apologize.
As for all the... non-Pratchett-related discussion, I'm not touching it with a bargepole. Newbies should be on the pianissimo side for a while when it comes to conflicts, no?
Edited for html fails.
LilMaibe, I'm sorry if my post bothered you in some way, but I don't quite understand why you were so insulted by it. You didn't really address the point I was trying to make, though that may well be because I did not express myself with sufficient clarity, in which case I again apologize.
As for all the... non-Pratchett-related discussion, I'm not touching it with a bargepole. Newbies should be on the pianissimo side for a while when it comes to conflicts, no?
Edited for html fails.
Tonyblack said:
You have no reason to apologise, Paranye. I just hope you don't think we are all attacking someone. We aren't like that. This is a long standing issue that seems to come to a head now and again.
Oh thank you! I'm fond of it myself.
I understand that it can be upsetting when people disagree with you, especially if you're the lone voice on your side of the debate. But remember, the validity of any opinion rests on the strength of the argument. So when people argue for the other side, don't get mad - get logical! Just address the points of their argument with points of your own, and don't let it upset you
Anilori said:
I just wanted to say this was a very interesting post, Paranye I do my research on Ancient Greek comedy, where even gods poop, and what you said was quite illuminating about the mechanics of this kind of subversive humour. (In Aristophanes' Frogs, the main character is Dionysus, the god of theatre, in whose honour every play was performed, so you'd think, rightly, he would be especially revered; and yet, he's depicted as a ridiculous buffoon who craps himself when he's frightened. And asks his slave for something to wipe his bottom with. I'm not even going into the other instances of scatological comedy in the other plays, because I'd be here all day)
I do my research on Ancient Greek comedy, where even gods poop, and what you said was quite illuminating about the mechanics of this kind of subversive humour. (In Aristophanes' Frogs, the main character is Dionysus, the god of theatre, in whose honour every play was performed, so you'd think, rightly, he would be especially revered; and yet, he's depicted as a ridiculous buffoon who craps himself when he's frightened. And asks his slave for something to wipe his bottom with. I'm not even going into the other instances of scatological comedy in the other plays, because I'd be here all day)
I think the use and meaning of scatological humour across the ages would be well worth writing a book about. I wonder has anyone done it already?
