Raising Taxes OR Scouting For Trolls?
- Thread starter UnseenTerryPratchett
- Start date
I wasn't aware that either of those titles was actually being written. Both have been mentioned in the past as possibilities, but as far as I know, there aren't any firm plans for either.
I've said before here that although I enjoyed Going Postal, I really, really didn't care for Making Money. I've now read MM four times and I still don't care for it. To me it read a bt like a second in a trilogy, so I'm kind of hopeful that Terry will write a third book that will effectively end the Von Lipwig saga, but on the other hand, I won't be too bothered if he doesn't.
As to the possibility of a book called Scouting For Trolls - well I have no idea what that might be about. At least we can sort of guess what Raising Taxes might be about.
I've said before here that although I enjoyed Going Postal, I really, really didn't care for Making Money. I've now read MM four times and I still don't care for it. To me it read a bt like a second in a trilogy, so I'm kind of hopeful that Terry will write a third book that will effectively end the Von Lipwig saga, but on the other hand, I won't be too bothered if he doesn't.
As to the possibility of a book called Scouting For Trolls - well I have no idea what that might be about. At least we can sort of guess what Raising Taxes might be about.
Last fall when Sir Terry made a surprise appearance at Capclave (local SF convention), I asked him whether Vetinari was getting darker, because Vetinari seemed positively sadistic in Making Money; Terry said V has to do a lot to overcome Moist's criminal tendencies, but I still think V was enjoying it too much. There wasn't time to really discuss it as Sir Terry had a plane to catch and was walking out the door at the moment.
Well, Sir Terry says he is working on it.
I think the main difficulty people have with Making Money is that the "official" villain is, though nasty, basically pathetic, and they don't see what I see: the real villain of the book is Vetinari, and yes, it is the second book so you can't get rid of the real villain. However, Moist successfully frees himself of the immediate threat that V holds over him, the postponed death penalty. V has had to publicly announce that Moist is more or less on probation. The same confession also eliminated blackmail potential from old acquaintances. Other fans have posted about the repercussions that didn't happen on the page that ought to have happened because of the cavalier way Moist referred to his having caused various bankruptcies, and those may or may not be dealt with in the third book.
Can we speculate here? I have avoided doing so because of Sir Terry's request long ago, to avoid putting speculation where he might run across it. This being a more or less official site and all...
Well, Sir Terry says he is working on it.
I think the main difficulty people have with Making Money is that the "official" villain is, though nasty, basically pathetic, and they don't see what I see: the real villain of the book is Vetinari, and yes, it is the second book so you can't get rid of the real villain. However, Moist successfully frees himself of the immediate threat that V holds over him, the postponed death penalty. V has had to publicly announce that Moist is more or less on probation. The same confession also eliminated blackmail potential from old acquaintances. Other fans have posted about the repercussions that didn't happen on the page that ought to have happened because of the cavalier way Moist referred to his having caused various bankruptcies, and those may or may not be dealt with in the third book.
Tonyblack said:
At least we can sort of guess what Raising Taxes might be about.
=Tamar said:
...
Can we speculate here? I have avoided doing so because of Sir Terry's request long ago, to avoid putting speculation where he might run across it. This being a more or less official site and all...
Tonyblack said:
At least we can sort of guess what Raising Taxes might be about.
The issue with speculation still applies, as it's a legal issue.
If someone posts an idea here, and that idea is already in the plan for the book, then the book gets published with that idea.
Even if Sir Terry never saw the idea, and had the idea long before it was suggested, the person who suggested it could claim that their idea was stolen and make an issue of it.
Not something I would hope a fan of the Discworld would lower themselves to, but you never know, so it's best to avoid it altogether.
Yeah, but you could make that claim no matter where you put it online. you start going down that road you might as well say you aren't ever allowed to say anything online ever.
as for this topic, i'd rather have Raising taxes as a good number of things were set up in previous books that i want to see get paid off. firstly obviously the idea of Moist involved in tax collecting, but also the Undertaking. I want to see that come to fruition. (course, he has set up things before and never paid them off. the whole turn of the century thing was a complete nonevent despite being set up in several books)
Unless, Scouting for troll is a watch book, then i'll happily take that first.
as for this topic, i'd rather have Raising taxes as a good number of things were set up in previous books that i want to see get paid off. firstly obviously the idea of Moist involved in tax collecting, but also the Undertaking. I want to see that come to fruition. (course, he has set up things before and never paid them off. the whole turn of the century thing was a complete nonevent despite being set up in several books)
Unless, Scouting for troll is a watch book, then i'll happily take that first.
Indeed, I was talking in very general terms.
And my problem with MM was that it really didn't hold my interest. Going Postal was very much a voyage of discovery for Moist and that, in itself made for interesting reading. But Making Money didn't even have that. We sort of knew that Moist would do the right thing - we didn't know that in Going Postal. The bit of Moist's past that could have been a real threat to him in MM turned out to be a bit of a damp squib as well and the whole thing about the golems at the end just seemed a bit - blah!
And my problem with MM was that it really didn't hold my interest. Going Postal was very much a voyage of discovery for Moist and that, in itself made for interesting reading. But Making Money didn't even have that. We sort of knew that Moist would do the right thing - we didn't know that in Going Postal. The bit of Moist's past that could have been a real threat to him in MM turned out to be a bit of a damp squib as well and the whole thing about the golems at the end just seemed a bit - blah!
Tonyblack said:
Indeed, I was talking in very general terms.
And my problem with MM was that it really didn't hold my interest. Going Postal was very much a voyage of discovery for Moist and that, in itself made for interesting reading. But Making Money didn't even have that. We sort of knew that Moist would do the right thing - we didn't know that in Going Postal. The bit of Moist's past that could have been a real threat to him in MM turned out to be a bit of a damp squib as well and the whole thing about the golems at the end just seemed a bit - blah!
And my problem with MM was that it really didn't hold my interest. Going Postal was very much a voyage of discovery for Moist and that, in itself made for interesting reading. But Making Money didn't even have that. We sort of knew that Moist would do the right thing - we didn't know that in Going Postal. The bit of Moist's past that could have been a real threat to him in MM turned out to be a bit of a damp squib as well and the whole thing about the golems at the end just seemed a bit - blah!
Which brings up a question I have about MM. What powered that toy? It was locked in the cabinet, presumably for at least a year or two, and was already running when it fell out. Nobody could get it away from Mr Fusspot at first, but it kept on running... is it powered by a Device? Or was someone winding it up? The only person who could take it away from the dog was Vetinari. Who made certain it and the dog were in the right place to take the dog across the courtroom? Vetinari was visible at the time, if I recall correctly.
I'd have to thoroughly disagree with the idea of Vetinari being a villain.
Villains have a selfish or destructive motive for their actions, whereas Vetinari consistently acts in the best interest of the city he rules.
He may trample on the rights of individuals, but he doesn't do so maliciously or frivolously, he always has a reason based on the needs of the city as a whole.
The reason that he seems more hash where Moist is concerned is that Moist isn't a hero, he's an anti-hero.
His motivations are selfish like a villain(at least originally) but the end result is positive making him "heroic".
That sort of character requires a reason to do good beyond that of a normal hero, and Vetinari simply provides that motivation.
Villains have a selfish or destructive motive for their actions, whereas Vetinari consistently acts in the best interest of the city he rules.
He may trample on the rights of individuals, but he doesn't do so maliciously or frivolously, he always has a reason based on the needs of the city as a whole.
The reason that he seems more hash where Moist is concerned is that Moist isn't a hero, he's an anti-hero.
His motivations are selfish like a villain(at least originally) but the end result is positive making him "heroic".
That sort of character requires a reason to do good beyond that of a normal hero, and Vetinari simply provides that motivation.
Vetinari serves the City as he sees it. He has been known to make mistakes (Vimes didn't hit the wall), but his normal level of caution usually prevents him (he considered assassinating Carrot, but waited to be sure whether it was really necessary).
There's a difference between necessary harshness and unnecessary harshness because you get a kick out of it. I see Vetinari stepping over that line: "build his own rack and let him turn the screw" (p.17 US h /c), "clearly enjoying this" (p.97 US h/c), the stygium ring scene (pp.193-195 US h/c). Moist knows it, too ("tyrant... had to have some fun", p.11 US h/c)
If you go deeply into discussions of motivation, you will find that no living human being is entirely unselfish. There is always a benefit to an act. Even an apparently unselfish anonymous act has a payback, if only that the person doing it feels better for having done it.
That's Sir Terry's explanation. I don't entirely agree.
There's a difference between necessary harshness and unnecessary harshness because you get a kick out of it. I see Vetinari stepping over that line: "build his own rack and let him turn the screw" (p.17 US h /c), "clearly enjoying this" (p.97 US h/c), the stygium ring scene (pp.193-195 US h/c). Moist knows it, too ("tyrant... had to have some fun", p.11 US h/c)
If you go deeply into discussions of motivation, you will find that no living human being is entirely unselfish. There is always a benefit to an act. Even an apparently unselfish anonymous act has a payback, if only that the person doing it feels better for having done it.
That's Sir Terry's explanation. I don't entirely agree.
Certainly he gets some enjoyment out of his efforts, but I always saw it more as enjoyment of successful manipulation of the situation that any outright maliciousness or sadism.
Oh certainly he gains some from having a properly running city, but he frequently does things that simply benefit others, or even cause him harm or other cost in the name of the greater good of the city. The most stand out example I can think of is nearly the whole book Jingo.
It's fairly clear by Moist's evening activities discussed early in Making Money that he has deeply ingrained criminal tendencies that he has to indulge in somehow.
The way that Ventiari manages that is by giving him a problem to actively work toward solving, that gives him something to focus on other than breaking the law.
Also, disagreeing with an author about the personality and motivation of his characters seems a bit... silly.
Oh certainly he gains some from having a properly running city, but he frequently does things that simply benefit others, or even cause him harm or other cost in the name of the greater good of the city. The most stand out example I can think of is nearly the whole book Jingo.
It's fairly clear by Moist's evening activities discussed early in Making Money that he has deeply ingrained criminal tendencies that he has to indulge in somehow.
The way that Ventiari manages that is by giving him a problem to actively work toward solving, that gives him something to focus on other than breaking the law.
Also, disagreeing with an author about the personality and motivation of his characters seems a bit... silly.
That is a reasonable explanation of the one line, but I am dubious about the other situations.
It isn't the criminal tendencies - those are the way Moist works out the need for a kind of excitement that he refers to repeatedly as "the fizz." The need has even been found to be genetic, in round-world research: some people produce two kinds of chemicals under stress, one for excitement and one for caution. Others only produce the kind that creates caution. The difference is between skydivers and people who would never skydive. Moist is the skydiver type. They don't have skydiving on the Disc, so he does building-climbing, and, from habit, crime. It can even become an addiction - I've met people who are addicted to adrenaline rushes.
Sir Terry has said Moist isn't the type to be a Patrician but would be a good politician. As Patrician, Vetinari has used fear as his primary direct tool - fear of him, and fear of what would happen without him. Moist's style is to make people like him, and to convince them that what he wants to happen is what they want. It remains to be seen which will be the most effective manipulative tool, should it come to a direct competition.
Disagreeing with an author about the effect of the writing is not silly; if the writing gives me a different impression of the character than the author intended, that can be a problem for the author. Beta readers are employed just to help eliminate that kind of problem, by telling the author what they got out of the words. Readers are not mind-readers! They read what is on the page, not what the author is planning to write later or forgot to put in. Authors sometimes forget that.
It isn't the criminal tendencies - those are the way Moist works out the need for a kind of excitement that he refers to repeatedly as "the fizz." The need has even been found to be genetic, in round-world research: some people produce two kinds of chemicals under stress, one for excitement and one for caution. Others only produce the kind that creates caution. The difference is between skydivers and people who would never skydive. Moist is the skydiver type. They don't have skydiving on the Disc, so he does building-climbing, and, from habit, crime. It can even become an addiction - I've met people who are addicted to adrenaline rushes.
Sir Terry has said Moist isn't the type to be a Patrician but would be a good politician. As Patrician, Vetinari has used fear as his primary direct tool - fear of him, and fear of what would happen without him. Moist's style is to make people like him, and to convince them that what he wants to happen is what they want. It remains to be seen which will be the most effective manipulative tool, should it come to a direct competition.
Disagreeing with an author about the effect of the writing is not silly; if the writing gives me a different impression of the character than the author intended, that can be a problem for the author. Beta readers are employed just to help eliminate that kind of problem, by telling the author what they got out of the words. Readers are not mind-readers! They read what is on the page, not what the author is planning to write later or forgot to put in. Authors sometimes forget that.
It isn't silly, but it's a recipe for disappointment. An author can end up writing a character that behaves in a way that differs from what the author intended, or write enough other stuff that makes alternate understandings more consistent with the resulting story than the author's intended reading. But the author isn't likely to be aware of such implications and keep writing based on the intended interpretation, thus leading to disappointment in holders of alternate views.
