SPOILERS Snuff *Warning Spoilers*

[meerkat]

I think the summoning dark, which is stated as being known by Dwarves and Goblins, only appeared as acknowledging Vimes as a worthy foe. In effect it let's him into the language so the story can move onwards.

Other then that, perhaps, a little bit of the Summoning Dark was always in Sam. After all there was always the 'Dark Policeman' who is there when he gets almost beyond control.

I'll stick with the Summoning Dark as a lever to move the story on... else Sam would have needed another person as interpreter, although saying that Stinky could have done it! Dam it! I'll have to read it again now!

 

[Anonymous]

Talking bout stinky:
Read it very often by now that people speculate that he IS the SD

 

[meerkat]

No, he is a savvy Goblin!

 

[Quatermass]

To another subject:

What do people think of Pterry's use of The Summoning Dark in the book?

For me, of all the things that are bad about Snuff, this is the absolute worst.

The whole point for the existence of The Summoning Dark in Thud! was to give Sam Vimes a reason to shake off its influence when the time to make a critical, life-changing decision came to a head.

Unlike all of those possessed by the SD before him, Vimes was able to prevent himself from committing the action that would have totally consumed him. The SD salutes him as it leaves and leaves the tattoo as a symbol of his moral, physical and spiritual victory.

Or does it? According to Snuff, it either never really left him or it came back at his own bidding. It's a part of him now, one he controls and exploits for is own use. It's a super-power, that he uses to reveal crime details that he never would have been able to find out itself. It's a glorified babel-fish, enabling him to talk to goblins in their own language.
Vimes is no longer the 'mortal' cop who (mostly) avoids magic and denies the existence of supernatural forces like the Summoning Dark; he now welcomes the assistance of such forces to provide investigative shortcuts, as long as they don't go too far in trying to control him.

It's a terrible plot convention, and one that removes nearly all of the tension from the story. Vimes can do anything, because he's rich, he's fearless, he has street-fighting skills, he's powerful, and he's got an ancient demonic helped available at any time.

What's left for him at this point? He's become Alexander the Great after the Gordian knot. There's nothing he can't do.

Agreed, to a point. I feel that Snuff works it in well, but I hope that it is only used in this book only.

And keep in mind that Vimes detests having to use the Summoning Dark.

But you're right. Vimes has become a little too superhuman, even with all his flaws. I do hope that this is the last Watch book planned, otherwise his victories will become a little too boring. Even the Discworld acknowledges him as almost a god of law and order. It would have been better to end the Watch series with Thud!, but if Terry Pratchett can end it with Snuff, that should be fine.

 

[swreader]

As I said in my earlier post about this being a valedictory novel--the last of the Watch books, I think all of the characters have developed in ways that I, for one, was very relieved to see. As to Sybil and the question of "language"--I think objecting to her "swearing" (shit, bitch, etc.),is, in my opinion, prudish and unrealistic.

Sybil has been developed by Pratchett, slowly but surely. She has begun to play a significant role certain by TFE. While some of her comments (eg. "You never answered one of my letters.") are apparent non-sequiturs, they are only so if one fails to recognize what Sybil is saying here. Serafina has (to Sibyl's face) lyingly claimed to be her old friend who is trying to help her find Sam. In fact, she has never been the friend she claimed to be--and Sybil is recognizing that in this comment.

Sybil is just beginning to find her self-confidence at that point, but she is in full possession of it when she takes over the negotiations with the Dwarf King and does a far better job than Sam could have done. In Thud!, while she in understandably frightened by the attempt of the dark dwarf to kill her, she rebounds magnificently, takes over the arrangements for the three of them to go after the dwarfs, and even manages to get the family portrait done.

Sybil is, in Snuff, at her finest--a complete woman who is capable of following the "tea" rituals of her class (and thus not offending them), but she is vehement in her anger at their stupidity. She has been raised by her grandfather (the one who swore so vehemently and who came out to the shearing with his tenants.) I doubt that there are any swear words that Sybil has not heard. Shit, poo, manure--they're all names for the same thing. And, as her grandfather told her, when she came across a big pile of it, she should use her foot to spread it around to help the grass grow. Sybil, by this book, has finally achieved her potential--a wife, mother, leader of social causes and unafraid of offending those who try to make her follow their outworn and stupid norms.

Q, I rather agree with you about the Summoning Dark. But, I think that Terry tries very hard to deal with what is, at one level, a plot necessity.

Sam has to be able to see in the cave (as he did in Thud!) and to understand and speak "Goblin". The SD left a mark on him, and left him sane and essentially untouched (unlike all others possessed by the SD). It is a bit of a stretch to see it functioning this way--but it is calling for a kind of vengeance for those who have no other protector than Sam. Thus, it continues to help him save the goblins by giving him the ability to see in the darkness of the storm, because without his help (and the ability given to him to see by the SD), they would all (humans & Goblins, & chickens) drowned in the flood of Old Treachery. And Sam, as Sybil points out to him early in the book, has trouble recognizing his own value, his importance in the world. He is, after all, the person who at least brought about the end of the Koom Valley conflict (whether or not he was involved in the negotiations). As Sybil says, if something happened to Sam the chanceries of the world would be in an uproar, the news would flash across the Discworld and it seems likely that Vetinari's position might become a little dangerous. No wonder the SD regards him as an equal.

Sam's battle to recognize the goblins (henceforth) as sentient beings has, as Vetinari says, has been won. But as Vetinari also acknowledges, his win is

"Because of a song, commander. Oh, and of course other efforts, but it was your wife who got most of the ambassadors to her little amusement which, I may say, Vimes, was eloquence personified. Though frankly, Vimes, I find myself shamed. One spends one's life scheming, negotiating, giving and taking and greasing such wheels as squeak, and in general doing one's best to stop this battered old world from exploding into pieces. And now, because of a piece of music, Vimes, a piece of music, some very powerful states have agreed to work together to heal the problems of another autonomous state and , almost as collateral, turn some animals into people at a stroke. ...Lady Sybil is worth a dozen diplomats. You are a lucky man, commander."

 

[raisindot]

Q, I rather agree with you about the Summoning Dark. But, I think that Terry tries very hard to deal with what is, at one level, a plot necessity.

Sam has to be able to see in the cave (as he did in Thud!) and to understand and speak "Goblin". The SD left a mark on him, and left him sane and essentially untouched (unlike all others possessed by the SD). It is a bit of a stretch to see it functioning this way--but it is calling for a kind of vengeance for those who have no other protector than Sam. Thus, it continues to help him save the goblins by giving him the ability to see in the darkness of the storm, because without his help (and the ability given to him to see by the SD), they would all (humans & Goblins, & chickens) drowned in the flood of Old Treachery.

Sorry, don't buy it all. The SD is 'called up' by a curse, and it then invades a recipient it (the SD) feels most likely to be fully consumed by it. It turns the inhabited into a beserker who eventually goes insane (and, presumably, the SD leaves that person after he dies). Vimes is the only person who has been able to "conquer" the SD. It left him. But now it is back. Who summoned the SD? Perhaps the golbins, but Vimes already had an ongoing symbiotic relationship with the SD before the goblin episode, so presumably they 'reunited' sometime in the five years after Thud and the time of Snuff.

The SD isn't needed at all. Clearly, some goblins do speak Morporkian--some of the ones in AM certainly do. It would have been easy to have Stinky serve as interpreter. Vimes doesn't need the SD to "see" in the darkness--a lamp would have done. It might made it harder, but still quite possible. Vimes didn't need the SD to give him a detailed testimony on how the goblin girl was killed--any number of other plot devices (a witness or some sort, perhaps Stinky) could have done this.

Rather than solve these problems, Pterry uses the SD as a narrative shortcut that turns Vimes into a supercop. The one thing that has always been a positive about the Watch books is how Vimes is never given the easy way to solve a problem. He's always had to piece everything together from a web of lies, secrets, and the thing he hates the most---clues. He's a plodder, not a Sherlock, and it's his own awareness of his limitations that has been one of his most endearing qualities.

Here, all of those qualities are gone. He gets answers either by bullying people, relying on demons in his head, or having Watchmen give him answers. There's nothing here that a detective. Instead, he's become a bullying TV procedural copper. He gets his man as usual, but there's no art to the way he does it.

Sam's battle to recognize the goblins (henceforth) as sentient beings has, as Vetinari says, has been won. But as Vetinari also acknowledges, his win is

"Because of a song, commander. Oh, and of course other efforts, but it was your wife who got most of the ambassadors to her little amusement which, I may say, Vimes, was eloquence personified. Though frankly, Vimes, I find myself shamed. One spends one's life scheming, negotiating, giving and taking and greasing such wheels as squeak, and in general doing one's best to stop this battered old world from exploding into pieces. And now, because of a piece of music, Vimes, a piece of music, some very powerful states have agreed to work together to heal the problems of another autonomous state and , almost as collateral, turn some animals into people at a stroke. ...Lady Sybil is worth a dozen diplomats. You are a lucky man, commander."

For me, another sign of what's wrong with Snuff. There is no reason why this needs to be stated at all---it's quite obvious when the event occurs. But, for some reason, Pterry feels the need to drive this point home. In one of the great books, Vetinari would have covered this whole thought in a single line, something to the effect of. "Your wife is an amazing woman. With a song, the world changes."

Nearly everything that was great about previous Watch books is nearly thoroughly gone here, replaced with overwriting, plot shortcuts, and questionable narrative decisions. If this a valedictory novel, it unfortunately failed to pass the finals.

 

[BaldJean]

Q, I rather agree with you about the Summoning Dark. But, I think that Terry tries very hard to deal with what is, at one level, a plot necessity.

Sam has to be able to see in the cave (as he did in Thud!) and to understand and speak "Goblin". The SD left a mark on him, and left him sane and essentially untouched (unlike all others possessed by the SD). It is a bit of a stretch to see it functioning this way--but it is calling for a kind of vengeance for those who have no other protector than Sam. Thus, it continues to help him save the goblins by giving him the ability to see in the darkness of the storm, because without his help (and the ability given to him to see by the SD), they would all (humans & Goblins, & chickens) drowned in the flood of Old Treachery.

Sorry, don't buy it all. The SD is 'called up' by a curse, and it then invades a recipient it (the SD) feels most likely to be fully consumed by it. It turns the inhabited into a beserker who eventually goes insane (and, presumably, the SD leaves that person after he dies). Vimes is the only person who has been able to "conquer" the SD. It left him. But now it is back. Who summoned the SD? Perhaps the golbins, but Vimes already had an ongoing symbiotic relationship with the SD before the goblin episode, so presumably they 'reunited' sometime in the five years after Thud and the time of Snuff.

The SD isn't needed at all. Clearly, some goblins do speak Morporkian--some of the ones in AM certainly do. It would have been easy to have Stinky serve as interpreter. Vimes doesn't need the SD to "see" in the darkness--a lamp would have done. It might made it harder, but still quite possible. Vimes didn't need the SD to give him a detailed testimony on how the goblin girl was killed--any number of other plot devices (a witness or some sort, perhaps Stinky) could have done this.

Rather than solve these problems, Pterry uses the SD as a narrative shortcut that turns Vimes into a supercop. The one thing that has always been a positive about the Watch books is how Vimes is never given the easy way to solve a problem. He's always had to piece everything together from a web of lies, secrets, and the thing he hates the most---clues. He's a plodder, not a Sherlock, and it's his own awareness of his limitations that has been one of his most endearing qualities.

Here, all of those qualities are gone. He gets answers either by bullying people, relying on demons in his head, or having Watchmen give him answers. There's nothing here that a detective. Instead, he's become a bullying TV procedural copper. He gets his man as usual, but there's no art to the way he does it.

Sam's battle to recognize the goblins (henceforth) as sentient beings has, as Vetinari says, has been won. But as Vetinari also acknowledges, his win is

"Because of a song, commander. Oh, and of course other efforts, but it was your wife who got most of the ambassadors to her little amusement which, I may say, Vimes, was eloquence personified. Though frankly, Vimes, I find myself shamed. One spends one's life scheming, negotiating, giving and taking and greasing such wheels as squeak, and in general doing one's best to stop this battered old world from exploding into pieces. And now, because of a piece of music, Vimes, a piece of music, some very powerful states have agreed to work together to heal the problems of another autonomous state and , almost as collateral, turn some animals into people at a stroke. ...Lady Sybil is worth a dozen diplomats. You are a lucky man, commander."

For me, another sign of what's wrong with Snuff. There is no reason why this needs to be stated at all---it's quite obvious when the event occurs. But, for some reason, Pterry feels the need to drive this point home. In one of the great books, Vetinari would have covered this whole thought in a single line, something to the effect of. "Your wife is an amazing woman. With a song, the world changes."

Nearly everything that was great about previous Watch books is nearly thoroughly gone here, replaced with overwriting, plot shortcuts, and questionable narrative decisions. If this a valedictory novel, it unfortunately failed to pass the finals.

I don't agree with that at all. Vetinari's stating "because of a song" is not redundant at all. Vetinari is fascinated by this song, as is later shown; it haunts him all the time. So it is only natural he mentions it to Vimes. That's the point here and not trying to explain it to the reader.

 

[BaldFriede]

I don't understand all the fuss about "Snuff" at all; I think it is a very fine book. I have the feeling some people have wrong expectations about the way Pratchett should go in his books, since they not only complain about "Snuff" but about his latest books in general. I am of the very opposite opinion; his latest books are his strongest. In his earlier books Pratchett often is childish; his latter books are much more mature. I believe that this is the main problem some people have with Pratchett: They want the child back. But Pratchett has grown up, and I am glad he has.

 

[pip]

Have to agree here Friede. And welcome back.
There does seem to be those that want the heavier fantasy comedy stuff where as the darker books Pratchett has written in the last few years are a lot meatier and interesting. The books have grown and moved very far from the CoM and LF style and content and I for one like where it has gone. While Snuff is not as good as Night Watch ,which is also of the darker variety, it is a good exciting read

 

[Turtles4Ever]

Goodness me, where to start on my 'Snuff' views! I guess I could do 'the good' and 'the bad' .......... so here goes:

The Good: ...............

<this space is left intentionally empty>


The Bad:

- I truly dislike the writing 'style' that Terry has been using for the last three Discworld books. I realise it's because he's dictating and he has described it as more like 'proper story telling' (or words to that effect), but it doesn't work for me at all. It's far too 'wordy', characters don't talk as we are used to and seem 'aloof', mannered and 'posh'. Even Nobby doesn't talk like Nobby. NONE of the characters talk as they did in previous books. It's as if someone else has written a Discworld novel, but it most certainly doesn't seem like Terry Pratchett. There's no sparkle, no wit. Just drudgery. I couldn't WAIT to finish it and found it a real chore.

- The story is slow and dull. The chracters are slow and dull. Vimes is a total '"I am the law' BORE.

- I intensely disliked the narrative style - it's just so 'odd'. For me, it doesn't work at all.

- A few people have mentioned Monstrous Regiment - I'm also not a fan, but it's a damn masterpiece compared to Snuff.

For me, this is easily Pratchett's worst Discworld book. And I say that as a huge lover of his work. It pains me to say this, but if this is the best that we can now expect from Terry, I certainly won't bother to buy his next Discworld novel. I admire him for trying to write with his PCA, but for me it just isn't working. If he is happy then that's fine, but it's a crying shame that the last three books have been so poor compared to (most of) the rest.

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

Bloody board! Here's a quickie to get rid of the pathetic 'No posts for this topic exist' notice

I like that Terry has 'grown up' but I don't like that he's increasingly losing the magic ISWM - lots of magic in there surely? Maybe - but for me it's the wrong sort of magic and it ties in with the more mature writing I suppose. Snuff has the Summoning Dark so magic there too, but that's really heavy duty magic too and whilst I lurve and venerate the Dark in fantasy on Discworld it seems to stultify and stagnate the wild magic of the earlier books (too wild and sketchy sometimes in the 1st 3 books but gloriously swooping and whooping from there until ToT).

I think really, although it's not in all the books since ToT, what's dissatisfying for me the most is the A-M effect. It's growing and maturing and taming it all too much? And I suppose this too is 'right' if lamentable in my opinion. The magic of Discworld is now becoming Science rather than Art, even the more logical disciplines like headology are now feeling tired and perfunctory and less fluid and 'sparky'? The themes too feel more laboured in general and whilst the more grown up handling is appealing in some ways the playfulness is missing for me so at times it gets too stilted and too 'applied' or to a formula.

I suppose with any prolific author this is bound to happen (this is the reason I now loathe Stephen King's books because he's got the skill but it's set in stone now more or less ). Terry can still deliver the 'WTF was THAT!?!' factor I think, but as I was saying earlier he's 'cracked' Discworld now and his 'boredom' with it shows in the lack of the free-flowing surge of raw excitement of the books beyond his 'golden era' that for me was heralded in The Truth. Discworld's getting too much like Roundworld is the bottom line I suppose and this is why Terry's now more 'into' his non-Discworld proper series (there's rumoured to be a Science 4 coming) and the Long Earth collaboration. Nation worked really well because it wasn't Discworld so I'm really looking forward to Long Earth far more than Snuff coming out in paperback

 

[raisindot]

I don't understand all the fuss about "Snuff" at all; I think it is a very fine book. I have the feeling some people have wrong expectations about the way Pratchett should go in his books, since they not only complain about "Snuff" but about his latest books in general. I am of the very opposite opinion; his latest books are his strongest. In his earlier books Pratchett often is childish; his latter books are much more mature. I believe that this is the main problem some people have with Pratchett: They want the child back. But Pratchett has grown up, and I am glad he has.

I don't see any criticism of UA or Snuff focusing on a desire to return to the "funnyfest" style of PTerry's DW books or any criticism of the darker themes of later books (does anyone really think that Making Money represents Pterry's most mature or darkest writing?)

Most of my favorite DW books are from the period following Hogfather. For me, Hogfather, The Fifth Elephant, Thief of Time, The Truth, Night Watch, and Thud are his bona fide masterpieces from this period, and Wee Free Men, Going Postal, and, to some degree, I Shall Wear Midnight were great books as well.

What I am complaining about is not the subject matter of the books but what to me is a deterioration in Pterry's writing skills. Yes, writers should never have to feel they always write the same way forever. That's why Pterry's later books are far better than his earlier books--his style evolved and became deeper, more thoughtful, more witty. But the last two books represent, for me at least, an evolution to a lower level of literary prowess. He has replaced subtlety with sledgehammers, wit with vulgarity, short, funny conversations that expect the reader to fill in the narrative gaps with long-winded monologues that spell out everything. Intricate, complex plots whose resolutions assemble like jigsaw puzzles to obvious, uncomplicated stories that rely on narrative shortcuts (like the Summoning Dark).

This criticism has nothing to do with the subject matter or darkness--it has everything to do with what some of us see a serious decline in Pterry's writing ability. Whether this is due to his condition or whether, as some said, he's just bored with the franchise is up to speculation.

 

[BaldFriede]

But this "deteriorating of writing skills" is in your mind only; it is your rationalization of your dislike of the newer books. His writing skills actually have increased, not deteriorated. Pratchett is now able to tell a story without having to throw in a silly joke every second sentence; this is a major improvement of his writing skills, for example. The "flaws" you are suddenly finding in his books have been in the older books too; you only did not notice them There is not a single book in the oeuvre of Pratchett that would withstand the kind of analysis you suddenly use for his newer books. Go and check your beloved older ones for these "flaws", and you will find them en masse.

 

[BaldFriede]

Bloody board! Here's a quickie to get rid of the pathetic 'No posts for this topic exist' notice

I like that Terry has 'grown up' but I don't like that he's increasingly losing the magic ISWM - lots of magic in there surely? Maybe - but for me it's the wrong sort of magic and it ties in with the more mature writing I suppose. Snuff has the Summoning Dark so magic there too, but that's really heavy duty magic too and whilst I lurve and venerate the Dark in fantasy on Discworld it seems to stultify and stagnate the wild magic of the earlier books (too wild and sketchy sometimes in the 1st 3 books but gloriously swooping and whooping from there until ToT).

I think really, although it's not in all the books since ToT, what's dissatisfying for me the most is the A-M effect. It's growing and maturing and taming it all too much? And I suppose this too is 'right' if lamentable in my opinion. The magic of Discworld is now becoming Science rather than Art, even the more logical disciplines like headology are now feeling tired and perfunctory and less fluid and 'sparky'? The themes too feel more laboured in general and whilst the more grown up handling is appealing in some ways the playfulness is missing for me so at times it gets too stilted and too 'applied' or to a formula.

I suppose with any prolific author this is bound to happen (this is the reason I now loathe Stephen King's books because he's got the skill but it's set in stone now more or less ). Terry can still deliver the 'WTF was THAT!?!' factor I think, but as I was saying earlier he's 'cracked' Discworld now and his 'boredom' with it shows in the lack of the free-flowing surge of raw excitement of the books beyond his 'golden era' that for me was heralded in The Truth. Discworld's getting too much like Roundworld is the bottom line I suppose and this is why Terry's now more 'into' his non-Discworld proper series (there's rumoured to be a Science 4 coming) and the Long Earth collaboration. Nation worked really well because it wasn't Discworld so I'm really looking forward to Long Earth far more than Snuff coming out in paperback

I never was a fan of Stephen King; he is incredibly overrated. His stories start with very interesting plots, like for example "Needful Things", and in the last 50 pages he delivers a gore feast which ruins everything he has written so far. Horror works better when it is not explicit.

 

[pip]

Some of his non horror stories are brilliant though

 

[BaldFriede]

You know what my favourite line from a Gothic novel is? It is from the novel "Die andere Sete" ("The other Side") by Alfred Kubin. He is best known as a painter and illustrator (for the works of Edgar Allan Poe, for example), but he wrote this one novel. My favourite line, translated from German, is:
"Thus Dr. Lampenbogen ended as a roast, and as a bad one; he was charred on one side and almost raw on the other; only in the middle was he nice and crispy".

 

[pip]

Isn't that explicit horror

 

[BaldFriede]

No, because it is not being shown how he came to death; you only see what happens to his dead body. That's the difference - King would have described in detail how is throat is being ripped open or the likes.

 

[pip]

Last one i read by Stephen King was called Blockade Billy and it mainly only hinted at the violence showing the aftermath as you will leaving the rest and the background up to the readed . Not a huge King fan but he can do subtlety from time to time

 

[Anonymous]

Fried, no offence (okay, actually yes, as you are really starting to strain my nerves, and that's normally hard to do), but you seem to be inable to accept stuff to happen if it isn't written in a way for retards, as in 'hammering every moral home', 'explaining every joke' etc.
Are you certain Discworld is good choice for you?