SPOILERS Snuff *Warning Spoilers*

[raisindot]

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.

Please do not tell me what I noticed or didn't notice or tell me that my literary criticism "is in my mind only" or try to define why I like or dislike a book. For me, the premise for Making Money was great, the execution was excellent in spots, totally awful in others. The premise for Unseen Academicals wasn't particularly interesting, and its terrible execution made it worse. The premise for Snuff was a great one; the execution, while better than UA, was subpar in many, many ways. The premise for I Shall Wear Midnight wasn't anything earth-shattering, but the execution was superb. The premise for Nation wasn't particularly compelling or original for me and I didn't love the book all that much, but, from an execution point of view, it was top-notch. One doesn't have to like the theme to acknowledge its greatness as a literary work and vice versa.

And of course it's in my mind just as much as your opinions are in your mind. Literary criticism is never subjective, anyway. In any case, I'm not invalidating the validity of your right to express your views or your intelligence as you seem to be doing with me. Of course you can flaws in all of any writer's works. But the flaws of the last two DW books are so apparent to me that they are easily identifiable and point, in my mind, to a writer who is NOT improving anymore and, is in fact, losing his abilities. If you don't agree, fine--counter my specific arguments or make new ones based on your reading of the text. I may not agree, but I'll respect our right to disagree.

 

[Anonymous]

Raisin, remember what I said about 'fans who view works of their fandom through (in discworld's case) octarin-tinted glasses'?
I think the wizards brought some narrativium with them on their visits, as it's too much of an coincidences that a walking-talking example pops up that briefly after.

 

[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.

Please do not tell me what I noticed or didn't notice or tell me that my literary criticism "is in my mind only" or try to define why I like or dislike a book. For me, the premise for Making Money was great, the execution was excellent in spots, totally awful in others. The premise for Unseen Academicals wasn't particularly interesting, and its terrible execution made it worse. The premise for Snuff was a great one; the execution, while better than UA, was subpar in many, many ways. The premise for I Shall Wear Midnight wasn't anything earth-shattering, but the execution was superb. The premise for Nation wasn't particularly compelling or original for me and I didn't love the book all that much, but, from an execution point of view, it was top-notch. One doesn't have to like the theme to acknowledge its greatness as a literary work and vice versa.

And of course it's in my mind just as much as your opinions are in your mind. Literary criticism is never subjective, anyway. In any case, I'm not invalidating the validity of your right to express your views or your intelligence as you seem to be doing with me. Of course you can flaws in all of any writer's works. But the flaws of the last two DW books are so apparent to me that they are easily identifiable and point, in my mind, to a writer who is NOT improving anymore and, is in fact, losing his abilities. If you don't agree, fine--counter my specific arguments or make new ones based on your reading of the text. I may not agree, but I'll respect our right to disagree.

Please don't misquote me; I did not say your literary criticism is in your mind only. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it appears we look for different things when we talk of "writing skills"".

 

[BaldFriede]

Raisin, remember what I said about 'fans who view works of their fandom through (in discworld's case) octarin-tinted glasses'?
I think the wizards brought some narrativium with them on their visits, as it's too much of an coincidences that a walking-talking example pops up that briefly after.

I am definitely not a fan; there are many Discworld books I consider to be inferior. "Making Movies", for example, falls flat on its face in my opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

raisin didn't misquote anyone, dearie.
You said he's 'only imagining things' thereby saying his critism is based on purely imagined things.

And frankly, when a book like UA can be turned into a drinking game in combination with 'how not to write a novel' and 'the mary sue litmus test', something went horribly wrong.

Raisin, remember what I said about 'fans who view works of their fandom through (in discworld's case) octarin-tinted glasses'?
I think the wizards brought some narrativium with them on their visits, as it's too much of an coincidences that a walking-talking example pops up that briefly after.

I am definitely not a fan; there are many Discworld books I consider to be inferior.

Then WTF are you doing here? As so far all I have seen you do is attack others for their views on things not matching yours, lecturing people about that your view is better than theirs etc.
I know that I tend to be stubborn, but at least I know that I don't go and act as if I'm the only one allowed to judge.

 

[raisindot]

LilMaibe, I respect anyone's right to have an opinion about any topic. Some people here love Snuff and UA. I'm fine with that. If they find the things I dislike to be strengths, that's fine withme. If they find the things I like to be awful, that's fine with me.

My only bulldog reaction occurs when people go outside the text to accuse me (or anyone else) of an ulterior motive for having an opinion. I don't call anyone who loves Snuff a fanboy. I don't call anyone who hates Snuff anti-Pratchett. As long as people have read the book, I respect their right to their own opinions, even if I disagree with them.

That's the great thing about this forum. We're not all fanboys here. We have no problem expressing our views, passionately if possible, and taking the gloves off (or, when Pooh was around, knives out). There's plenty of room for agreement, disagreement, debate, jokes, mild-mannered insults and tangents. Tony doesn't try to stifle debate, and on rare occasion he'll throw in a crusty comment or two when he disagrees.

I'll be very sad when we move to the new forum software if all of these great discussions and debates aren't brought over. There's a wealth of great insights in these archives.

 

[BaldFriede]

Sorry, but he is misquoting me. I never said his literary criticism is in his mind only.

 

[Anonymous]

raisin, I just brought up UA to underline that there IS a worrying decline in the writing.
No worries

 

[stripy_tie]

"making movies"? do you mean "Moving Pictures" or "Making Money"? and why are you on here if you're not a Discworld fan?

Definitely not a fan of "Snuff" or "Unseen Academicals" either, the narrative flow was especially jumpy and uneven in snuff and the whole thing didn't really come together as a novel.

Usually with a pratchett you can see all the narrative strands wrapping around and interweaving with one another until it all comes together neatly at the end.

I didn't see any of that with snuff and the whole thing felt disorganized and forced, it either needed a really good editor and some major restructuring or to be taken apart for spare parts.

 

[BaldFriede]

Sorry, I gave the wrong title. I meant "Moving Pictures", of course.
I am not a fan in the way that I mindlessly and enthusiastically applaud anything that Pratchett writes. More clear now?
What narrative strand is in your opinion not wrapped up in "Snuff"?

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I gave the wrong title. I meant "Moving Pictures", of course.
I am not a fan in the way that I mindlessly and enthusiastically applaud anything that Pratchett writes. More clear now?

But at the same time you say the writingskill increased.

From Moving pictures to Nightwatch?
I agree.
Maybe even up to Going Postal (though Monstrous regiment was weak)

Not judging Thud, but Making Money and Unseen Academicals were substandard. MM not as much as UA, though, but as said elsewhere, UA is bursting with beginner's mistakes that just can't be explained.

 

[BaldFriede]

Sorry, I gave the wrong title. I meant "Moving Pictures", of course.
I am not a fan in the way that I mindlessly and enthusiastically applaud anything that Pratchett writes. More clear now?

But at the same time you say the writingskill increased.

From Moving pictures to Nightwatch?
I agree.
Maybe even up to Going Postal (though Monstrous regiment was weak)

Not judging Thud, but Making Money and Unseen Academicals were substandard. MM not as much as UA, though, but as said elsewhere, UA is bursting with beginner's mistakes that just can't be explained.

His writing did indeed improve. The juvenile and absolutely pointless jokes he used to put in, some of which even were recurrent in several novels and made me yawn, have gone. He now concentrates on the narrative.

 

[stripy_tie]

Sorry, I gave the wrong title. I meant "Moving Pictures", of course.
I am not a fan in the way that I mindlessly and enthusiastically applaud anything that Pratchett writes. More clear now?
What narrative strand is in your opinion not wrapped up in "Snuff"?

I've yet to encounter anyone who does that, the whole plot felt uneven. There were these brief bursts of action (the river boat scene, the raid on the turkey farm) followed by strange interludes where Vimes takes a quiet walk and goes to the pub.

It never got into it's stride and never seemed to be leading up to anything. In the older books at the beginning you meet all these seemingly unrelated characters and creatures and you can't really see how they're going to work together and the tension is gradually wound up and you can start to see how these different narrative strands fit together and then it all falls together in one big event at the end and you can see how it all works.

whereas Snuff has none of that, it just falls flat.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I gave the wrong title. I meant "Moving Pictures", of course.
I am not a fan in the way that I mindlessly and enthusiastically applaud anything that Pratchett writes. More clear now?

But at the same time you say the writingskill increased.

From Moving pictures to Nightwatch?
I agree.
Maybe even up to Going Postal (though Monstrous regiment was weak)

Not judging Thud, but Making Money and Unseen Academicals were substandard. MM not as much as UA, though, but as said elsewhere, UA is bursting with beginner's mistakes that just can't be explained.

His writing did indeed improve. The juvenile and absolutely pointless jokes he used to put in, some of which even were recurrent in several novels and made me yawn, have gone. He now concentrates on the narrative.

You haven't read UA yet, have you? :|

 

[BaldJean]

Friede and I are currently re-reading "Unseen Academicals" so we can answer to what you are saying; we only read it once so far.
"Thud!", by the way, we read dozens of times, and it gets better and better the more often we read it. One of the very best novels Pratchett ever wrote.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, have fun reading anyway

 

[BaldJean]

There is so much other stuff to read too. We just read through all of the 1600 pages of Hayruki Marakami's "1Q84", have a 600-pager about life and literature at medieval courts by Joachim Bumke to read, just finished "Des Teufels Maskerade" ("The Devil's Masquerade") by Victoria Schlederer, read "The Lost Book of Salem" by Katherine Howe, have a book by Noam Chomski on the roster, read "Snuff", of course, read a few other books whose titles I don't recall at the moment, and between all that we managed to write a book of our own (mostly Friede; I just helped with a few ideas) for which we are now seeking a publisher. All this within the last month only (except writing our own book, for which we needed about a year).

 

[raisindot]

Please don't misquote me; I did not say your literary criticism is in your mind only. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it appears we look for different things when we talk of "writing skills""

Really? Here is what you wrote:

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.

Clearly you did. And you followed it with a statement that expressed an opinion as if it were fact. So--if people disagree with you, it's in their head. If people agree with you, it's a fact.

Help! I'm becoming possessed by the Summoning Pooh!

 

[raisindot]

"Thud!", by the way, we read dozens of times, and it gets better and better the more often we read it. One of the very best novels Pratchett ever wrote.

With that assessment, I 100% agree!!!

 

[Anonymous]

right now I wonder what this thread would look like if pooh WOULD be here...