SPOILERS Snuff *Warning Spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
I thought the whole business with the summoning dark was very interesting. I'd also thought that it had initially left him and was kinda surprised when it was revealed that it hadn't. But it really gave me something to think about.
Vimes has always had a dark side, the beast I think he called it in Night Watch, but the summoning dark really is something totally different. The idea of a darkness inside yourself that you can't escape even though you thought you'd put it behind you is quite scary to me.
I'm rambling, aren't I? :character-kermit:
Vimes has always had a dark side, the beast I think he called it in Night Watch, but the summoning dark really is something totally different. The idea of a darkness inside yourself that you can't escape even though you thought you'd put it behind you is quite scary to me.
I'm rambling, aren't I? :character-kermit:
Just finished Snuff, and I'll have a proper read through this thread to see what everyone else thought later.
I enjoyed this book, carrying on very much where Thud! left off.
Absolutely thought Wilikens was brilliant. Super-smooth, knows how to be around Young Sam and Lady Sybil, but completely brutal when he needs to be. I think he really was the star in this book. I just caught the end of the discussion in the other thread about Sally and Angua, and I don't really want to start another hypothetical and actually this one barely matters, but does anyone else picture Wilkens as a black man? I don't know why it is, what weird cultural references that may have attached themselves to this character, but even more in this book that's how I imagine him. Maybe he's just too cool to be a white guy?
Lady Sybil and Young Sam, to lesser extents, were also great in this book. I loved the little scene where Sybil was detroying the rose bush, insisting she WASN'T like the other country folk who saw the Goblins as vemin. There's a lot that is hugely likeable about her character and her values, which are very similar to Vimes' but without the constant niggling self-doubt that her husband has. Young Sam was was a great character to bounce the main themes of the book off of. He doesn't know about how people are, how species (read races for Roundworld parallels) are seen. He sees goats, elephants, chickens as animals that poo but he walks up to a Goblin and takes her hand as he would a little girl. How simple and how brilliant an illustration of the distinction between humanity and the animal world; only Young Sam, a child, doesn't have to fight with himself to see this distinction, it's instanly obvious to him. :clap:
And that takes me onto Vimes....I think Sam Vimes is a truly great literary character. But there was, dare I say it, too much of him in this book (gasp) and he was a little more two-dimensional than usual! In Thud! and certainly in Night Watch he was lost and very unsure of himself and it felt like he could lose or even be killed at any time.In Snuff, whilst he questions his actions intermittently in a kind a quasi-legalistic language, he is much more certain, and he becomes less a policemen and more a philospher on law. I'm not sure I liked this change in the character. And also, I never felt like he was going to lose, even when down on the floor being strangled you knew within half a page he'd be on top again. Sure, Vimes is a world-wise copper but he has a lot of luck, too much in some ways.
The plot itself was good (too much Vimes and his philosophising aside), with a nice balance between Ankh Morpork, the country, Quirm and blimey, even Howondaland! But I do thik, in the watch series, Thud! and Fifth Nelly do this story of Vimes out of his juristiction better justice (no pun intended), and Night Watch is a vastly superior character exploration of Vimes than this, which seems to smother us in him.
As I said, I enjoyed this book, there's a lot going for it, but you have to look beyond Vimes to see some of it.
I enjoyed this book, carrying on very much where Thud! left off.
Absolutely thought Wilikens was brilliant. Super-smooth, knows how to be around Young Sam and Lady Sybil, but completely brutal when he needs to be. I think he really was the star in this book. I just caught the end of the discussion in the other thread about Sally and Angua, and I don't really want to start another hypothetical and actually this one barely matters, but does anyone else picture Wilkens as a black man? I don't know why it is, what weird cultural references that may have attached themselves to this character, but even more in this book that's how I imagine him. Maybe he's just too cool to be a white guy?
Lady Sybil and Young Sam, to lesser extents, were also great in this book. I loved the little scene where Sybil was detroying the rose bush, insisting she WASN'T like the other country folk who saw the Goblins as vemin. There's a lot that is hugely likeable about her character and her values, which are very similar to Vimes' but without the constant niggling self-doubt that her husband has. Young Sam was was a great character to bounce the main themes of the book off of. He doesn't know about how people are, how species (read races for Roundworld parallels) are seen. He sees goats, elephants, chickens as animals that poo but he walks up to a Goblin and takes her hand as he would a little girl. How simple and how brilliant an illustration of the distinction between humanity and the animal world; only Young Sam, a child, doesn't have to fight with himself to see this distinction, it's instanly obvious to him. :clap:
And that takes me onto Vimes....I think Sam Vimes is a truly great literary character. But there was, dare I say it, too much of him in this book (gasp) and he was a little more two-dimensional than usual! In Thud! and certainly in Night Watch he was lost and very unsure of himself and it felt like he could lose or even be killed at any time.In Snuff, whilst he questions his actions intermittently in a kind a quasi-legalistic language, he is much more certain, and he becomes less a policemen and more a philospher on law. I'm not sure I liked this change in the character. And also, I never felt like he was going to lose, even when down on the floor being strangled you knew within half a page he'd be on top again. Sure, Vimes is a world-wise copper but he has a lot of luck, too much in some ways.
The plot itself was good (too much Vimes and his philosophising aside), with a nice balance between Ankh Morpork, the country, Quirm and blimey, even Howondaland! But I do thik, in the watch series, Thud! and Fifth Nelly do this story of Vimes out of his juristiction better justice (no pun intended), and Night Watch is a vastly superior character exploration of Vimes than this, which seems to smother us in him.
As I said, I enjoyed this book, there's a lot going for it, but you have to look beyond Vimes to see some of it.
Regarding the Summoning Dark, even if we accept that the goblin's plight called it forth or awakened it more than it had ever been since Thud!, it was out of character for Vimes to trust it even a little. This is Vimes who always refused to rely on magic in solving crimes and mysteries because it can't be trusted. How does he know that what the Summoning Dark reveals to him is true? How does he know he isn't being manipulated for some ugly purpose? OK, he doesn't bump into things in the dark so what he sees must be consistent with physical reality, and the way the goblins respond makes sense so maybe the translation was reasonably accurate, but can he trust without corroboration what the SD tells him about things that happened when he wasn't present?
SPOILERS AVAST
With this I totally agree with you, and this is one of the great flaws of the book. In the past, Vimes never liked to rely on shortcuts or help from higher 'magical' sources (although he is willing to be rescued by Lady Margolotta in TFE and does get magical assistance in Thud, although he really hates having to rely on either). Here, his willingness to partner with the force that almost caused him to murder old grags is extremely strange...and quite disturbing if once of the reasons you've liked Vimes all these years was for his strong inner moral compass.
With this I totally agree with you, and this is one of the great flaws of the book. In the past, Vimes never liked to rely on shortcuts or help from higher 'magical' sources (although he is willing to be rescued by Lady Margolotta in TFE and does get magical assistance in Thud, although he really hates having to rely on either). Here, his willingness to partner with the force that almost caused him to murder old grags is extremely strange...and quite disturbing if once of the reasons you've liked Vimes all these years was for his strong inner moral compass.
Not really. As I said, he can trust the SD to help him see in the dark or understand goblin language because it works and leads to consistent results - he doesn't bump into things, the goblins appear to be saying things that make sense in response to what he says - so he has empirical evidence that these two functions work. (Though a truly devious force of evil should be able to show him a deceptive view while still not causing physical inconsistency, or lying in translation while still appearing to create a conversation that makes sense.) Now that I returned the book to the library I can no longer check, but does Vimes corroborate the testimonies he receives from the SD? I think initially he does - he uses what the SD told him to cause people to confess (as in - I know X and Y happened, so why don't you tell me exactly how it was) but as the story continues he just accepts what the SD says. It would have made a better story if the SD had turned on Vimes at some point - now that it has Vimes' trust it can lead him to doom.
Also, I would have wanted Vimes to have some problem with his work of policing from his moral convictions when he knew the law did not quite follow those. All he gets is Vetinari slightly telling him off in the end. Vimes knew he was on thin ice at some point, but Terry let him skate away all the same.
(I enjoyed the book, but it could have been made into a better one.)
Also, I would have wanted Vimes to have some problem with his work of policing from his moral convictions when he knew the law did not quite follow those. All he gets is Vetinari slightly telling him off in the end. Vimes knew he was on thin ice at some point, but Terry let him skate away all the same.
(I enjoyed the book, but it could have been made into a better one.)
Don't you find it weird making comments on a book you haven't read, let alone on its characters and their motivations? I would. 
I'm not having a go, but the amount you've written in this thread and the amount of questions you've asked, you could have read it by now. I thought this thread was for discussing the book with others who've read it, which is why I've avoided it for a few weeks, not about answering questions of those unsure whether or not to read it or not.
As I said, I'm not having a pop, but I just find it weird that anyone would contribute to this thread in the way you have been
I'm not having a go, but the amount you've written in this thread and the amount of questions you've asked, you could have read it by now. I thought this thread was for discussing the book with others who've read it, which is why I've avoided it for a few weeks, not about answering questions of those unsure whether or not to read it or not.
As I said, I'm not having a pop, but I just find it weird that anyone would contribute to this thread in the way you have been
having read ''Snuff'' I didn't much like it. Possibly I've changed, certainly Sir Terry, or his style, has.
I didn't care for the way the Summoning Dark was brought back in what seemed to be a completely different context for the sake of driving the plot, I didn't care for the way Vimes seems now to be ''Super-Vimes'', I was positively squicked by the way Nobby was used as a ''love interest'' for the goblin girl ( apart from anything else, continuity means that Nobby must be about 40 years old ).
I'd agree with what was posted a while back in this thread, that much of the book seemed to be re-treads of previous themes. I thought the character of Stinky seemed to change considerably towards the end, in an unresolved fashion.
Willikins also seems to be a different character; the tattoos in particular seemed a re-tread of a similar joke in ''Pyramids'''( aboard Childers' ship ) and seemed out of character with his original role as a member of the Ramkin household.
The goblins were interesting. I didn't really see why the whole unggue business needed such emphasis, and the introduction of the Fred Colon sub-plot seemed implausible and not really contributing to the story. The whole business of the language being contextual, and the pots being such works of art, was interesting ( leaving aside how the goblins actually make them, with almost no tools or facilities; South Seas wood carvings took years of work )
So, not really one of his best for my tastes. I've had TP books I didn't care for in the past - Carpe Jugulem didn't work for me, I thought Unseen Academicals could have been done in half the length ( although the street football stuff was interesting, and the Nutt/Glenda sort-of-romance was distinctly squicky ) I couldn't finish Nation and I'm no great fan of the Tiffany Aching stories, but this was definitely among them.
I'm looking for the next Moist book with interest. The whole 'clacks' thing has been interesting, Moist's theories regarding the value and credibility of paper money bvery topical, the golems overblown ( again, a less-than-convincing sub-plot expanded into most of the book ) so I'm waiting to read more about The Undertaking, how Ankh-Morpork's taxation system actually functions.
I didn't care for the way the Summoning Dark was brought back in what seemed to be a completely different context for the sake of driving the plot, I didn't care for the way Vimes seems now to be ''Super-Vimes'', I was positively squicked by the way Nobby was used as a ''love interest'' for the goblin girl ( apart from anything else, continuity means that Nobby must be about 40 years old ).
I'd agree with what was posted a while back in this thread, that much of the book seemed to be re-treads of previous themes. I thought the character of Stinky seemed to change considerably towards the end, in an unresolved fashion.
Willikins also seems to be a different character; the tattoos in particular seemed a re-tread of a similar joke in ''Pyramids'''( aboard Childers' ship ) and seemed out of character with his original role as a member of the Ramkin household.
The goblins were interesting. I didn't really see why the whole unggue business needed such emphasis, and the introduction of the Fred Colon sub-plot seemed implausible and not really contributing to the story. The whole business of the language being contextual, and the pots being such works of art, was interesting ( leaving aside how the goblins actually make them, with almost no tools or facilities; South Seas wood carvings took years of work )
So, not really one of his best for my tastes. I've had TP books I didn't care for in the past - Carpe Jugulem didn't work for me, I thought Unseen Academicals could have been done in half the length ( although the street football stuff was interesting, and the Nutt/Glenda sort-of-romance was distinctly squicky ) I couldn't finish Nation and I'm no great fan of the Tiffany Aching stories, but this was definitely among them.
I'm looking for the next Moist book with interest. The whole 'clacks' thing has been interesting, Moist's theories regarding the value and credibility of paper money bvery topical, the golems overblown ( again, a less-than-convincing sub-plot expanded into most of the book ) so I'm waiting to read more about The Undertaking, how Ankh-Morpork's taxation system actually functions.
It is never a waste of money to buy any of Pratchett's books, especially Snuff. :angry-banghead:
Although, having just re-read UA completely for about the 4th time, and then considered your numerous (more than on any other thread) posts on the Disturbing Trends Thread, I've come to the conclusion that you don't understand that book at all either. Is there some reason that you seem unable to recognize Mr. Nutt as a talented & worthwhile individual--something Sir Terry clearly demonstrates? The orcs in Pratchett ARE NOT Tolkien's orcs. Ponder may not have as large a role in this book as you would like, but he is not made out to be the incompetent you seem to think. I agree with Tony--the Ponder you talk about exists, I think, only in your Fanfic.
Teppic is clearly right about the oddity of your posting on the Snuff Discussion Thread. The raison d'etre of a thread of this sort is to discuss a book that you and others have read at least once completely. Read the thread, if you like--but spare us your ill-informed comments until you have read it.
Although, having just re-read UA completely for about the 4th time, and then considered your numerous (more than on any other thread) posts on the Disturbing Trends Thread, I've come to the conclusion that you don't understand that book at all either. Is there some reason that you seem unable to recognize Mr. Nutt as a talented & worthwhile individual--something Sir Terry clearly demonstrates? The orcs in Pratchett ARE NOT Tolkien's orcs. Ponder may not have as large a role in this book as you would like, but he is not made out to be the incompetent you seem to think. I agree with Tony--the Ponder you talk about exists, I think, only in your Fanfic.
Teppic is clearly right about the oddity of your posting on the Snuff Discussion Thread. The raison d'etre of a thread of this sort is to discuss a book that you and others have read at least once completely. Read the thread, if you like--but spare us your ill-informed comments until you have read it.
Clearly you lack the ability, at least at this time of night and/or sobriety to read posts, let alone understand what was said.
I don't read fan fiction--other than the bit I told you about of yours, so I have no idea what a SUE or stu is supposed to be. Furthermore, having read some of your fan fiction, I don't give a hoot what you think about it or about the books.
What is clear is that you willfully refuse to read or allow yourself to understand what Pratchett wrote in UA. Mr. Nutt (I did not say he was well-written, though he is) is an admirable character which Vetinari and Glenda recognize, as did Pastor Oates. He is drawn as an incredibly intelligent and talented being and yet a character who is still seeking a redemption that he no longer needs. It was the humans who created the orcs, but still had to force them into doing the human will. Your absolute refusal to acknowledge his innate brilliance and his worth is of a piece with your continued comments not only on Snuff, which you still haven't read, but on what might follow Snuff.
Just shut up and go read the books. :angry-boxing:
I don't read fan fiction--other than the bit I told you about of yours, so I have no idea what a SUE or stu is supposed to be. Furthermore, having read some of your fan fiction, I don't give a hoot what you think about it or about the books.
What is clear is that you willfully refuse to read or allow yourself to understand what Pratchett wrote in UA. Mr. Nutt (I did not say he was well-written, though he is) is an admirable character which Vetinari and Glenda recognize, as did Pastor Oates. He is drawn as an incredibly intelligent and talented being and yet a character who is still seeking a redemption that he no longer needs. It was the humans who created the orcs, but still had to force them into doing the human will. Your absolute refusal to acknowledge his innate brilliance and his worth is of a piece with your continued comments not only on Snuff, which you still haven't read, but on what might follow Snuff.
Just shut up and go read the books. :angry-boxing:
A
Wow...just...wow.... This is EXACTLY the same bloody bullcrap I had in the other forums.
The same crap simply because I am not willing to say something is good when it plain IS NOT.
The orc is NOT a well written character.
Intelligent? Why? Because he spews around big words? THAT is how writers with no skill think 'intelligent' characters are.
I wrote it in the other thread, so I'm not going to repeat it.
Once again, and for the last time:
I bought the f'cking book LOOKING FORWARD to the story.
TvTropes, several reviews etc made it sound really, really neat.
But then I started reading and quickly felt odd.
What I read there just did not feel like Discworld. Even in comparsion to MM.
It lacked everything that made Discworld stand out.
And it was boring.
So miserably boring. Even MM I read within two days.
UA?
Several f'cking weeks.
As I constantly groaned at the stupidity in front of me and just put the book down.
The further I got the more my enthusiasm withered.
Up to the point where I couldn't care less to pick it up again and finish it for love's sake.
Call my whining, call me bitchy, but don't act as if I'm stupid for not liking the book.
It is MY Opinion, for which I have good reason, and, dear gods, 'You just don't get it'? C'mon, just throw 'Haters gonna hate' at me or another empty phrase.
I can give reasons for why I dislike the book. If all you can hold against them is 'you just don't get it' I dearly doubt that your opinion matters as much as you deem it to do.
The same crap simply because I am not willing to say something is good when it plain IS NOT.
The orc is NOT a well written character.
Intelligent? Why? Because he spews around big words? THAT is how writers with no skill think 'intelligent' characters are.
I wrote it in the other thread, so I'm not going to repeat it.
Once again, and for the last time:
I bought the f'cking book LOOKING FORWARD to the story.
TvTropes, several reviews etc made it sound really, really neat.
But then I started reading and quickly felt odd.
What I read there just did not feel like Discworld. Even in comparsion to MM.
It lacked everything that made Discworld stand out.
And it was boring.
So miserably boring. Even MM I read within two days.
UA?
Several f'cking weeks.
As I constantly groaned at the stupidity in front of me and just put the book down.
The further I got the more my enthusiasm withered.
Up to the point where I couldn't care less to pick it up again and finish it for love's sake.
Call my whining, call me bitchy, but don't act as if I'm stupid for not liking the book.
It is MY Opinion, for which I have good reason, and, dear gods, 'You just don't get it'? C'mon, just throw 'Haters gonna hate' at me or another empty phrase.
I can give reasons for why I dislike the book. If all you can hold against them is 'you just don't get it' I dearly doubt that your opinion matters as much as you deem it to do.
:character-jason: [Edited to remove what could have been construed as epithets]
LilMaibe, you have every right to hate UA and Nutt, and it really isn't appropriate for anyone to invalidate your viewpoint or claim that you are "wrong" in your subjective opinion on either this or any other book, DW or otherwise.
However, if someone counters your opinions with text-based arguments that claim to show that your opinions are not grounded in an accurate reading of the text (such as the recent debate here over Willikens' lawfulness or Vimes' relationship the Summoning Dark or the lively debate over who is or isn't a lesbian in another thread) that's a completely legitimate thing.
I'll say this again for the umpteenth time, because it doesn't quite seem to be getting through to you, is that a lot of the persecution you may be feeling at least on this topic stems from the fact that you persistently post opinions about Snuff based solely on reviews or others' comments, yet still refuse to completely read the book. And you will continue to treated this way until you either stop posting these totally unsupported comments (about Snuff) or you actually finish the book, at which time you will be fully validated in saying whatever you want about it. :character-jason: :character-jason: :character-
LilMaibe, you have every right to hate UA and Nutt, and it really isn't appropriate for anyone to invalidate your viewpoint or claim that you are "wrong" in your subjective opinion on either this or any other book, DW or otherwise.
However, if someone counters your opinions with text-based arguments that claim to show that your opinions are not grounded in an accurate reading of the text (such as the recent debate here over Willikens' lawfulness or Vimes' relationship the Summoning Dark or the lively debate over who is or isn't a lesbian in another thread) that's a completely legitimate thing.
I'll say this again for the umpteenth time, because it doesn't quite seem to be getting through to you, is that a lot of the persecution you may be feeling at least on this topic stems from the fact that you persistently post opinions about Snuff based solely on reviews or others' comments, yet still refuse to completely read the book. And you will continue to treated this way until you either stop posting these totally unsupported comments (about Snuff) or you actually finish the book, at which time you will be fully validated in saying whatever you want about it. :character-jason: :character-jason: :character-