SPOILERS Snuff *Warning Spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
Tonyblack said:
I spotted a possible movie reference in Snuff. There's a line that goes "Stinky don't need no badges" that I think is a reference to this from Treasure of the Sierra Madre. 
Holy bejesus. I have trawled, I say, trawled through 25 pages of you people jabbering on only to find that almost everything I had intended on saying after FINALLY getting my hands on this thing and reading it has already been said! I don't think anyone's said how much they liked the opening scene, where Vetinari is reading about unggue pots, I read that on this site before the book came out and I thoght it was brilliantly written. I wish I could say the same for the rest of the story...
Basically, I think this is a deeply flawed book with some very good moments, encased within a half-decent plot - or, at least, a really good plot written half-decently. Not a rave review and I don't think I'll read it again. It's definitely my least favourite Watch book, mainly because it probably isn't a Watch book at all, and I think Pratchett would have been better off just sticking Vimes, and Vimes alone, into the unfamiliar situation, with no appearance of the usual cast (that's a little reminiscent of Night Watch, isn't it?). Then, for me, it would have felt less uneven, or at least better directed. We know how it goes when Vimes has the force of the law behind him, but I was hoping once he was away from A-M that we'd see what happens when Vimes is all by himself. It could have been a good opportunity to see some of Dark!Vimes creep out, considering it's been kept at bay by the people surrounding him. I will admit that I got off on the wrong foot with this story, I was keen for another Thud! to be honest and wasn't ready for the tone change (there was a tone change, right?).
These are the thing that stick in my mind (I basically just finished reading it):
*It did start to get a little Super Vimes, I agree when some people say that;
*Young Sam inspired by poo made me chuckle. Young children are often pretty bland in fiction, but he's starting to get quite a nice character of himself in my opinion;
*The plotting was very patchy, if you thoguht the same you evidently know what I mean so I'll leave it there;
*I quite loved the 'sex' scene - I have been dying for something truly romantic to happen between Vimes and Sybil, and I don't think a love scene IN A DISCWORLD NOVEL (!) between two people who have been married for several years could have been better written. It is uncharacteristic in the context of the series, but the way he did it made it characteristic...if that makes sense? But then I remember SPOILER FOR Men at Arms
;
*Tears of the Mushroom and the harp was nice, but I wish Pratchett had driven the irony home a little more;
*Vetinari was fine; just fine. He didn't strike me as 'losing it', nor was he really given a role which showed his awesomeness off (as he's been given in other stories);
*Most of the supporting cast was dead boring. Feeney was completely unmemorable, and I found the whole Wilikins thing tiring. Yes, he's a butler who can behead you with a toothpick, ho, ho, ho, get on with it. One or two references to it would have been awesome (it's an awesome idea), but it was just over done;
*Hen-pecked Vimes. It sounds like a Feminazi thing to say, but how would the story have read if Vimes were controlling what Sybil ate? I'm being a little facetious, but you know what I mean. Sybil is definitely becoming more 3D, and she has the potential to become one of the most interesting characters in the whole world for me - but I think Pratchett could just do more with her, write her better, but buggered it I know how he'd do that;
*The Summoning Dark? That was awesome in Thud!. It was tiresome here. 'Nuff said, everyone's elaborated on that already.
*Vetinari getting the name of the boat wrong and not being able to meet Vimes' eye was hilarious - one of the only moments I really laughed out loud in a novel I, most of the time, didn't find particularly funny (er, but I think that was deliberate. Goblin slavery isn't exactly hilarious, is it?);
*... No, that's it for the moment. Now I'm going to read Thud! again. I will say that I appreciated the Pride and Prejudice references, being a mad P+P fan that I am (oh, Mr. Darcy...). It was cute, but...meh.
Meh!
I don't think anyone's said how much they liked the opening scene, where Vetinari is reading about unggue pots, I read that on this site before the book came out and I thoght it was brilliantly written. I wish I could say the same for the rest of the story...Basically, I think this is a deeply flawed book with some very good moments, encased within a half-decent plot - or, at least, a really good plot written half-decently. Not a rave review and I don't think I'll read it again. It's definitely my least favourite Watch book, mainly because it probably isn't a Watch book at all, and I think Pratchett would have been better off just sticking Vimes, and Vimes alone, into the unfamiliar situation, with no appearance of the usual cast (that's a little reminiscent of Night Watch, isn't it?). Then, for me, it would have felt less uneven, or at least better directed. We know how it goes when Vimes has the force of the law behind him, but I was hoping once he was away from A-M that we'd see what happens when Vimes is all by himself. It could have been a good opportunity to see some of Dark!Vimes creep out, considering it's been kept at bay by the people surrounding him. I will admit that I got off on the wrong foot with this story, I was keen for another Thud! to be honest and wasn't ready for the tone change (there was a tone change, right?).
These are the thing that stick in my mind (I basically just finished reading it):
*It did start to get a little Super Vimes, I agree when some people say that;
*Young Sam inspired by poo made me chuckle. Young children are often pretty bland in fiction, but he's starting to get quite a nice character of himself in my opinion;
*The plotting was very patchy, if you thoguht the same you evidently know what I mean so I'll leave it there;
*I quite loved the 'sex' scene - I have been dying for something truly romantic to happen between Vimes and Sybil, and I don't think a love scene IN A DISCWORLD NOVEL (!) between two people who have been married for several years could have been better written. It is uncharacteristic in the context of the series, but the way he did it made it characteristic...if that makes sense? But then I remember SPOILER FOR Men at Arms
Carrot's first time in Men at Arms so maybe it isn't such an odd scene after all
*Tears of the Mushroom and the harp was nice, but I wish Pratchett had driven the irony home a little more;
*Vetinari was fine; just fine. He didn't strike me as 'losing it', nor was he really given a role which showed his awesomeness off (as he's been given in other stories);
*Most of the supporting cast was dead boring. Feeney was completely unmemorable, and I found the whole Wilikins thing tiring. Yes, he's a butler who can behead you with a toothpick, ho, ho, ho, get on with it. One or two references to it would have been awesome (it's an awesome idea), but it was just over done;
*Hen-pecked Vimes. It sounds like a Feminazi thing to say, but how would the story have read if Vimes were controlling what Sybil ate? I'm being a little facetious, but you know what I mean. Sybil is definitely becoming more 3D, and she has the potential to become one of the most interesting characters in the whole world for me - but I think Pratchett could just do more with her, write her better, but buggered it I know how he'd do that;
*The Summoning Dark? That was awesome in Thud!. It was tiresome here. 'Nuff said, everyone's elaborated on that already.
*Vetinari getting the name of the boat wrong and not being able to meet Vimes' eye was hilarious - one of the only moments I really laughed out loud in a novel I, most of the time, didn't find particularly funny (er, but I think that was deliberate. Goblin slavery isn't exactly hilarious, is it?);
*... No, that's it for the moment. Now I'm going to read Thud! again. I will say that I appreciated the Pride and Prejudice references, being a mad P+P fan that I am (oh, Mr. Darcy...). It was cute, but...meh.
Meh!
I agree with both of these points. I was a bit worried that Vimes respected his wife but didn't really fancy her. Nice to see them getting some action then. Also, I find that tough men aren't always going on about it, so with Wilikins he loses some potency with the constant references.
I know lots of women who control their husbands diets (for their own good of course). Mr Dotsie would rebel, but obviously lots of men don't.
I know lots of women who control their husbands diets (for their own good of course). Mr Dotsie would rebel, but obviously lots of men don't.
.
That sort of thing just doesn't sit comfortably with me, I'm afraid. I didn't find it amusing in the novel when I started to really think about it (although I chuckled at first, in the opening scenes with the BACON, lettuce and tomato sandwich)and I don't find it amusing in real life. Like I said, a man controlling what a woman ate for her own good to such an extent as Sybil does? Flying on the edge there. I won't go all Librarian on this issue, I won't go into the gender politics and such as I don't think a Terry Pratchett forum's quite the place, but in terms of the novel itself and this phenomenon in fiction in general, to me, it's all a huge literary double-standard. But I suspect I exaggerate.
I was also confused with what Sybil does compared to what the colonel's wife did in controlling how he ate. When Sybil does it, it's her being a loving and astute wife and so Vimes doesn't do much about it, but when Makepeace's (that was his name, right?) wife did it, she was being a domestic tyrant, as elitist and racist in other matters as she is tyrannical in her marriage.
:think: Perhaps I'm crazy, or just over-reacting and over-thinking... All I know, it diminished my enjoyment of the story, or rather the characterisation of Sybil and Vimes, and of their marriage. It's probably my only problem with the way he writes their marriage, to be honest.
That sort of thing just doesn't sit comfortably with me, I'm afraid. I didn't find it amusing in the novel when I started to really think about it (although I chuckled at first, in the opening scenes with the BACON, lettuce and tomato sandwich)and I don't find it amusing in real life. Like I said, a man controlling what a woman ate for her own good to such an extent as Sybil does? Flying on the edge there. I won't go all Librarian on this issue, I won't go into the gender politics and such as I don't think a Terry Pratchett forum's quite the place, but in terms of the novel itself and this phenomenon in fiction in general, to me, it's all a huge literary double-standard. But I suspect I exaggerate.
I was also confused with what Sybil does compared to what the colonel's wife did in controlling how he ate. When Sybil does it, it's her being a loving and astute wife and so Vimes doesn't do much about it, but when Makepeace's (that was his name, right?) wife did it, she was being a domestic tyrant, as elitist and racist in other matters as she is tyrannical in her marriage.
:think: Perhaps I'm crazy, or just over-reacting and over-thinking... All I know, it diminished my enjoyment of the story, or rather the characterisation of Sybil and Vimes, and of their marriage. It's probably my only problem with the way he writes their marriage, to be honest.
Regarding Death's non-appearance - I concluded it is part of the 'super-Vimes' phenomenon. We know Vimes (as well as other veteran watchmen) can see Death. So if Vimes did not see Death the entire story it mean Death did not have a 'near-Vimes' moment. IOW even at the most dangerous parts Vimes was nowhere in danger of dying.
When Terry wants us to feel that the deaths are more sinister, he doesn't use Death. The impact is greater if we don't see the departed moving on, with a bit of added humour. When Death shows up there's always a joke, which would have been seriously out of place in this book.
It's not a literary double-standard, it's an actual real-life double standard. Just because it's wrong to you it doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time. Also, the other example we see is of a control freak who bullies her husband, which we can compare to how Sybil looks after Vimes (and allows him the holiday off).
It's not a literary double-standard, it's an actual real-life double standard. Just because it's wrong to you it doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time. Also, the other example we see is of a control freak who bullies her husband, which we can compare to how Sybil looks after Vimes (and allows him the holiday off).
Yes, I know it happens in real life and I know that just because it's wrong to me it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I wasn't denying anything. Real life influences fiction, but fiction influences real life - so just because it happens in real life, it doesn't mean it has to happen in fiction, and it doesn't mean it's always justified as being portrayed as a good thing in fiction (pretending for the moment that we all agree about a double standard and that it's bad). I was just trying to keep my point confined to the novel, however unsuccessful I was. The repeated references to Silly Husband and All-Knowing Wife just really irked me. It's such a tired stereotype - fictionally.
The colonel's wife - yes, I understand a little more, I agree. I do still think however there is a fine line between looking-after and too much interference, even if the former is done with the best intentions. But now I am over-thinking it.
The colonel's wife - yes, I understand a little more, I agree. I do still think however there is a fine line between looking-after and too much interference, even if the former is done with the best intentions. But now I am over-thinking it.
I've always the whole bacon sandwich thing is Sybil's way of trying to figure out one thing she can do to keep him from dying prematurely. After all, she has absolutely no control over the dangers he faces on the job, and can never stop him from going out all hours of the night to deal with crime scenes or going all over the DW to solve diplomatic crises. Also, when you think of how much control she has put in his hands: she has deeded all of the Ramkin family properties to him, putting herself at his mercy should he ever divorce her (which of course would never happen). Theoretically, he could sell off all of her properties and she might not have any legal recourse. Her complete devotion to and trust in him (which he never seems to be able to fully understand) justifies her small efforts to control his eating and fashion habits.
I always receive the new novel as a Christmas present, so I'm a bit late to the party with this thread. I'll trawl through the previous 25 pages in a minute, but I'm bullet pointing my thoughts before talking more deeply, first; to get them in order if nothing else.
* This is the worst written Discworld since, let's see, probably Equal Rites. I'm speaking primarily in terms of the prose. I'm not sure if this a function of the enforced change in Sir Terry's working methods or not; dictating a novel simply can't be the same as fingers on keyboard and, for better or worse, this was the most 'talky' Discworld novel I've read, if that's the right word.
* Willikins just got on my wick. Hard men don't yack on about it; they stay quiet and if they decide to do you, they do it with the minimum of fuss. This is the first time a hard case in a Pratchett novel has felt wrong to me.
* At no point in this novel was there any sense of danger. Vimes steamrollered everyone and everything in his path with minimal effort.
* Who, or what, the heck was Stinky supposed to be? Maybe I'm thick, maybe it'll become more apparent on rereading, but Stinky felt like a plot thread left unexplained, and not in a 'Life's a mystery and not every question has an answer' kind of way.
* The fact that the principle characters were portrayed as sexual beings pleased me greatly. Not in a prurient sense, goodness knows the scenes were tame enough so as to give offence to no one, but in the sense that a happily married and deeply in love couple feel more real for it being there.
* The scenes in AM with the rest of the Watch felt shoehorned in and, whisper it, completely superfluous.
* I very much doubt that slavery was the intended targets of the anger in Snuff, instead I suspect the new snobbery creeping into British society (For 'Goblin' read 'Chav' or 'Pikey') was the target. However, it wasn't as clear as it could be (assuming I'm right of course, which I'm often not) and at times felt, I hesitate to say this, outdated, because of that.
* Sir Terry Pratchett on his worst day is better than a hell of a lot of writers at their peak, so despite the gripes above I still enjoyed it immensely; just not to the normal extent of staying up until 4am on Boxing Day to finish it.
* Final note. The Truth didn't immediately chime with me and it wasn't until rereading that I really got into it and it's since become one of my very favourites, so the status of Snuff as my designated 'Least Favourite Terry Pratchett Novel' is provisional for now. I'll bet Big 'Tel (What? I can't coin a new nickname?) will be waiting for the next 12 months or so with baited breath to find out my final verdict.
* This is the worst written Discworld since, let's see, probably Equal Rites. I'm speaking primarily in terms of the prose. I'm not sure if this a function of the enforced change in Sir Terry's working methods or not; dictating a novel simply can't be the same as fingers on keyboard and, for better or worse, this was the most 'talky' Discworld novel I've read, if that's the right word.
* Willikins just got on my wick. Hard men don't yack on about it; they stay quiet and if they decide to do you, they do it with the minimum of fuss. This is the first time a hard case in a Pratchett novel has felt wrong to me.
* At no point in this novel was there any sense of danger. Vimes steamrollered everyone and everything in his path with minimal effort.
* Who, or what, the heck was Stinky supposed to be? Maybe I'm thick, maybe it'll become more apparent on rereading, but Stinky felt like a plot thread left unexplained, and not in a 'Life's a mystery and not every question has an answer' kind of way.
* The fact that the principle characters were portrayed as sexual beings pleased me greatly. Not in a prurient sense, goodness knows the scenes were tame enough so as to give offence to no one, but in the sense that a happily married and deeply in love couple feel more real for it being there.
* The scenes in AM with the rest of the Watch felt shoehorned in and, whisper it, completely superfluous.
* I very much doubt that slavery was the intended targets of the anger in Snuff, instead I suspect the new snobbery creeping into British society (For 'Goblin' read 'Chav' or 'Pikey') was the target. However, it wasn't as clear as it could be (assuming I'm right of course, which I'm often not) and at times felt, I hesitate to say this, outdated, because of that.
* Sir Terry Pratchett on his worst day is better than a hell of a lot of writers at their peak, so despite the gripes above I still enjoyed it immensely; just not to the normal extent of staying up until 4am on Boxing Day to finish it.
* Final note. The Truth didn't immediately chime with me and it wasn't until rereading that I really got into it and it's since become one of my very favourites, so the status of Snuff as my designated 'Least Favourite Terry Pratchett Novel' is provisional for now. I'll bet Big 'Tel (What? I can't coin a new nickname?) will be waiting for the next 12 months or so with baited breath to find out my final verdict.