SPOILERS Snuff *Warning Spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
I liked Equal Rites myself, Tony, but I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that it suffers slightly for being the first DW novel to move beyond outright lampoonery. Sir Terry still hadn't found his own narrative voice, so despite it being a unique story instead of a mixture of homage, pastiche, and spoof, it still read like Fritz Leiber would if he'd been an English, southern, and working/lower middle class grammar school boy. The cadence is wrong for the style. Still a fine novel, though. For reference, I consider Mort to be the first true Discworld novel (the others being practice runs, if you like) and Wyrd Sisters to be where the series truly comes into its own.
Also, in reply to Jeff, I'm usually considered a bit weird amongst Pratchett fans in this, but I love Pyramids. It's by far the most experimental DW novel, easily the cleverest in terms of narrative structure and has some bloomin' hilarious jokes to boot.
Meanwhile, back on topic...
I've had a day to think about it and Snuff is definitely my least favourite DW novel. Prior to that, it was Moving Pictures, but with MP I'm not able to pin down why I dislike it (It's not badly written, or anything), I just don't. With Snuff, I can reel off a list of things that bother me and prevent me from getting fully immersed in the novel. It's the only DW novel I've intellectually, rather than emotionally, reacted to as I read it, rather than reading it in complete absorption and thinking about it afterwards. It's a rare Pratchett novel which leaves me the space to make mental notes as I read it for the first time.
Also, in reply to Jeff, I'm usually considered a bit weird amongst Pratchett fans in this, but I love Pyramids. It's by far the most experimental DW novel, easily the cleverest in terms of narrative structure and has some bloomin' hilarious jokes to boot.
Meanwhile, back on topic...
I've had a day to think about it and Snuff is definitely my least favourite DW novel. Prior to that, it was Moving Pictures, but with MP I'm not able to pin down why I dislike it (It's not badly written, or anything), I just don't. With Snuff, I can reel off a list of things that bother me and prevent me from getting fully immersed in the novel. It's the only DW novel I've intellectually, rather than emotionally, reacted to as I read it, rather than reading it in complete absorption and thinking about it afterwards. It's a rare Pratchett novel which leaves me the space to make mental notes as I read it for the first time.
Danny B: agree, agree, agree!!! But what's this about Pratchett having to dictate now? I didn't know it'd got to that stage. 
And yet I don't feel as though it should present such difficulty. I do quite a lot of writing myself (academically and just for fun) and I feel that, while having to dictate a story would be tremendously difficult to get used to, surely the hiccups that come from the new way of doing things can be smoothed out with some re-reading? Don't "they" say that if you're not sure whether something you've written sounds good, read it out to yourself to find out?
As much as I am never one to pass up an opportunity to comdemn Pyramids with metaphorical pitchforks :twisted: I fear that I may look upon even that novel in a better light than I do Snuff...which may be the greatest tragedy of all. 
And since you (all) mention it, I haven't read Equal Rites yet, but I can say that I warmed to The Truth about half way, once I got the gist of the point of the story, but I don't think I'll ever read it again. Sacharissa got on my nerves (however I adore Otto).
Currently re-reading Night Watch, due to start on Thud! and have finally got my hands on The Last Continent... As a patriotic treat. Eh, mate? The former two to mostly remind myself that Vimes (and Willikins, for that matter) has actually been a well-written character.
And yet I don't feel as though it should present such difficulty. I do quite a lot of writing myself (academically and just for fun) and I feel that, while having to dictate a story would be tremendously difficult to get used to, surely the hiccups that come from the new way of doing things can be smoothed out with some re-reading? Don't "they" say that if you're not sure whether something you've written sounds good, read it out to yourself to find out?
raisindot said:
Wow, Danny. I agree with everything you said about Snuff, except for your ranking.
For me, Snuff may be the weakest of the "later period" DW books, but for me it's still leagues better than nearly all of the early books and some of the later ones. I even prefer it to....PYRAMIDS.
For me, Snuff may be the weakest of the "later period" DW books, but for me it's still leagues better than nearly all of the early books and some of the later ones. I even prefer it to....PYRAMIDS.
And since you (all) mention it, I haven't read Equal Rites yet, but I can say that I warmed to The Truth about half way, once I got the gist of the point of the story, but I don't think I'll ever read it again. Sacharissa got on my nerves (however I adore Otto).
Currently re-reading Night Watch, due to start on Thud! and have finally got my hands on The Last Continent... As a patriotic treat. Eh, mate? The former two to mostly remind myself that Vimes (and Willikins, for that matter) has actually been a well-written character.
Archaeologist said:
Danny B: agree, agree, agree!!! But what's this about Pratchett having to dictate now? I didn't know it'd got to that stage. And yet I don't feel as though it should present such difficulty. I do quite a lot of writing myself (academically and just for fun) and I feel that, while having to dictate a story would be tremendously difficult to get used to, surely the hiccups that come from the new way of doing things can be smoothed out with some re-reading? Don't "they" say that if you're not sure whether something you've written sounds good, read it out to yourself to find out?
And yet I don't feel as though it should present such difficulty. I do quite a lot of writing myself (academically and just for fun) and I feel that, while having to dictate a story would be tremendously difficult to get used to, surely the hiccups that come from the new way of doing things can be smoothed out with some re-reading? Don't "they" say that if you're not sure whether something you've written sounds good, read it out to yourself to find out?
For a dictated story to work, the writer needs need an extremely strong and vigilant editor to tone down the excesses and bring the story to a manageable shape. Given Pterry's reputation, I personally believe that no one is seriously trying to strongly edit his recent works, either for sympathy for his condition or out of respect. Thus, I can only assume that his newer works are essentially being published nearly unedited. I believe that had a strong, objective hand worked with Pterry to curb some of the excesses and poor narrative decisions of UA and Snuff, they might have been better books.
Of course, I have no idea of the relationship between Pterry and his editors, so this theory may be balderdash. On the other hand, as I've said before, I Shall Wear Midnight and Nation were else written during this same period, and each is a far superior book to UA and Snuff. It's my belief--that I can't prove--that because these books are aimed at YA audiences, that Pterry's 'dictations' are subject to a far more intensive editorial process--to make sure the stories, words, and concepts are appropriate for the audience--and this stronger editorial hand resulted in the relatively superior quality of these works.
raisindot said:
Archaeologist said:
Danny B: agree, agree, agree!!! But what's this about Pratchett having to dictate now? I didn't know it'd got to that stage. And yet I don't feel as though it should present such difficulty. I do quite a lot of writing myself (academically and just for fun) and I feel that, while having to dictate a story would be tremendously difficult to get used to, surely the hiccups that come from the new way of doing things can be smoothed out with some re-reading? Don't "they" say that if you're not sure whether something you've written sounds good, read it out to yourself to find out?
And yet I don't feel as though it should present such difficulty. I do quite a lot of writing myself (academically and just for fun) and I feel that, while having to dictate a story would be tremendously difficult to get used to, surely the hiccups that come from the new way of doing things can be smoothed out with some re-reading? Don't "they" say that if you're not sure whether something you've written sounds good, read it out to yourself to find out?
For a dictated story to work, the writer needs need an extremely strong and vigilant editor to tone down the excesses and bring the story to a manageable shape. Given Pterry's reputation, I personally believe that no one is seriously trying to strongly edit his recent works, either for sympathy for his condition or out of respect. Thus, I can only assume that his newer works are essentially being published nearly unedited. I believe that had a strong, objective hand worked with Pterry to curb some of the excesses and poor narrative decisions of UA and Snuff, they might have been better books.
Of course, I have no idea of the relationship between Pterry and his editors, so this theory may be balderdash. On the other hand, as I've said before, I Shall Wear Midnight and Nation were else written during this same period, and each is a far superior book to UA and Snuff. It's my belief--that I can't prove--that because these books are aimed at YA audiences, that Pterry's 'dictations' are subject to a far more intensive editorial process--to make sure the stories, words, and concepts are appropriate for the audience--and this stronger editorial hand resulted in the relatively superior quality of these works.
BTW, this discussion really excludes the people who actually loved Snuff, doesn't it?
I believe that Sir Terry uses a voice recognition program and dictates straight onto computer which writes it for him. His condition also makes it difficult for him to read as well, so that might be an additional factor into the way the finished article comes out.
Incidentally, I quite enjoyed Snuff but have it on my book pile for a second re-read before making any final stance on it (after all, Unseen Accademicals took me a good three readings before I began to really enjoy it and to see beyond the football story).
Incidentally, I quite enjoyed Snuff but have it on my book pile for a second re-read before making any final stance on it (after all, Unseen Accademicals took me a good three readings before I began to really enjoy it and to see beyond the football story).
Penfold said:
I believe that Sir Terry uses a voice recognition program and dictates straight onto computer which writes it for him. His condition also makes it difficult for him to read as well, so that might be an additional factor into the way the finished article comes out.
Incidentally, I quite enjoyed Snuff but have it on my book pile for a second re-read before making any final stance on it (after all, Unseen Accademicals took me a good three readings before I began to really enjoy it and to see beyond the football story).
Incidentally, I quite enjoyed Snuff but have it on my book pile for a second re-read before making any final stance on it (after all, Unseen Accademicals took me a good three readings before I began to really enjoy it and to see beyond the football story).
And perhaps a re-read of Snuff at a later stage with absolutely no expectations might be a surprising experience...
How can I add to a thread that has said it all? I suppose I could just say that, having finished my second read of Snuff, I agree with a lot of the very eruditely expressed criticisms. On the other paw, I agree with many of the positive things said about the book too. I have recently re-read ISWM and a number of the older Night Watch books and can see a massive similarity in narrative style between ISWM and Snuff, particularly in the small continuity errors and 'dark' elements. The older Watch books have a more 'in depth' feel about them, and (as others have said) less dialogue.
I agree that UA wasn't much cop, so much so that I probably need to give it a second chance.
I believe that Sir Pterry has a secretary to whom he dictates; he has joked that the man is smart enough to laugh in the right places.
I agree that UA wasn't much cop, so much so that I probably need to give it a second chance.
I believe that Sir Pterry has a secretary to whom he dictates; he has joked that the man is smart enough to laugh in the right places.
every once in a while there is a DW book which doesn't really work for me, and having read it twice Snuff is one of them. The others, in no particular order, are Carpe Jugulem, Making Money[/i( too much like a re-run of Going Postal], and what was the point about te buried golems? I didn't much care for Equal Rites( in this case because of its transitional nature and unsettled style ). Unseen Academicalsseemed to me to be composed from two mismatched books, and I have to say that I found the Glenda/Nutt thing distinctly squicky, although the Nobby/Tears of the Mushroom thing in Snuff was worse.
All prolific authors do this from time to time. Dickens' works are very uneven in quality. H G Wells produced numerous novels which have long since faded from view. Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin novels contain numerous continuity discrepancies for the sake of the story, along with some passages which would have best been left in the editor's waste paper basket - the escape disguised as a bear in Post Captain, for example, is simply absurd and very jarring in an essentially realistic setting, while Maturin's abilities as surgeon and physician verge upon the supernatural at times.
All prolific authors do this from time to time. Dickens' works are very uneven in quality. H G Wells produced numerous novels which have long since faded from view. Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin novels contain numerous continuity discrepancies for the sake of the story, along with some passages which would have best been left in the editor's waste paper basket - the escape disguised as a bear in Post Captain, for example, is simply absurd and very jarring in an essentially realistic setting, while Maturin's abilities as surgeon and physician verge upon the supernatural at times.
Hi all, first post - am still reading Snuff and loving it, although I would agree that they style has changed - only to be expected really, and still better than 90% of what's going around I'd say.
I notice a lot of discussion of what the goblins represent in the 'real world' - the obvious answer is black african slavery, what with the tobacco plantations etc. But in themselves, and how they are treated by the majority, I would say they are more like Roma gypsies (and, to a lesser extent, like Irish Travellers). What do people think?
There are several things that make me think this, based on the culture of the goblins as represented rather than the slavery option (which Pratchett had already done with the golems, and excellently).
- The fact that everybody hates the goblins, even the races/elements of the Discworld society generally looked down on - they are the very bottom rung, which is precisely the position the Roma have occupied for centuries in Europe
- The fact that they are popularly believed to steal, to be dirty and stinking, to steal others' children, to harm their own children - all slurs cast at roma gypsies
- The unggue business - like the goblins, gypsies have elaborate superstitious rituals regarding purity, a lot of it to do with their bodily fluids, with things from the inside being considered purer than things outside - it is also considered very dangerous for people's possessions to be kept by others after their death, as death is considered polluting, and gypsies used to destroy a person's private possessions when they die, if possible burning them with the body (sometimes travelling gypsies would even burn the caravan in which the person died too). Moreover, in the same way that the goblins' unguue gets misinterpreted, people often see the actions of gypsies related to their purity rituals as off-putting negative traits - throwing things out of the living area rather than disposing of it 'properly' etc
- The goblin's fatalism, and their idea that they 'did something bad' in the past and so deserve their wretched way of life - in her documentary book on european gypsies, Bury Me Standing, Isabel Fonseca talks at length about the fatalistic quality in the gypsies, and alludes to traditional superstitions that a gypsy smith forged the nails that crucified Christ (or, alternatively, stole the nails from the cross after the crucifixion) and the gypsies were cursed for this to roam the earth forever.
- The fact that what 'redeems' the goblins is a gift for music - it is only after hearing Mushroom's playing that people other than Vimes realise that the goblins are worth saving. Gypsies are famed for their musical skills, and it is often the only thing about them that conventional society tolerates them for.
The speech that Rain On Hard Ground makes to Vimes at the beginning of the book sounds so much like the lament of modern-day travellers who are forbidden to travel and yet forbidden to settle, forever pushed to the fringes and then maligned for being there (cf. Dale Farm):
"We know what the law is, Mr Po-leess-maan. The law is the land. You did not make the land. You did not make the sheep, you did not make the rabbits on which we live, you did not make the cows, or the horses, but you say 'these things are mine'. This cannot be a truth. I make my axe, my pots, and these are mine. Some love was mine. Now it has gone... Maybe a hundred or two hundred years ago, there was in the world what people called 'the wilderness', or 'no man's land', or 'wasteland', and we lived in such places, we are waste people."
Any thoughts on this interpretation?
I notice a lot of discussion of what the goblins represent in the 'real world' - the obvious answer is black african slavery, what with the tobacco plantations etc. But in themselves, and how they are treated by the majority, I would say they are more like Roma gypsies (and, to a lesser extent, like Irish Travellers). What do people think?
There are several things that make me think this, based on the culture of the goblins as represented rather than the slavery option (which Pratchett had already done with the golems, and excellently).
- The fact that everybody hates the goblins, even the races/elements of the Discworld society generally looked down on - they are the very bottom rung, which is precisely the position the Roma have occupied for centuries in Europe
- The fact that they are popularly believed to steal, to be dirty and stinking, to steal others' children, to harm their own children - all slurs cast at roma gypsies
- The unggue business - like the goblins, gypsies have elaborate superstitious rituals regarding purity, a lot of it to do with their bodily fluids, with things from the inside being considered purer than things outside - it is also considered very dangerous for people's possessions to be kept by others after their death, as death is considered polluting, and gypsies used to destroy a person's private possessions when they die, if possible burning them with the body (sometimes travelling gypsies would even burn the caravan in which the person died too). Moreover, in the same way that the goblins' unguue gets misinterpreted, people often see the actions of gypsies related to their purity rituals as off-putting negative traits - throwing things out of the living area rather than disposing of it 'properly' etc
- The goblin's fatalism, and their idea that they 'did something bad' in the past and so deserve their wretched way of life - in her documentary book on european gypsies, Bury Me Standing, Isabel Fonseca talks at length about the fatalistic quality in the gypsies, and alludes to traditional superstitions that a gypsy smith forged the nails that crucified Christ (or, alternatively, stole the nails from the cross after the crucifixion) and the gypsies were cursed for this to roam the earth forever.
- The fact that what 'redeems' the goblins is a gift for music - it is only after hearing Mushroom's playing that people other than Vimes realise that the goblins are worth saving. Gypsies are famed for their musical skills, and it is often the only thing about them that conventional society tolerates them for.
The speech that Rain On Hard Ground makes to Vimes at the beginning of the book sounds so much like the lament of modern-day travellers who are forbidden to travel and yet forbidden to settle, forever pushed to the fringes and then maligned for being there (cf. Dale Farm):
"We know what the law is, Mr Po-leess-maan. The law is the land. You did not make the land. You did not make the sheep, you did not make the rabbits on which we live, you did not make the cows, or the horses, but you say 'these things are mine'. This cannot be a truth. I make my axe, my pots, and these are mine. Some love was mine. Now it has gone... Maybe a hundred or two hundred years ago, there was in the world what people called 'the wilderness', or 'no man's land', or 'wasteland', and we lived in such places, we are waste people."
Any thoughts on this interpretation?
Sounds pretty good to me! Although I'd say that the goblins represent anyone who is exploited or treated as a non-person. I like your Roma theory though.
There's mention of a tax being made on tobacco products and yet the sellers and producers are raking it in. As soon as there was any threat to their profit, they changed tactics and used exploitation. This is not much different to closing manufacture in, for example, the UK and switching it to a third world nation that will work longer hours for a lot less money.
To me the book is about exploitation and the exploited in general.
Welcome to the site, Llamedosian!
There's mention of a tax being made on tobacco products and yet the sellers and producers are raking it in. As soon as there was any threat to their profit, they changed tactics and used exploitation. This is not much different to closing manufacture in, for example, the UK and switching it to a third world nation that will work longer hours for a lot less money.
To me the book is about exploitation and the exploited in general.
Welcome to the site, Llamedosian!
Welcome to the site!
Having had lots of first hand experience with gypsies as I work at a cinema, I'd say I mostly agree with your theory. They mostly try and get anything for free, cause havoc in the screens and fight/seduce each other in the public areas. Whereas Pterry's goblins try to keep to themselves.
Having had lots of first hand experience with gypsies as I work at a cinema, I'd say I mostly agree with your theory. They mostly try and get anything for free, cause havoc in the screens and fight/seduce each other in the public areas. Whereas Pterry's goblins try to keep to themselves.
Yeah, I mean A hard man shouldn't go around, like, eating people's noses or stuff like that.
On the summoning dark, it wasn't really a creature of pure vengence, it was a creature that lived since the begining and spent the last 10,000 years in the role of a superstition. So it was more then just what the dwarves thought it was. (honestly I kinda thought it might be another kind of Hiver (sp?)) Also didn't the other Goblins point to it as well? Not just stinky? they, like Dwarves, and like Vimes are also children of the dark, they live in and around it. It made sense to me they might know something about it.
On Sybil's rose bush outburst, i noticed it, and chocked it up to some of Sam rubbing off on her.
*Spoilers for other books*
and He, whether you want to admit it or not, has changed over the years. He learns, and takes his experiences with him. Like blinding himself with a match in men at arms, but then blinding others with a match in the wilinus (sp?) pass in The 5th elephant. or pushing 71 Hour Achmed against a wall and being to told "look down" at the knife in Jingo, then also in the 5th Elephant telling Inigo to "Look further down". He takes what he gets and turns it into an advantage, even if he might do so grudgingly, like with his status. To me, nothing here struck me as being out of character.
*end spoilers*
Young Sam interests are familiar to anyone that either has kids or lived with them. At least he takes a more scientific interest in it, rather just rolling in it.
In the end I quite enjoyed the book very much. And look forward to seeing how it passes on future re-readings.
and side note and just my musings: I also find it odd that someone who got burned by a positive feeling from reading TvTropes would so easily trust a negative feeling from same.
Edit: it took me as long to read this thread as it did to go through the book, geez...
On the summoning dark, it wasn't really a creature of pure vengence, it was a creature that lived since the begining and spent the last 10,000 years in the role of a superstition. So it was more then just what the dwarves thought it was. (honestly I kinda thought it might be another kind of Hiver (sp?)) Also didn't the other Goblins point to it as well? Not just stinky? they, like Dwarves, and like Vimes are also children of the dark, they live in and around it. It made sense to me they might know something about it.
On Sybil's rose bush outburst, i noticed it, and chocked it up to some of Sam rubbing off on her.
*Spoilers for other books*
and He, whether you want to admit it or not, has changed over the years. He learns, and takes his experiences with him. Like blinding himself with a match in men at arms, but then blinding others with a match in the wilinus (sp?) pass in The 5th elephant. or pushing 71 Hour Achmed against a wall and being to told "look down" at the knife in Jingo, then also in the 5th Elephant telling Inigo to "Look further down". He takes what he gets and turns it into an advantage, even if he might do so grudgingly, like with his status. To me, nothing here struck me as being out of character.
*end spoilers*
Young Sam interests are familiar to anyone that either has kids or lived with them. At least he takes a more scientific interest in it, rather just rolling in it.
In the end I quite enjoyed the book very much. And look forward to seeing how it passes on future re-readings.
and side note and just my musings: I also find it odd that someone who got burned by a positive feeling from reading TvTropes would so easily trust a negative feeling from same.
Edit: it took me as long to read this thread as it did to go through the book, geez...
Hello and welcome!
You know, I was wondering about the same thing myself. They felt a lot like gypsies to me, and all the associations that you pointed out ( the ritual observances, the association with the dark, the public scorn, the musical talent and so on) are real. Only one thing though: in Snuff, the goblins believe they are waste people, no more than vermin. This is not true of gypsies. It is true that in the past (in the 15th, 16th centuries) they have portrayed themselves as a people which wanders the earth as penance for a major sin, and - I'm not familiar with their legends - they may have legends which support this view. There may be a sense of racial guilt or shame ingrained in them, I don't know. But in modern times, at least in my experience, they do not believe themselves to be inferior to other peoples, far from it. Rather, they seem to enjoy playing the Trickster in some sort of world commedia del'arte in which all the other peoples play slow country bumpkins, ready for the plucking. That's a far cry from the meek goblins who let themselves be driven like lambs to the slaughter.
You know, I was wondering about the same thing myself. They felt a lot like gypsies to me, and all the associations that you pointed out ( the ritual observances, the association with the dark, the public scorn, the musical talent and so on) are real. Only one thing though: in Snuff, the goblins believe they are waste people, no more than vermin. This is not true of gypsies. It is true that in the past (in the 15th, 16th centuries) they have portrayed themselves as a people which wanders the earth as penance for a major sin, and - I'm not familiar with their legends - they may have legends which support this view. There may be a sense of racial guilt or shame ingrained in them, I don't know. But in modern times, at least in my experience, they do not believe themselves to be inferior to other peoples, far from it. Rather, they seem to enjoy playing the Trickster in some sort of world commedia del'arte in which all the other peoples play slow country bumpkins, ready for the plucking. That's a far cry from the meek goblins who let themselves be driven like lambs to the slaughter.
I think the African analogy is far more appropriate.
Gypsies did and do have their own vibrant culture and have, traditionally, been treated as outsiders and 'inferiors' in the countries in which they dwelled, but there was never a history of widespread enslavement of Gypsies (other than in WWII).
Black Africans, other hand, were enslaved by Europeans for nearly 400 years. They were treated as property that could be sold, abused and killed without repercussions. Part of the justification whites used for this behavior was their belief that blacks were an inferior, debased race that, with the rare exception, could never rise above their status as laborers and could never be 'civilized.' In the American south at least, most blacks themselves believed these assertions and contributed to their own oppression. It really wasn't until the Civil War (when black soldiers from the north fought valiantly against the Confederacy) and Reconstruction (when freed blacks were installed in southern legislatures for a few short years before the south forced them out and imposed another century of oppressive segregationist laws) that blacks began to see that were capable of higher aspirations than picking cotton.
Gypsies did and do have their own vibrant culture and have, traditionally, been treated as outsiders and 'inferiors' in the countries in which they dwelled, but there was never a history of widespread enslavement of Gypsies (other than in WWII).
Black Africans, other hand, were enslaved by Europeans for nearly 400 years. They were treated as property that could be sold, abused and killed without repercussions. Part of the justification whites used for this behavior was their belief that blacks were an inferior, debased race that, with the rare exception, could never rise above their status as laborers and could never be 'civilized.' In the American south at least, most blacks themselves believed these assertions and contributed to their own oppression. It really wasn't until the Civil War (when black soldiers from the north fought valiantly against the Confederacy) and Reconstruction (when freed blacks were installed in southern legislatures for a few short years before the south forced them out and imposed another century of oppressive segregationist laws) that blacks began to see that were capable of higher aspirations than picking cotton.
Sorry ( and I am, indeed, sorry for this), but the Gypsies do have a history of enslavement, admittedly, only in Romania, but they have been slaves there for centuries, until 1851, if I'm not mistaken. This is one reason why Romania has such a large Gypsy population - they multiplied a lot during that time, and were also forced to become settled.
But, again, neither the Blacks nor the Gypsies think of themselves as "waste people".
But, again, neither the Blacks nor the Gypsies think of themselves as "waste people".
I defer to your knowledge on the enslavement of gypsies. But slavery of white people and non-African non-white people was also quite common in Europe until the late 18th century, when it gradually started being abolished. But no other ethnic group was enslaved with as much cruelty and on as widespread a scale as Africans by Europeans. From the late 15th century through the mid 19th century, several million Africans were 'exported' to the Americas, and slave trading became a huge source of income for many Englishmen, Dutch, Spaniards, Portuguese and Americans. Black slaves were certainly considered to be a 'waste people' in the Americas; they were worked until they died, and the high mortality rate was a chief reason why demand for slaves was nearly insatiable for centuries. Blacks today wouldn't consider themselves to be 'waste people,' but certainly if you went to a cotton plantation in Mississippi in the first half of the 19th century, you would have found many slaves who were brainwashed by their white oversees into thinking that they were barely more than bi-ped pack animals.