SPOILERS Wintersmith Discussion *Spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
Finished reading it this morning. I liked it more than I thought I would/was expected to, I read the first two coments in this thread beforehand and have just read the rest.
I enjoyed the Feegles the most in this book than their previous outings, especially the Where's My Cow bit and their servitude under the Jolly Sailor!
I thought that Tiffany's behaviour was very much of her age, I have no sisters but all my cousins are girls and it seemed very familiar.
Also I am amazed at how much I've grown to like annnagramma's character arc thoughout the books.
I could've done with more closure on Roland and his dad but I'm sure that gets resolved/continued in ISWM.
I really was hoping to get some more of Magrat, Verrence and Agnes at some point in the Tiffany books.
Just wondering, who is more powerful, Tiffany's Baron or King Verrence? It must be Verrence, yeah?
I enjoyed the Feegles the most in this book than their previous outings, especially the Where's My Cow bit and their servitude under the Jolly Sailor!
I thought that Tiffany's behaviour was very much of her age, I have no sisters but all my cousins are girls and it seemed very familiar.
Also I am amazed at how much I've grown to like annnagramma's character arc thoughout the books.
I could've done with more closure on Roland and his dad but I'm sure that gets resolved/continued in ISWM.
I really was hoping to get some more of Magrat, Verrence and Agnes at some point in the Tiffany books.
Just wondering, who is more powerful, Tiffany's Baron or King Verrence? It must be Verrence, yeah?
Tough one. I don't think the title--Baron vs. King makes that much of a difference. The Baron isn't "beholden" to any king. Pterry describes the Ramtops as having dozens of little fiefdoms all over the place, with Lancre being one of the smallest.
While Verrence seems be far more well known in the DW than the Baron (f only because he's appeared more often in the adult books), he, at best, is a weak monarch who maintains power because the witches put him there and the people let him stay there, and consider him to be relatively harmless and ineffectual. In a sense, like the British royal family Verrence can't make any familial claim of ownership of Lancre, and his one-man army (Sean Ogg) doesn't exactly make Lancre a military power to be reckoned with.
The Baron, on the other hand, claims ancestral ownership and administrative power over all of the Chalk, which implies that it's much more of a traditional fiefdom, although the farmers don't seem to have a vassal relationship with him. He dispenses justice, which suggests he has the force to back up his decisions, a military of some sort.
I'd say that if Verrence and Baron were to go at in war, the Baron would win hands down, provided there were no witches involved.
J-I-B
While Verrence seems be far more well known in the DW than the Baron (f only because he's appeared more often in the adult books), he, at best, is a weak monarch who maintains power because the witches put him there and the people let him stay there, and consider him to be relatively harmless and ineffectual. In a sense, like the British royal family Verrence can't make any familial claim of ownership of Lancre, and his one-man army (Sean Ogg) doesn't exactly make Lancre a military power to be reckoned with.
The Baron, on the other hand, claims ancestral ownership and administrative power over all of the Chalk, which implies that it's much more of a traditional fiefdom, although the farmers don't seem to have a vassal relationship with him. He dispenses justice, which suggests he has the force to back up his decisions, a military of some sort.
I'd say that if Verrence and Baron were to go at in war, the Baron would win hands down, provided there were no witches involved.
J-I-B
raisindot said:
Tough one. I don't think the title--Baron vs. King makes that much of a difference. The Baron isn't "beholden" to any king. Pterry describes the Ramtops as having dozens of little fiefdoms all over the place, with Lancre being one of the smallest.
While Verrence seems be far more well known in the DW than the Baron (f only because he's appeared more often in the adult books), he, at best, is a weak monarch who maintains power because the withes put him there and the people let him stay there, and consider him to be relatively harmless and ineffectual. In a sense, like the British royal family Verrence can't make any familial claim of ownership of Lancre, and his one-man army (Sean Ogg) doesn't exactly make Lancre a military power to be reckoned with.
The Baron, on the other hand, claims ancestral ownership and administrative power over all of the Chalk, which implies that it's much more of a traditional fiefdom, although the farmers don't seem to have a vassal relationship with him. He dispenses justice, which suggests he has the force to back up his decisions, a military of some sort.
I'd say that if Verrence and Baron were to go at in war, the Baron would win hands down, provided there were no witches involved.
J-I-B
While Verrence seems be far more well known in the DW than the Baron (f only because he's appeared more often in the adult books), he, at best, is a weak monarch who maintains power because the withes put him there and the people let him stay there, and consider him to be relatively harmless and ineffectual. In a sense, like the British royal family Verrence can't make any familial claim of ownership of Lancre, and his one-man army (Sean Ogg) doesn't exactly make Lancre a military power to be reckoned with.
The Baron, on the other hand, claims ancestral ownership and administrative power over all of the Chalk, which implies that it's much more of a traditional fiefdom, although the farmers don't seem to have a vassal relationship with him. He dispenses justice, which suggests he has the force to back up his decisions, a military of some sort.
I'd say that if Verrence and Baron were to go at in war, the Baron would win hands down, provided there were no witches involved.
J-I-B
But yes, the Baron would win hands down without them.
DaveC said:
The witches would always be involved But yes, the Baron would win hands down without them.
But yes, the Baron would win hands down without them.
I´ve just finished reading Wintersmith and I must say I can´t really follow on some of the discussion here.
First,it´s a childrens book,as far as I´ve gathered.It wouldn´t make any sense to make it as differenciated reading in any depth like other Discworld books because children wouldn´t understand it.
Second,Tiffany is not being silly,stagnant in development or girly,as Sharlene said,she is 13.
I once read an article about teenagers.It said with the beginning of puberty,brain is closed down for repairs.
This is so true!!
Kids make normal developments up to 12,13,then they go into primeval status and that is completely normal.
As such,the description of Tiffany is very accurate.
I love the Feegles!How could anyone not!!They are brilliant!And I don´t think they represent anything,they are just funny.Is that so unusual for Pterry?
The last chapter about Rob is very funny,reading where´s my cow in Scots...
And here again:It´s a children´s book!
Little people reading the book will remember how it was to learn reading...
and they would think it hilarious!
This book has a lot of things that are funny for kids,reread it with that in mind,maybe?
I know I enjoyed it,of course it´s worlds from the other witch books.It´s supposed to be.
Also the accusation of doing too much in one book is okay,kids like to read books like that,they get bored with too much consistency in one book.I couldn´t judge if it was because of his illness.
I did not like Making Money so well,but that was more because I didn´t like the characters so much...
First,it´s a childrens book,as far as I´ve gathered.It wouldn´t make any sense to make it as differenciated reading in any depth like other Discworld books because children wouldn´t understand it.
Second,Tiffany is not being silly,stagnant in development or girly,as Sharlene said,she is 13.
I once read an article about teenagers.It said with the beginning of puberty,brain is closed down for repairs.
This is so true!!
Kids make normal developments up to 12,13,then they go into primeval status and that is completely normal.
As such,the description of Tiffany is very accurate.
I love the Feegles!How could anyone not!!They are brilliant!And I don´t think they represent anything,they are just funny.Is that so unusual for Pterry?
The last chapter about Rob is very funny,reading where´s my cow in Scots...
And here again:It´s a children´s book!
Little people reading the book will remember how it was to learn reading...
and they would think it hilarious!
This book has a lot of things that are funny for kids,reread it with that in mind,maybe?
I know I enjoyed it,of course it´s worlds from the other witch books.It´s supposed to be.
Also the accusation of doing too much in one book is okay,kids like to read books like that,they get bored with too much consistency in one book.I couldn´t judge if it was because of his illness.
I did not like Making Money so well,but that was more because I didn´t like the characters so much...
I dunno. I'm not a big fan of Wintersmith, but if you found Wee Free Men sitting in the adult books area of your library or bookshop and didn't see a "children's" label attached to it, you might think it's an adult book, even if the character is a child. It's a very deep book whose themes are explored with a far greater depth than they were in its adult 'prequel," Lords and Ladies.
No,it´s okay,they aren´t typical children´s books obviously.
As if Pterry could ever write typical childrens´ books....
I just couldn´t understand everybody previous going like "this book isn´t Pterrys usual style,the plot is this,the characters are that." and what did he mean by this and why did Tiffany do that,and about Rob learning to read at the end.
I just wanted to say,as it´s a children´s book,obviously it would be written slightly different,because things that maybe wouldn´t make sense to a grown-up or be funny for a grown-up would very probably make sense and be funny for a child or a teen as they are currently experiencing similar situations.
If one rereads the book with the fact in mind that he originally aimed it for the younger readers,lots of situations are selfexplanatory,and very much more funny,too.
How would you,for instance,read Rob´s description of the ABC if you could remember ploughing through the alphabet not so long ago yourself?
Or how would you like the idea of you-shaped snowflakes if you were a thirteen-year-old?
You wouldn´t really want it to stop,eh?
It´s a bit like Harry Potter,or Artemis Fowl,maybe.I like reading them,too.
Sometimes there are incredibly grown-up bits in those stories.
Teens can be very mature,sometimes.Then again,there are places my son just wets himself laughing and I just can´t for the life of me understand why until he explains.I maybe thought exactly that bit pointless.
I just didn´t see the pun because I´m not his age.
I hope I explained properly?
I love the Tiffany books.They are meant to be different from the others.
As if Pterry could ever write typical childrens´ books....
I just couldn´t understand everybody previous going like "this book isn´t Pterrys usual style,the plot is this,the characters are that." and what did he mean by this and why did Tiffany do that,and about Rob learning to read at the end.
I just wanted to say,as it´s a children´s book,obviously it would be written slightly different,because things that maybe wouldn´t make sense to a grown-up or be funny for a grown-up would very probably make sense and be funny for a child or a teen as they are currently experiencing similar situations.
If one rereads the book with the fact in mind that he originally aimed it for the younger readers,lots of situations are selfexplanatory,and very much more funny,too.
How would you,for instance,read Rob´s description of the ABC if you could remember ploughing through the alphabet not so long ago yourself?
Or how would you like the idea of you-shaped snowflakes if you were a thirteen-year-old?
You wouldn´t really want it to stop,eh?
It´s a bit like Harry Potter,or Artemis Fowl,maybe.I like reading them,too.
Sometimes there are incredibly grown-up bits in those stories.
Teens can be very mature,sometimes.Then again,there are places my son just wets himself laughing and I just can´t for the life of me understand why until he explains.I maybe thought exactly that bit pointless.
I just didn´t see the pun because I´m not his age.
I hope I explained properly?
I love the Tiffany books.They are meant to be different from the others.
I just thought of The Prisoner of Azkaban,for instance.
It´s way my favourite of all and it is also very psycologically intense and rather dark in places.The children also think it´s the best,and they also understand the depth of the plot.
The way it is written,however,differs from the style you would expect in a grown-ups book.
Dan Brown also gets rather spooky and mythical,but he wouldn´t be readable for kids.
Artemis Fowl,on the other hand,is readable by both age groups.
Do you see what I´m trying to get at?
It´s way my favourite of all and it is also very psycologically intense and rather dark in places.The children also think it´s the best,and they also understand the depth of the plot.
The way it is written,however,differs from the style you would expect in a grown-ups book.
Dan Brown also gets rather spooky and mythical,but he wouldn´t be readable for kids.
Artemis Fowl,on the other hand,is readable by both age groups.
Do you see what I´m trying to get at?
I see what you're getting at Brocolee but I think its a fair assumption that Pratchett also meant the books to be read by adults so its not unreasonable to comment on them from that perspective.
As you say there are some stories that appeal to both groups very well, I think what really disappoints me about Wintersmith is that Wee Free Men managed that so much better
As you say there are some stories that appeal to both groups very well, I think what really disappoints me about Wintersmith is that Wee Free Men managed that so much better
Well the clue's in the publishing specification surely - they're for young adults. Some would argue that this is in itself patronising, but the inference is there - the books may be written about children but it's for those on their way to maturity... That covers soooo much possibility it's untrue, no matter how old you are
However, WFM keeps getting a mention and just with how that starts with Jenny Greenteeth and the frying pan, Tiffany is not by any definition a 'young' girl. What would appeal to me if I were a 'young adult' still is that there's hardly a whiff of dumbing down in the series - its whole environment's gritty as befits a rural/farming community where the kids work their passage as much as the grown-ups as it would have been in compatible times in the crofts of Scotland say (or out in antipodes ) at the turn of the 19th century with travelling teachers and children brought up to help out in the dairies etc. In Wintersmith and the 2 previous books Tiffany's 'right' for the age she's depicted at if a little solemn and more serious than other children because of her inherited talents with her granny certainly making a huge impression throughout and the echoes of that run through all her books with Roland too in terms of legacy and continuity which are important to kids as they grow up in those close-knit communities. I think this is also why we like the Witches so much because they are the lynchpins of the Chalk and Ramtops communities and Tiffany's journey, clever and exceptional as she is, is still simply a part of the cycle.
However, WFM keeps getting a mention and just with how that starts with Jenny Greenteeth and the frying pan, Tiffany is not by any definition a 'young' girl. What would appeal to me if I were a 'young adult' still is that there's hardly a whiff of dumbing down in the series - its whole environment's gritty as befits a rural/farming community where the kids work their passage as much as the grown-ups as it would have been in compatible times in the crofts of Scotland say (or out in antipodes
) at the turn of the 19th century with travelling teachers and children brought up to help out in the dairies etc. In Wintersmith and the 2 previous books Tiffany's 'right' for the age she's depicted at if a little solemn and more serious than other children because of her inherited talents with her granny certainly making a huge impression throughout and the echoes of that run through all her books with Roland too in terms of legacy and continuity which are important to kids as they grow up in those close-knit communities. I think this is also why we like the Witches so much because they are the lynchpins of the Chalk and Ramtops communities and Tiffany's journey, clever and exceptional as she is, is still simply a part of the cycle. I'm not personally a fan of any of the Tiffany books. They seem to me to have more than a touch of "Niven syndrome", the increasingly laboured efforts to close out and link various characters who were not originally connected at all. They aren't as bad as the "Ringworld" series but definitely heading in that general direction.
Wee Mad Arthur and the Feegles - both quite good one-joke characters - are a case in point.
I'm disappointed with this, because the "mainstream" books - especially ones involving Ankh-Morpork - have numerous continuity errors or contradictions, or simple changes, which TP freely admitted were introduced for the sake of a better joke, or because his ideas had developed.
Death is the best example of this, with ideas like the endless desert being introduced simply because they seem like a good idea. Death's house varies considerably in detail from book to book, as does the character of Susan.
There's nothing wrong with this. Many authors have done the same. It's fairly obvious that Conan Doyle little idea of the actual layout of London, and a similar error occurs in "the missing threequarter" where Holmes walks between three Cambridgeshire villages in an afternoon, in fact a distance of about forty miles.
look at the various versions of Hitchikers' Guide
Wee Mad Arthur and the Feegles - both quite good one-joke characters - are a case in point.
I'm disappointed with this, because the "mainstream" books - especially ones involving Ankh-Morpork - have numerous continuity errors or contradictions, or simple changes, which TP freely admitted were introduced for the sake of a better joke, or because his ideas had developed.
Death is the best example of this, with ideas like the endless desert being introduced simply because they seem like a good idea. Death's house varies considerably in detail from book to book, as does the character of Susan.
There's nothing wrong with this. Many authors have done the same. It's fairly obvious that Conan Doyle little idea of the actual layout of London, and a similar error occurs in "the missing threequarter" where Holmes walks between three Cambridgeshire villages in an afternoon, in fact a distance of about forty miles.
look at the various versions of Hitchikers' Guide
