Terry Pratchett

[enderlord99]

He's such an awesome author that he should (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neustadt_International_Prize_for_Literature) be (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Fiction) given (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_for_Literature) at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Booker_International_Prize) least (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lannan_Literary_Awards) five different awards, on top of his existing knighthood and honorary doctorates.

Who agrees?

[tensai_oni]

No. His works are smart, witty and very enjoyable to read, and he is obviously a great writer.

But what impact did his books have on the world and society, other than being fun, enjoyable literature? Which of his books are so deep and profound that they are worthy of a Nobel prize?

Just because you like an author a lot (and I really like Pratchett's books as well), doesn't mean we should suddenly shower him with every single prize there is.

[Tanuki Tales]

This thread nearly gave me a heart attack. I thought something bad had happened... :smallfrown:

[Brother Oni]

The man forged a sword out of star metal that he got to keep. That's all the award that anybody really needs.


This thread nearly gave me a heart attack. I thought something bad had happened... :smallfrown:

At the rate of which childhood heroes seems to be dropping off, it won't be too long I'm afraid.

That said, I remember he was saying something about fan letters from terminally ill people hoping that the real Death would resemble the Discworld Death (these sort of letters made him stare quietly at a wall for while).

[Hopeless]

This thread nearly gave me a heart attack. I thought something bad had happened... :smallfrown:

Exactly same thoughts crossed my mind when I saw this thread!:smalleek:

[Jordan Cat]

I've actually yet to read any of his books. I need to find some Discworld books at my local library sometime.

[Coidzor]

I've actually yet to read any of his books. I need to find some Discworld books at my local library sometime.

I always recommend starting off with Guards! Guards! myself

[Jordan Cat]

I always recommend starting off with Guards! Guards! myself

Oh, is there a reason not to start with the first one The Colour of Magic?

[Eldan]

In Pratchett's first books, he's still trying to find the right tone for Discworld, it seems. The Colour of Magic, especially, is more a weird parody of the Sword and Sorcery genre, especially Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and Conan than a story that can stand on its own very well. It's not bad, certainly, but Pratchett suddenly gets a lot better a few books later when he's writing just a bit less parody and a bit more his own story.

[Jordan Cat]

Oh good. To be honest I wasn't much interested in reading a parody but everyone has said good things about Discworld so I wanted to try it :)

[Manga Shoggoth]

Oh good. To be honest I wasn't much interested in reading a parody but everyone has said good things about Discworld so I wanted to try it :)

The borderline is somewhere within the first 3 - 5 books (there is much arguement where the boundry lies).

The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic are still in the area of parody. Equal Rites and Soucery are where he is moving from straight parody to writing stories, but with a background of parody.

Roughly speaking, anything from Weird Sisters onwards is good. There are still stories that are refer to various things (Weird Sisters is hilarious if you know your Shakespeare), but he is clearly no longer doing straight parody.

[Kato]

By sheer random happenstance I started with (the German translation of) Pyramids and found it a very good starting point also because it is very much standalone. But I guess most books are a good point to start.

Though, of course not disregarding the Discworld series, I always feel I need to remind people he has not only written those but also a few others books... While the tone between them varies a lot I still like them as well as most Discworld books.

btw, could the OP please write Pterry's name in the title correctly...

[Jordan Cat]

By sheer random happenstance I started with (the German translation of) Pyramids and found it a very good starting point also because it is very much standalone. But I guess most books are a good point to start.

Though, of course not disregarding the Discworld series, I always feel I need to remind people he has not only written those but also a few others books... While the tone between them varies a lot I still like them as well as most Discworld books.

btw, could the OP please write Pterry's name in the title correctly...

Which of his other books would you recommend?

[Kato]

Which of his other books would you recommend?

It really comes down to your personal taste...

There are two SciFi ooks which are... they very much reminded me of Adams' Hitchhiker series, though a bit more sane. Strata is by some considered a Discworld prequel because.. well, it taks place on a flat earth but is otherwise very different dealing with aliens in the middle ages where magic is mostly explained by technology. Dark side of the Sun is a SciFi comedy-ish story with just an interesting world build around it of which we get a few glimpses.


I have to admit I only read the first book of the Johnny Maxwell trilogy (and back in school and in German at that) and I feel not very qualified to still give a good judgement. For a children book I think it was quite strong but I'm not sure if it would still hold up.

The Carpet People stories are about tiny people who live around humans, a bit like a mice society in a few other books. It's been a while as well but I think this would still hold up rather nicely. I think it's a trilogy as well.

Oh, I nearly forgot about Nation. Also, children book, but I like it a lot. It is kind of the castaway meets tribespeople story but done in a very good way, also with a focus on religion and tradition. Possibly stronger than most Discworld books even.

Uhm... there is the new Long Earth/Long War series with Stephen Baxter. The first book asn't bad but I personally really have a problem if a book can't stand well on it's own merely because it is part of a series and that is kind of true with this one... It doesn't have a clear resolution at the end and that really bugs me. It's a good book, otherwise, I guess.

And, of course, there is Good Omens, his collaboration with Neil Gaiman which may be one of the best possible uses for paper in the whole world. :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Good Omens is fantastic. A short summary could be:

A devil who is not very fallen and an angel who isn't very good team up to stop the apocalypse because they like Earth so much.

[Aotrs Commander]

I will second the statement to start a few books in.

It's worth noting that there are a few sets of characters that tend to be the protagnoists (though there's quite a few which are stand alone), and there's really no overarching story (unless you count the steady increase of magical technology equivilents as time marches on - Discworld is one of those vanishingly rare occasions where technology moves as it should), so you can more or less start anywhere. (My first was Men at Arms, which is the second story about the guards, but it didn't matter.)

So you can more or less pick up any book.

Though I'd say Guards, guards (the guards are my favourite) or the first Witches one (Witches Abroad, I think) or Mort (which is really where Death starts to get his own stories.) You can go back to the first two later (and if you get to, say, Interesting Times, which is about the characters from those books).

[Korgor]

I'm glad someone has finally put into words my thoughts on CoM - this will make it much easier to explain, now!

I actually got myself a working knowledge of the whole thing by reading - dare I say - the graphic novel of Colour of Magic first. Then I read the Light Fantastic as a book, which was a bit confusing as not everything is explained in the GN... anyway! I then read Reaper Man, which made everything ok, so I have to recommend that as a starting point. Small Gods is another favourite of mine, I'll second whatever anyone says that's positive about the Guards books (Men at Arms is perhaps the best of the lot). But for me, you should really hold off reading ones like The Truth and Going Postal... because for me that's Pratchett at his Apex, and comparisons from there might not be as favourable as otherwise...

[Manga Shoggoth]

The Carpet People stories are about tiny people who live around humans, a bit like a mice society in a few other books. It's been a while as well but I think this would still hold up rather nicely. I think it's a trilogy as well.

The Carpet People is a standalone book about ting creatures living in a carpet. The trilogy is The Bromiliad (aka Truckers, Diggers and Wings), stories about a tribe of nomes (rather like the Borrowers) who live in a department store, but have to escape when it is demolished.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

I also enjoyed the Bromeliad Trilogy, especially the first book.

As for the Discworld books, I suggest starting with Guards, Guards as well. Sam Vimes is a great character, as are Carrot, Fred Colon and Nobby Nobs.

The Wyrd Sisters introduces the other two witches of Granny Weatherwax's coven of maiden, mother, crone. I liked Equal Rites quite a bit, and it seems to be the best "transition" book between satire and Pratchett's later books.

Pyramids is one of those "You love it or you hate it" books. While other folks seemed to think it was one of Pratchett's greatest works, I had to struggle to finish it. OTOH, Small Gods rocked out loud to me! Your Mileage May Vary.

[The Troubadour]

Which of his books are so deep and profound that they are worthy of a Nobel prize?

I'd say "Reaper Man", "Hogfather" or "Night Watch". Possibly "Men at Arms".

[theangelJean]

For those not knowing where to start, someone posted this Discworld Reading Order Guide not long ago....

(This is a pictorial chart. It is spoilered for size.)

http://www.lspace.org/books/reading-order-guides/the-discworld-reading-order-guide-20.jpg

From lspace.org (http://www.lspace.org). I notice people in this thread have already mentioned Guards! Guards!, Equal Rites and Pyramids, but the recommendation I have seen most often for starting out is Mort. According to this chart, each of the above is the beginning of a run of books with a similar theme, although they all work well as standalone novels.

That said, you don't have to read the beginning of a run of novels. I was introduced to Soul Music first, then read them all in the order of "whatever I could get my hands on". It was fine.

Enjoy!

[smuchmuch]

This thread nearly gave me a heart attack. I thought something bad had happened... :smallfrown:

(Well i do believe he does have a declared of alzheimer disease,
It's only a matter of time anyway I'm afraid.)

i alway found Reaper man to be underrated. Wyrd sisters is brilliant

I think pretty much everything between Equal rites up to interesting time was good and fresh..
(After that he's seriously starting to repeat himself in basic plot structures and themes,, It's not bad far from it, but reading men at arms then Feet of clay, I had a certain feeling of deja vu, same with Lord and ladies then Carpe jugulum and Going Postal then making money and so on, so i wouldn't recomend starting with any of those.
And he's really getting way too preachy since Going postal. Love or hate it I suppose

[BWR]

The wizards, with the exception of "Unseen Academicals" have always been my favorite, especially Rincewind. "Interesting Times", "Small Gods", "Reaper Man" and "The Light Fantastic" are favorites of mine.

Personally, I preferred earlier Discworld to later stuff. It's always been Pratchett's soapbox but I liked the less explored Disc, with more stuff thrown in just for laughs, rather than the more serious and, well, preachy stuff that came later.
"Nation" is the best book he's written since before "Carpe jugulum".
Don't get me wrong, everything up to "UA" was good, but from there on it's gone seriously downhill.

[hamishspence]

I would say even the "preachy stuff" has a fair amount of the traditional Pratchett humour.

Conversely, even early stuff like Small Gods dealt with serious themes.

[Goosefeather]

For me, Night Watch is the absolute pinnacle of his work - but you need to have read the previous Watch books to truly appreciate it.

My first Discworld novel (I had already read Carpet People) was Men at Arms, after which I greedily devoured everything my local library carried by him, though in no particular order. It's in no way essential to read the books sequentially, but it does help in following the gradual character development of some of the major protagonists (particularly Vimes and Death, IMO).

That said, I'd recommend starting with one of the early-ish-but-not-very-first novels, as people have suggested above, while not worrying overly about which.

[tensai_oni]

For those not knowing where to start, someone posted this Discworld Reading Order Guide not long ago....


I don't like this chart. It assumes that you need to read in chronological order and have to know all books that happened earlier in a certain Discworld "sub-series".
This assumption is very incorrect since as many people pointed in this thread already, the early books were not that good, or at least not very Discworld-y. Equal Rites does not read like a Witches book, and its Granny Weatherwax is so different than the Wyrd Sisters' one she's practically a different character. Same with Mort, only with Death in place of Granny and the Reaperman in place of Wyrd Sisters. Rincewind-centric books... actually, most of them belong to the "old" Discworld. I guess him passing the torch to other protagonists is a sign of new, better times.


I would say even the "preachy stuff" has a fair amount of the traditional Pratchett humour.

Conversely, even early stuff like Small Gods dealt with serious themes.

Preachiness is not about themes, but how you write about them. Small Gods tackled some very serious things, but did that subtly. The message escalated from being only hinted at in the beginning to revealing itself as plot progressed, as it should be. New Pratchett books like Unseen Academicals, Nation or Snuff (ugh, especially that one)? "X good, Y bad, how dare you" - that's how subtle their message is. You are being hammared with it constantly since page one, it gets really annoying fast, and using cheap emotional blackmail (once again, Snuff, UGH) doesn't help.


I'd say "Reaper Man", "Hogfather" or "Night Watch". Possibly "Men at Arms".

Let me sum up the plots and themes of these books for you. Spoilers in case people didn't read them.

Reaper Man - person of authority dethroned, lives among the common people and learns to love them. Supermarkets are a supernatural Cthulhuesque horror.

Hogfather - critique of holiday-based consumptionism, also fluffy sanitized holidays of today have much darker origins.

Night Watch - Vimes is Badass and Awesome, the book.

Men at Arms - police procedural in a multi-racial fantasy world. Guns are BAAAD.

None of these messages, if there even was a message (Night Watch is just Vimes doing awesome things for the whole story, which on one hand works because good writing, but on the other it laid foundations for Snuff) is anything original. There is no deeper meaning here, it has all been done before dozens of times. Pratchett's stories are smart, witty, well-written. But they are not life-changing. The closest one to that definition is Small Gods, but once again: the subject of religion was tackled dozens if not hundreds of times already, in books both fiction and factual.

[Aotrs Commander]

For me, Night Watch is the absolute pinnacle of his work - but you need to have read the previous Watch books to truly appreciate it.

Oddly, I didn't think that was one of his better ones at all. I think his real nadir was Monstrous Regiment, personally, and that his more recent books have been much better again (Unseen Academicals - and I don't even like football and Thud!)

The thing about Pratchett is his work appeals to such a wide base of people so everyone has their own personal favourites!

[The Troubadour]

The first Discworld book I ever read was "Soul Music". Before that, I only had a passing familiarity with the setting. I loved it; it's still one of my favourites. And I didn't need prior knowledge of any other Disc novel, although reading "Reaper Man" and "Mort" and then re-reading "Soul Music" did enhance the experience.


Let me sum up the plots and themes of these books for you. Spoilers in case people didn't read them.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be focusing solely on the surface of those works. Let me try and sum them up (also spoilered, for those who haven't read):

Reaper Man - Don't fear the reaper, just enjoy life. I know, so simple that it seems trite, but the writing sells it.

Hogfather - Fantasy is a fundamental part of human experience. Indeed, without fantasy, we'd arguably not be human.

Night Watch - It's easy to turn a blind eye to things out of fear, or simply because it's happening to other people, not you; but that doesn't excuse it. One person can make a difference, and people together can change things.

Men at Arms - Guns, as tools with the sole purpose of harming and killing people, are bad. Also, the thin line between how much a king/hero is needed and how much people depend on the king/hero.


The closest one to that definition is Small Gods, but once again: the subject of religion was tackled dozens if not hundreds of times already, in books both fiction and factual.

I think you'll find that most stories have been tackled hundreds of times already, over the course of human existence. But HOW you tell the story is just as important as WHAT story you tell.

[Tanuki Tales]

My first Discworld novel was Hogfather, but my absolute favorite had to be Reaper Man. I actually did my High school Senior Year project on the symbolism and character analysis of the story and got an A+.

The only one I disliked was Equal Rites. I couldn't even finish it because the Granny Weatherwax in there, as mentioned, was nothing like she later is.


And I know that Terry has Alzheimer's, I was just afraid he took a turn for the worse or finally made some headway on his assisted suicide campaign.

[Calemyr]

First thing you need to know about Discworld? Everything is a parody, everything is a satire. Sometimes its particular stories (Masquerade is almost a straight send-up of Phantom of the Opera), sometimes it's concepts (the line between human and vermin, for instance, or economics), or even the concept of stories. The more you think about a Discworld story, any story, the more amusing it becomes, because it's usually so well thought out.

The books don't need to be read in order, but character arcs probably should be.

Rincewind: Probably the weakest arc character, Rincewind has only two notes - "I'm a shameless coward (and darn proud of it)" and "I'm the only one sane enough to be a coward". His craven pragmatism and reluctant heroism can be entertaining, but his story really never goes anywhere. It's not that Rincewind never learns, it's that he never changes - events only act to cement his beliefs, never challenging them. He may be the first arc to start, but don't start with him - he will give you the wrong impression of the Disc.

* Color of Magic/Light Fantastic
* Sourcery (Shared with the Wizards)
* Faust Eric
* Interesting Times
* The Last Coninent
* The Last Hero (picture book, never read it).

Death: Death's household is possibly the most fascinating arc group in the series. Death is a good man who does a very important job that is for the good of everyone, especially those who fear and hate him most. Watching someone so completely inhuman be so fascinated with humanity is quite heartwarming - and fairly heartrending. Just remember that he is bound to his duty: "There is no Justice, there is Just Me."

* Mort
* Reaper Man (Shared with the Wizards)
* Soul Music
* Hogfather
* Thief of Time

The Watch: Widely (and I think fairly) regarded as one of the finest arc groups, Samuel Vimes and the Ankh-Morpork City Watch are extremely good, albeit a little formulaic. Watch books are similar to your basic cop drama - political intrigue leads to murder leads to mystery leads to investigation leads to Samuel Vimes being awesome. Far more of an ensemble than other arc groups, the Watch includes an ever expanding cast of excellent characters, which continues to include Corporal Nobby and Sergeant Colon, much to the confusion of everyone who isn't Sam Vimes.

* Guards! Guards!
* Men at Arms
* Feet of Clay
* Jingo
* The Fifth Elephant
* Night Watch (Ties in loosely with Death's Thief of Time)
* Thud
* Snuff

The Witches of Lancre: Dragon Ball Z with the satire amped up over some arbitrary number. Granny Weatherwax might as well be Goku. Her power, despite often being questioned, is unrivaled and it is she that generally solves the problem in the end, despite her circle of very talented and powerful allies. That said, how Granny saves the day is often the most brilliant bit in the book, and the Lancre books are some of the most brilliantly written books in the series. If you can look past the fact that this is The Granny Hour with Appearances by Supporting Witches, there is a lot of gold here, including a scene with Nanny Ogg clubbing an obvious Gollum parody with an oar in Witches Abroad.

* Equal Rites (Shared with the Wizards)
* Wyrd Sisters
* Witches Abroad
* Lords and Ladies
* Masquerade
* Carpe Jugulum

Ankh-Morpork Regulars: This short arc involves things the various new innovations in the city, and the war visionaries have to wage against an establishment with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The characters are great, the background shows immense research was done, the antagonists are interesting, and Ankh-Morpork's unique sensibilities are always fun to watch. That said, David vs Goliath stories tend to be a bit of a let down, because it's easy to feel cheated when the unassailable falls to a well placed rock (or pie). Moist von Lipwig is a particular treat to watch, because of how clearly he enjoys dancing on the razor's edge. Since they are situated in Ankh-Morpork, they tie in fairly closely with the Watch series.

* The Truth
* Going Postal
* Making Money

The Wizards: The wizards could be viewed as part of the Rincewind arc, only with an ensemble cast. Eventually Rincewind joins the Wizards arc, but as a face in the crowd rather than the main character. The wizards only really carry Unseen Academicals on their own, otherwise they tend to be secondary cast or side story material in various books. Ridcully is awesome, however.

* Equal Rites (Shared with the Witches)
* Sourcery (Shared with Rincewind)
* Reaper Man (Shared with Death, also the first book with a set cast of wizards)
* Moving Pictures
* Unseen Academicals

One Offs: These books do not belong to any arc, although they touch on established groups.
* Small Gods
* Pyramids
* Monstrous Regiment

[An Enemy Spy]

The first Discworld book I read was Going Postal, but at the time I didn't realize it was part of such a big series.
A few years later, I discovered The Color of Magic and I've since read every book in the series. For me at least, the moment where Discworld stops being a good series and starts being a great series is Small Gods.

My favorite books in the series are in no particular order:
Small Gods
Reaper Man
Men at Arms
Night Watch
Monstrous Regiment
Interesting Times
Lords and Ladies
Thud!

[Eldan]

* The Last Hero (picture book, never read it).


READ. THE. LAST. HERO.

I wouldn't call it a "Picture Book", really. It's a heavily illustrated novel. A very good novel, one of my two or three favourites. The ending is just wonderful.
It also has some truly beautiful art, especially if you can get the large format version, which has more pictures.

In essence, it's late Pratchett deciding to go back and doing some of his earlier style again. It features Carrot, Leonard de Quirm and Rincewind teaming up against Cohen the Barbarian. It may also just be the one book that proves Rincewind's cowardice just a bit wrong, by contrasting him with Carrot.

I keep thinking. If there had even been a book Terry Pratchett should have written as "the last Discworld book", it should have been this one. I can't really say why, without spoiling too much.

[hamishspence]

There's a moment in Unseen Academicals which harks back to Sourcery- reminding us that Rincewind is still capable of doing what needs doing- even if it turns out he didn't end up having to do it this time round.

[Manga Shoggoth]

READ. THE. LAST. HERO.

I wouldn't call it a "Picture Book", really. It's a heavily illustrated novel. A very good novel, one of my two or three favourites. The ending is just wonderful.
It also has some truly beautiful art, especially if you can get the large format version, which has more pictures. .

Likewise FaustEric - the first of the two illustrated books.

Of the two, the Last Hero is better because the illustrations themselves pile in with the jokes. In Eric, they are more straight illustrations.

[hamishspence]

While they're aimed at a slightly younger age group- I find The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents, and the Tiffany Aching books, good. The last (I Shall Wear Midnight) could be said to be a "standard age" Discworld book.

[Calemyr]

There's a moment in Unseen Academicals which harks back to Sourcery- reminding us that Rincewind is still capable of doing what needs doing- even if it turns out he didn't end up having to do it this time round.

Yep. Two wizards start having an argument, but are calmed down. Only then does anyone notice Rincewind nonchalantly trying to put his sock back on.

[The Troubadour]

* The Last Hero (picture book, never read it).

I think it's wonderful, but its real protagonist isn't Rincewind, but Cohen the Barbarian.
Or maybe the story as a whole is the protagonist.


I keep thinking. If there had even been a book Terry Pratchett should have written as "the last Discworld book", it should have been this one. I can't really say why, without spoiling too much.

I had never thought about it, but I completely agree.

[Eldan]

So, thinking about it. If someone were to read chronologically, I'd recommend this:

Start with Mort, read through Thief of Time, skip Last Hero, read through to either Wintersmith or Making Money. At some point before Interesting Times, read The Colour of Magic and The Light Fanastic. If you are a fan of football, read Unseen Academicals, if not, skip. Try to find the Discworld short stories, though they are optional. Read I Shall Wear Midnight. End with Last Hero.

Snuff is really not worth it.

[Tanuki Tales]

Snuff is really not worth it.

It's worth more than Equal Rites.

[Eldan]

Which I also didn't include.

Plus, Equal Rites just wasn't very good.
Snuff got close to turning me off Vimes.

[Aotrs Commander]

READ. THE. LAST. HERO.

That's my Dad's favourite, alongside Thief of Time.

It was pretty damn good, to say the least...


It's worth more than Equal Rites.

I agree. I thought after the absolute nadir of Monstrous Regiment, they were steadily getting back to form again, personally.

[Tanuki Tales]

Which I also didn't include.

Sorry, I misread what you were saying by "reading through" as in reading through all the books published up to a specific book.


Plus, Equal Rites just wasn't very good.
Snuff got close to turning me off Vimes.


What didn't you like about Snuff, out of curiosity?

[CoffeeIncluded]

READ. THE. LAST. HERO.

I wouldn't call it a "Picture Book", really. It's a heavily illustrated novel. A very good novel, one of my two or three favourites. The ending is just wonderful.
It also has some truly beautiful art, especially if you can get the large format version, which has more pictures.

I found the large version in my college bookstore! Seriously, read it! And honestly, the ending with the barbarians (you know the part) is one of the funniest things I've every read, just from the absurd visual it offers.


What didn't you like about Snuff, out of curiosity?

Personally, I didn't like Snuff because...The ending was too neat. Everything was too happy. There was none of that moral ambiguity at the end, he made the changes happen too quickly instead of making the change occur over the long arc like in every other book. The anvil was dropped too ham-handedly in my opinion, and all the characters were just a touch out of character. It was still a good book, but it felt like...like a slightly warped version, you know?

That said, there was one excellent scene, about assimilation versus maintaining one's own racial/cultural identity: "We all turn to human."

Also, I nearly had a heart attack too.

[Pokonic]

On the topic of books, I found Small Gods to be wonderful as a whole.

[Eldan]

Snuff, I don't know. It was a while ago that I read it and I don't remember too many specifics. Just too many things that nagged me.

Some previously more or less well-rounded characters seemed reduced to stupid stereotypes. Like the Patrician's secretary Drumknott and his obsession with stealing from the office. Or Willikin's insane violence.

Neither bad guy, thug or noble, really stayed in my mind. They weren't all that remarkable.

Overall, I just think that not enough happened for it to be interesting.

Edit: Also, what Coffee said. Too neat. We've had bad guys just being bad before (Carcer), but now we also have goody good guys and an ending that just wraps everything up with flowers and sunshine.

Not sure whta people have against Monstrous Regiment, really. I thought it was pretty damn good.

I think the books stayed on a high note until making Money, which dropped to "merely decent, for a Discworld book" (so still good) to sort of forgetable, not much new to say and not very interesting (Unseen Academicals, I Shall Wear Midnight) and then suddenly baaaaad (Snuff).

[Aotrs Commander]

Mind you, something you have to bear in mind with me is that I'm not that fond of Vimes. I don't dislike him or anything, far from it, but I think he's probably the least entertaining of the motely crew of the guards. The reason, I think, I didn't especially like Night Watch was it was mostly just about Vimes and I also just didn't find it very funny. (And yes, the ability it make me laugh is a critical part of my value-judgements on anything. Most of the other guards made me crack up out loud the first few times reading them.)

(My favourite is probably Jingo, because of the sheer brilliance of Nobby, Colon, Leonard de Quirm and the Patrician off together.)

[Eldan]

I'll agree that Night Watch is probably the least funny Discworld book. Probably also the darkest. I still enjoyed it.

[Tanuki Tales]

Well, I read through Snuff when my mother was in the hospital on Thanksgiving...so...I might have had a warped opinion on it compared to my normal dissection of each novel.

[tensai_oni]

Why Snuff is bad:

-Vimes is too powerful. He was a badass before, but he fought worthy opponents, like Carcer. No such people in this book. He easily outsmarts everyone, and even if they think they have the upper hand - surprise, he saw through that too and actually Vimes has the upper hand! Also, the Darkness within him used to be a threat, something that he can slip into if he's not careful. In Snuff, it's a deus ex machina to grant him new powers as plot convenient.
-All landed gentry is portrayed as evil, or useless and annoying at best. This is simplistic, and frankly insulting. We used to have both good and bad artistocrats in previous books, but not in Snuff. Now all blue bloods are arrogant jerks, and the common folk are (except the villains) honest salt of the earth.
-Pratchett hammers too heavily how poor and oppressed the goblins are, to a cartoonish extent. Each time we have a scene that shows how noble, self-sacrificing but suffering they are, I feel like I want to throw up from accumulated glurge. And then there are all the elements that portray them as actually having beautiful souls on the inside to the extent that normal humans cannot even reach...
-Speaking of which, the ending is too convenient. Lady Ramkin organizes one goblin recital and suddenly everyone agrees that they should be treated like civilized beings? Smells like bad writing and SPESHULNESS.
-The plot with the jar Colon and Nobby find is pointless and goes nowhere.


And yet, I was able to finish this book, but not Monstrous Regiment. Monstrous Regiment was so bad I quit halfway and have no intention of continuing any time soon. Here's why:
-The main character is a total Sue. She beats experienced soldiers in combat despite having very little sword practice because she is a newbie and unpredictable? Bullcrap.
-The book isn't funny or witty. It has exactly one kind of joke: "lol crossdressing". That's it.
-All-new cast, with old characters making only minor cameos. It wouldn't be a problem if the rest of the book was good, but since it isn't then it only furthers the problem.
-The way organized religion and gender roles are shown in this book is exaggerated to the point of straining credibility, stereotypical in a bad way, and overall previous books did it better. I'm being vague on purpose because board rules.

[Aotrs Commander]

I'll agree that Night Watch is probably the least funny Discworld book. Probably also the darkest.

Which is exactly why I wasn't very struck with it.


And yet, I was able to finish this book, but not Monstrous Regiment. Monstrous Regiment was so bad I quit halfway and have no intention of continuing any time soon. Here's why:
-The main character is a total Sue. She beats experienced soldiers in combat despite having very little sword practice because she is a newbie and unpredictable? Bullcrap.
-The book isn't funny or witty. It has exactly one kind of joke: "lol crossdressing". That's it.
-All-new cast, with old characters making only minor cameos. It wouldn't be a problem if the rest of the book was good, but since it isn't then it only furthers the problem.
-The way organized religion and gender roles are shown in this book is exaggerated to the point of straining credibility, stereotypical in a bad way, and overall previous books did it better. I'm being vague on purpose because board rules.

I finsihed it, but I was on jury duty at the time (waiting to be assigned a case) so I had nothing better to be doing!

But yeah, you pretty much hit on all the points why I didn't like it - the second one especially. There are times that can be funny (Jingo, for instance, or pantomime) - MR was not one of them.

[Eldan]

And yet, I was able to finish this book, but not Monstrous Regiment. Monstrous Regiment was so bad I quit halfway and have no intention of continuing any time soon. Here's why:
-The main character is a total Sue. She beats experienced soldiers in combat despite having very little sword practice because she is a newbie and unpredictable? Bullcrap.
-The book isn't funny or witty. It has exactly one kind of joke: "lol crossdressing". That's it.
-All-new cast, with old characters making only minor cameos. It wouldn't be a problem if the rest of the book was good, but since it isn't then it only furthers the problem.
-The way organized religion and gender roles are shown in this book is exaggerated to the point of straining credibility, stereotypical in a bad way, and overall previous books did it better. I'm being vague on purpose because board rules.

Huh. I did not get any of those.

Yeah, Polly is perhaps a little too good. But fighting?
Can't think of a single swordfight she wins, but then, I haven't read it in a while. She knees someone in the groin when they don't take her seriously. She menaces a few people with her blade. She is, I think, in a few skirmishes, but she has a vampire, a troll and a Jackrum with her.
Also, she has years of informal training.

Crossdressing jokes? I thought it treated it as a pretty damn serious matter, actually. For most of hte book, at least, until Blouse infiltrates the castle. There weren't ever any jokes about Polly crossdressing, where there? For her, it was deadly serious
The book didn't have very many jokes at all, in general. There were a handful on Blouse's lack of field experience, very few on his crossdressing and Maladict's Vietnam flashbacks. But a very low joke ratio for a discworld book.

Gender roles: can't comment on that. I mean, I do have my opinions, but earlier discussions have shown me that I'm apparently completely and absolutely blind to gender issues and wouldn't be aware of them when someone hit me over the head with them.


The cross dressing is only a major aspect in a few scenes. Mostly in the ending. Apart from that, it's a book about a small group of inexperienced recruits under the leadership of two very competent officers turning a war around through guerilla fighting and trickery.

[The Troubadour]

I have to agree, I was disappointed with "Snuff", too.

My main complaint is that there was no dramatic tension at all. Even in "Night Watch", when Vimes was also being generally awesome, there was still tension because of Carcer's presence, and because Vimes was clearly almost buckling under the stress of the whole situation. In "Snuff", he's so good it comes off as boring, not awesome.
As for the racial prejudice theme, I agree that it was treated in a ham-handed manner; "Jingo" and "Thud!" did the same thing with much more grace.
I missed the other Watch members. I've actually been getting a bit tired of Vimes ever since "The Fifth Elephant". Plus, my favourite's always been Carrot, and he barely even showed up in "Snuff".

[enderlord99]

So, what I'm getting from the complaints about Snuff is that every book must end on a sad note, or it automatically sucks.:smallconfused:

[tyckspoon]

My main problem with Snuff is I feel Vimes pretty much finished his character arc between Night Watch and Thud! Putting him in the lead of another book after that was.. well, you know all those Wolverine movies and comic books and comic-book crossovers that get made for no other reason than "People like Wolverine, right? So this'll sell, right?" Kinda like that. Snuff didn't *need* Vimes to carry the story; in fact, I think it would have worked better with a less-sympathetic protagonist to start into the goblins-are-people-too thing.

[Forum Explorer]

I didn't mind Snuff. But I don't think it really needed Vimes in it either. It gave the feeling of one last hurrah for Vimes cause his story has been completely played out. Like Rincewind really. Both shall now forever be background characters at best.

But Snuff did seriously have it's weaknesses, like the soul jar in the cigar never being explained. The almost total lack of the other guards in a meaningful way. And rehashing of Vimes training guards (we've seen that a couple times now).

[Kato]

Plus, Equal Rites just wasn't very good.



I agree. I thought after the absolute nadir of Monstrous Regiment, they were steadily getting back to form again, personally.

You know, if I was a different kind of person I'd say there's a theme here :smalltongue:
I'm not quite sure how true it is but there's a story of how when ER got published and Pratchett was still mostly a no-name author feminists were crazy about it because it was such a good "girls can do men stuff too" story and Terry can easily be a girl's name as well, so they thought Pratchett was a woman...

I liked them both. Though it has been a while for both of them.

I also have to agree the most recent three were kind of weak... Mostly not really bad (Midnight did have an overall decent plot but the ending felt lacking to me) but below Pratchett standards.

[Aotrs Commander]

You know, if I was a different kind of person I'd say there's a theme here :smalltongue:
I'm not quite sure how true it is but there's a story of how when ER got published and Pratchett was still mostly a no-name author feminists were crazy about it because it was such a good "girls can do men stuff too" story and Terry can easily be a girl's name as well, so they thought Pratchett was a woman...

I liked them both. Though it has been a while for both of them.

I also have to agree the most recent three were kind of weak... Mostly not really bad (Midnight did have an overall decent plot but the ending felt lacking to me) but below Pratchett standards.

Your implication also ignores the all the later witches books, and long with all of Susan's stuff and Corporal Angua, for that matter...



Equal Rites wasn't very good because it was one of Pratchett's earlier books and it therefore just hadn't quite hit the stride, not because of it's subject matter (as I recall - and I've only read it the once about fifteen years ago, so I could be recalling wrong - Granny Weatherwax was the only one of the witches in it, and again, I think she's less entertaining than her supporting cast) I wasn't very struck with the slightly later Mort or Sourcery either. And it was still certainly better than Monstrous Regiment.

Monstrous Regiment was just bad on several levels. It was a message that didn't need to be hammered in and had already been done in far better and more subtle ways (via the Dwarves, for one) and managed to be unfunny, boring, cliched and a little bit preachy. And I hate preachy with the white-old fire of a million frozen stars in my entertainment, regardless of what message it's trying to get across.

There are good ways to do the "girls can do men stuff too" (and one of them is just not to make a deal out of it, see, for example FiM or Stargate SG-1 (after those first couple of episodes)) - Monstrous Regiment was not one of them.

And like I said: they'd even already done the panto-dame-style crossdressing gag and subverted the hell out of it with Nobby in Jingo, so playing it unsubverted there was not only repeating the joke but not even being as customarily clever with it.

[Eldan]

Strange. I'm still really wondernig where people get the preachy and crossdressing parts from in Monstrous Regiment. I didn't see either. Again, for me, the Crossdressing part was a small detail compared to the "Unexperienced Recruits make a difference" part. Which I liked, it was well done. I especially liked the parts on espionage and semaphore messaging in that regard.
For me, it was more about camaraderie, faith, social causes of war and nationalism, all wrapped up in a nice story about underdogs in a war.
Not cross-dressing. For cross-dressing gags you want, as you said, Jingo. Where he actually makes jokes about it. Here, the cross-dressing just happens to get the story started, nothing else.


So, what I'm getting from the complaints about Snuff is that every book must end on a sad note, or it automatically sucks.:smallconfused:

Not really, no. The problem is that, well. Most of Pratchett's later books have some complexity to them. This one doesn't. The Goblins are almost unbearably good, the villains are cartoonishly evil and the ending is not just good. It's too good. Everything resolves too nicely. One man violently kicking ass solves all the local social problems.
And then Vimes. I'll agree with others that his arc was really more or less done. He had moved from alcoholic reject to detective to competent commander to reluctant nobleman to devoted family father. Snuff does nothing new with him. And he's too competent for the story he's in. A good story needs tension. But Vimes plows through the book like a bulldozer through butter.

[SuperPanda]

On the Snuff conversation:

The stuff about landed nobles:

Unless this is your first time to a Discworld book I'm a bit surprised this got on your nerves. You can count on one hand the number of Human landed nobles who are decent people across all of the discworld books (and the number doesn't get much bigger when you include non-humans either). Vetenari (who was not high born but worked his way up), Lady Ramkin (who much prefers Sam's way of doing things), The Low King (who was elected), Mr. Shine (who doesn't want to rule), Carrot (who doesn't want to rule), William DeWorde (who rejected his family), The nice prince of Klatch (who his brother tried to kill), King Verence (who didn't grow up noble), Lady Margolette (And she was playing her own games), the Mayor of Bad Blitzn (who doesn't show up till the end of the book), the Lad from Pyramids (the assassin turned Pharo). Angua (who renounced her name).

The general trend is: If the person got their station by accomplishing something they are good. If they got their station through heredity and rejected the old ways to go do something they are still probably good or they are Sybil and truely good.

Contrasting these we have Lord Winder, Lord Snapcase, the Deep Downer dwarfs, Nearly all the Grags, Lord Rust, (all of Lady Ramkin's friend's when they talk about "those people), Lord DeWorde, Eduard D'Earth, Dr. Cruces, The country-side nobles. All of the leaders of Borogavaria, all of the leaders of the Church of Om (especially Vorbis), Lord Fang (and all the other nobles of the counterweight continent). Lord Rust again (because anyone that thick gets mentioned twice) The werewolves (Okay, Baron von Uberwald was more of a dog than a villain, but wolfgang easily qualifies)

The general trend is: the nobility are a spiteful, stupid, and arrogant lot who are apt to destroy the world. If they are doing it on purpose then they will be evil and enjoy making "lessers" suffer. If they have good intentions then they will be so incompotent that the only way to achieve anything is to get them drunk and do work when they aren't looking (see Lord Rust again).

I'd like to note, I find Rust a hilarious foil for Vimes. He's still annoying.

Less specifically about the representations of nobility and more about Snuff in general:


Snuff doesn't handle this any better/worse than the other books do. I found Snuff to be rushes and incomplete, for some of the reasons you mentioned. What the book is obviously aiming at is how the "new" and industrialized culture of the city centers takes a long time to get to the commons and the country. At the time Guard's Gaurd's is set the treatment of the Goblins in the country wouldn't have been too surprising if it was happening to Dwarves and Trolls in the city. Thats a very short time for the radical changes in the idea of what defines a person. The country is insulated from that. So our P.O.V. characters naturally see the Goblins as people and the "This is wrong" hammer comes on strong because for people who see the world as they do now, it is just that wrong. I read it as driving vimes all the harder because there was a time when he (and Fred and Nobby) weren't that different and now they feel shame that they'd been part of that.

This is rushed though. We don't get to see it develop, but then there isn't any real delicate commentary to make about the enslavement and brutal treatment of other sentient beings. If Pratchett had made a story about Goblins that actually were not sentient, where they were pack animals.... the treatment is still harsh and cruel for no good reason. In the Lancre and Aching novels people love their animals.

The city has learned that many old ideas were wrong already, its much easier to convince people in the city to accept Goblins are people too after they've found a place for Trolls, Dwarves, Zombies, Vampires, Werewolves, a gnome, gargoyles, boogiemen, Gnolls, and Golems. Lady Ramkin actually shows us how the landed nobility can do good things and use their power wisely. The way Vimes changes the world creates resistance, he puts people on the defenses, he makes change into a fight. Lady Ramkin invites change in and introduces it to people, she makes change friendly. This should have been expanded on because it is a powerful message and idea and it is somewhat glossed over (She's been doing it for a while though and Sam Vimes is a bit slow to catch on).



On Monsterous Regiment:

On my first read through I was a bit turned off on the end because I felt like it was a bit overly much. Having a few characters who let their socks do the talking was interesting, and it made more than a little sense in a country constantly at war that there would be women in the ranks because most of the men had gone. The end felt wrong somehow.

Then I thought about why it felt wrong. It felt wrong because it was silly to the point of feeling stupid. That if there were so few men left in the country that nearly all of the top brass were women, and women had been joining the wars for years now to keep numbers up, that the brass would just remove that restriction. Then I thought back to all the dealthy serious crossdressing stuff with Polly. None of those women would dare act womanly because they were terrified of being found out. To protect themselves they all needed to be more men than the men were, and you have a whole group of people trying to out-male each other instead of consider reasonable suggestions. And that would mean a country in a whole mess of trouble... which is exactly what the story is about.

So now that I've thought about it, I like the ending specifically because it is wrong. It is wrong because if it were right, the story wouldn't be nearly as tragic as it is.

On Equal Rights:

its not a bad book, but it doesn't line up well with the witches or with the wizards. The rules of Magic for the disk aren't well established in Pratchett's mind at that point and they get "fixed" a bit more in Sourcery (By the end of which they've been fixed again).

[Spiryt]

The thing with Regiment is that it went way

too far with it, and towards the end it began to approach Monty Python gag in feel...

I was somehow expecting that Death will somehow prove to be a woman as well. :smalltongue:

That's generally why I enjoy early to middle Discs way more, though I'm probably in minority.

Later ones are getting way more serious and 'preaching' which would be fine, if Pratchett could pull it off, and he's really not very good at it. Intrigues, fight scenes and politics get tangled pointlessly and then

They're being resolved by clown throwing cakes... :smallconfused:

The style, writing simply doesn't much topics and plots anymore.

[Killer Angel]

Good Omens is fantastic.

To be fair, Neil Gaiman got a part in it... :smallwink:

[Brother Oni]

The main thing I liked about Monstrous Regiment is:


Jackrum's complaints when the new officer starts messing about with the light based comms device and starts using intelligence interception techniques.
It quite clearly marks the difference between old style soldiering where mis-leading the enemy is mostly a bonus and modern soldiering where intelligence warfare is key.

That's probably just me though.

[Tengu_temp]

That's generally why I enjoy early to middle Discs way more, though I'm probably in minority.


I doubt that's an unpopular opinion. For me, the first really awesome Discworld book is Reaper Man, the last is Night Watch, and the period between them is where the best stories are. I like most of the other books, but they're rarely as good as the ones from that period.


So, what I'm getting from the complaints about Snuff is that every book must end on a sad note, or it automatically sucks.:smallconfused:

Because the other Discworld books people who hated Snuff liked all had sad endings! Oh wait.

[Eldan]

That's actually a great point Superpanda makes there about Monstrous Regiment.

The entire system has gone on so long, at this point, it's not men suppressing women anymore. It's a self-perpetuating brutal system. There are women in all the ranks. (They aren't all the top brass, by the way. I think they were something like a third, though including the General).

So, at this time, there's not really a difference anymore between military men and women, they are too mixed. They are just all oppressing each other, forcing each other into jingoistic, nationalist behaviour because anyone who breaks character with their percieved idea of a "military man" is removed from the system. Brutally.
I think that's actually ain interesting point.

[Kato]

Your implication also ignores the all the later witches books, and long with all of Susan's stuff and Corporal Angua, for that matter...

While I don't like to continue in that direction there is still at times a difference between how people perceive stories which just deal with strong women and stories which focus on women being strong. Or equal to men. Or whatever. But it was really just a side remark.


The thing apparently some people miss about Monstrous Regiment is it is not only about a regiment of cross dressers, it also is about a regiment. It is about an army, about soldiers, about war, about a government that fights a stupid war for stupid reasons and its populace suffers due to that.
Yeah, it is also about how women do men's work but that's far from the only point of the story.

[Aotrs Commander]

Strange. I'm still really wondernig where people get the preachy and crossdressing parts from in Monstrous Regiment.

Wasn't there a part where the male officers went and pretended to be wash-women or something? That - and only that - was what I personally was referring to specifically.

I'm not sure I would personally qualify the rest of it as "cross-dressing" in the same sense. I don't find anything especially noteworthy in females wearing armour or something. Pretending to be male is a different issue entirely, one not especially related to clothes/attire.



While I don't like to continue in that direction there is still at times a difference between how people perceive stories which just deal with strong women and stories which focus on women being strong. Or equal to men. Or whatever. But it was really just a side remark.

I think the best way to achieve/promote equality is not to go "oh look, I am a female doing an activity typically and probably unecessarily attributed to males" or vise versa, it's just to let them get on with the job at hand and not make a big fuss about it. Show, don't tell with big flashy signs and let the character's actions speak for themselves. (Which is what, after about four episodes into Stargate SG-1 and they found their feet, they pretty much did with Major Carter and the show was much better for it. And in MLP:FiM, where gender is literally never even mentioned.) Because, at the end of the day, it SHOULDN'T be a noteworthy thing. (The fact humans have made it one is just another black mark on the species already spattered record.)



(If, in fact any part your character's portrail hinges on one note, be it "being a female" or "being ginger" or something, you haven't got much of a character, frankly. As an acid test, I always think, "what would this character being the other biological sex change?" and if the answer is anything other than "probably not a lot" then that character clearly has serious problems as a character. People are people are people, they are not female people and male people (or "any other particular physical difference skin/hair/eye/regional location distinction you care to make" people.))

But yes, let's not get too sidetracked into that issue, as we run the risk of this currently polite discourse turning into a flamewar and I don't want to have been party to that!

I'll just say that I am solidly equalist and leave it at that.

(And also note that this means a solidly-equalist Lich and therefore "equal" does not mean "nice", it just means I have no qualms about disembowling people based on gender/race/religion/species/age/hair colour; and to note, as I'm so fond of quoting the Elves of Rivendell: "sheep, perhaps, do not look alike to other sheep...")




The thing apparently some people miss about Monstrous Regiment is it is not only about a regiment of cross dressers, it also is about a regiment. It is about an army, about soldiers, about war, about a government that fights a stupid war for stupid reasons and its populace suffers due to that.
Yeah, it is also about how women do men's work but that's far from the only point of the story.

It was also not a good war story. It was just not a good story, period.

Even in the other Discworld books, there were things I remember that were funny (even in Night Watch). There is nothing funny I recall about MR.

[hamishspence]

Even in the other Discworld books, there were things I remember that were funny (even in Night Watch). There is nothing funny I recall about MR.

TV Tropes lists a few things tropers found funny, on the "Funny" section of the main page- main page here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Discworld/MonstrousRegiment

None of them resonated?

[Eldan]

I will agree there wasn't much funny. Honestly, I don't care much. The story worked without jokes.

[Aotrs Commander]

TV Tropes lists a few things tropers found funny, on the "Funny" section of the main page- main page here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Discworld/MonstrousRegiment

None of them resonated?

Clearly not, as without looking them up, I don't remember anything funny. Which means it clearly wasn't good enough to even leave a mark. That says a lot just by itself.

[The Troubadour]

Less specifically about the representations of nobility and more about Snuff in general:


Snuff doesn't handle this any better/worse than the other books do.


I think "Jingo", "Thud!" and "Feet of Clay" handle it better. "Jingo" does it partly by using humour, but neither "Thud!" nor "Feet of Clay" use comedy... For those parts dealing specifically with prejudice, that is.

[SuperPanda]

Your right, good catch. That particular was intended in the comments about nobility = bad and I think it got lost in my walls o' text.

I happened to put that in the wrong spoiler. My mistake. :P

Snuff is certainly not the best of the Discworld books, but I didn't find it atrocious.


On a different note. I absolutely love The Amazing Maurice. I think it was one of the first books I literally could not put down. I read from page 40 or so to the end in one sitting because I just needed to see what happened next.

[Calemyr]

It's kind of funny. I really liked Monstrous Regiment, and Snuff was enjoyable (though hardly his best work).

Regarding Monstrous Regiment:

* Polly was not all that powerful at all, until the epilogue, at which point she had earned it. She kneed someone in or about the fracas, but otherwise she was rather ineffective in combat. It was the rest of the crew that bailed her out. What she was was a competent leader, a decent strategist, and someone who was just generally willing to think more than (in their culture) a woman or even a soldier is supposed to.
* The psychology in it was quite interesting, particularly during their infiltration of the keep. They had worked so hard to play off as men for so long they were uncomfortable with (and frankly incapable of) convincing the guards of their proper gender.
* Jakrum was awesome, and everybody had a role to play in the story, their own strengths and talents that were used, plenty of room to grow, and their own shadows to face. Even Jakrum, much to my pleasant surprise.
* If you think of Polly as a Mary Sue, what must you think of Wazzer? Besides, it's hard to imagine a genuine Mary Sue seriously speak this line: "It's funny, you spend your whole life thinking you're the main character of your own story, but then you find out someone else was the whole time..."
* Blouse was the only character where the cross dressing was played for laughs, and even there it was dark humor. Blouse's success was by playing at stereotypes the guards had, while the reality of his squad failed to convince anyone.


On Snuff:

* The "nobs are evil" bit is certainly overplayed, but only by virtue of the old "the only thing evil needs to be victorious is for good men to do nothing" cliche. As Vimes points out (in Monstrous Regiment, in fact), too often good and virtuous people are not counted because the good and virtuous aren't the sort to put themselves forward to *be* counted. Only the Magistrates were all that bad, it's just that nobody did anything to stop them. Even Chaz, an old veteran that knew what was happening was wrong, wasn't willing to stand up to them.
* If Pratchett were able to finish his series, I would expect that Vimes' constant sliding into the Summoning Dark's school of thought would finally ignite the long teased conflict between him and Carrot. Because while he has the best intentions at heart, Vimes' methods have grown ever more extreme.
* The story didn't end much cleaner than previous Watch books. Vimes brought down those who misused their power and dragged another disregarded group into the realm of public acceptance. He did it with the golems, he did it with the watch, heck, the watch has become a sort of litmus test for the value of a race.
* Although you're right about the general... well... Flanderization of the Discworld cast recently, I would argue the opposite on Willikins' part. His penchant for violence and dual nature of thug's thug and gentleman's gentleman has gained in definition over the books, rather than being a defining trait that the character has been reduced to. Instead, it seems to be rounding him out to be a perfect compliment to Vimes while representing the absolute opposite of Carrot.

[Tengu_temp]

While we're talking about recent Discworld books, how about them Unseen Academicals? For me, it's an extreme schizophrenic read: the parts about the wizards are fun and amusing, but the parts about the new characters are boring and preachy. And, strangely enough, those two halves barely interact with each other until the final match. It's almost like reading two different books at once which just happen to have similar themes.

[hamishspence]

Didn't bore me- but I may be easily pleased.

[Calemyr]

While we're talking about recent Discworld books, how about them Unseen Academicals? For me, it's an extreme schizophrenic read: the parts about the wizards are fun and amusing, but the parts about the new characters are boring and preachy. And, strangely enough, those two halves barely interact with each other until the final match. It's almost like reading two different books at once which just happen to have similar themes.

Discworld books often have several plot lines going on at once. What interested me most about Unseen Academicals was what it suggested about Pratchett's frame of mind. The book is almost entirely focused on passing the reigns to a new generation, about fresh starts and the old giving way to the new. Given that book was released around the same times as his Alzheimers was officially announced I have to wonder how much of it was a reflection of his own concerns.

[Forum Explorer]

While we're talking about recent Discworld books, how about them Unseen Academicals? For me, it's an extreme schizophrenic read: the parts about the wizards are fun and amusing, but the parts about the new characters are boring and preachy. And, strangely enough, those two halves barely interact with each other until the final match. It's almost like reading two different books at once which just happen to have similar themes.

I liked it. It was entertaining and was showing some new characters and some history of a different species. I liked the ending where he challenged the whole stadium to a fight.

[Kato]

The book is almost entirely focused on passing the reigns to a new generation, about fresh starts and the old giving way to the new. Given that book was released around the same times as his Alzheimers was officially announced I have to wonder how much of it was a reflection of his own concerns.

What? How did UU focus on passing on reigns? And wasn't his Alzheimer known for at least a few years before the book came out? :smallconfused:


I'll have to agree with Tengu, I'm not much of a fan of UU. The parts with the wizards were fun but the part about the new characters felt... just totally and absolutely clicheed. Its the same story that you have read over and over by now. Which kind of also was what turned me of in Snuff. I didn't mind many things people have listed but that "those seemingly primitive people can do XYZ so good we need to appreciate and cherish them" was just bad in various ways... Apart from it being used about as often as Nutt's plot in UU it's not a good message. So what if goblins didn't have any artistic talent, does that mean we can treat them like animals then?

[dehro]

I started reading them at the beginning, colour of magic.. and I wouldn't do it any other way. this way you get to watch an author as he starts out with some rather funny ideas and heads of to become a kick-ass, awesome author.
and you can know that he does so for a fact, because I say so :smallcool:..

[Calemyr]

What? How did UU focus on passing on reigns? And wasn't his Alzheimer known for at least a few years before the book came out? :smallconfused:

I said "around the time", meaning to suggest - without going into the specifics - that Pratchett had some things on his mind while writing it.

A few examples come to mind:
* Ponder has now obtained so many delegated titles that he is a one-man majority in the UU leadership. Despite the initial shock of the revelation, nobody is bothered enough to expect anyone other than Ponder to sort it out.
* The Dean, Henry, leaves to becomes an Archchancellor in his own right.
* Adrian Turnipseed leaves Ponder's team to lead his own department of inadvisably applied magic in the new university.
* Glenda goes from being the ruler of the kitchen to becoming a force able to stand up to Whitlow herself.
* Nutt is honored when he is told that Oates's ax is going to be passed on to him.

Every sub-story in the book is about a young person coming in to their own, be it Glenda, Juliet, Trev, Nutt, or Ponder.


I'll have to agree with Tengu, I'm not much of a fan of UU. The parts with the wizards were fun but the part about the new characters felt... just totally and absolutely clicheed. Its the same story that you have read over and over by now. Which kind of also was what turned me of in Snuff. I didn't mind many things people have listed but that "those seemingly primitive people can do XYZ so good we need to appreciate and cherish them" was just bad in various ways... Apart from it being used about as often as Nutt's plot in UU it's not a good message. So what if goblins didn't have any artistic talent, does that mean we can treat them like animals then?

Over-used, yes, but it does strike at an important question: where is the dividing line between man and monster, and man and vermin. I wish there was a practical way they could have realistically convinced people that something that's always been thought of as a pest was a person, but it's just not how it works. The only way to move the mob is by its heart, a cynical notion that I don't believe is wrong enough.

But the point of it was that goblins had art and music and poetry and talent, and this made them something more than animals. They were ugly and backward and had disgusting practices and disturbing beliefs, but if that disqualified a species from being a race... well...

On the flip side, in the same book, Angua laments that the cost of being accepted by the masses is to become homogenized. Human dwarves, she phrases it, and human trolls and human werewolves and human vampires and human gnomes and... She calls it a reverse melting pot, where everything is transmuted, but only one direction. Vimes doesn't see it, because he's human, but Angua does.


I started reading them at the beginning, colour of magic.. and I wouldn't do it any other way. this way you get to watch an author as he starts out with some rather funny ideas and heads of to become a kick-ass, awesome author.
and you can know that he does so for a fact, because I say so :smallcool:..

I did the same, and I suggested this to two of my friends and my brother. One did so and became an avid fan of the series. Another just barely made it through the first two and wasn't interested in going further. My brother couldn't stand the first book, but is a little OCD about following the proper order of stories and so refuses to keep going or to "skip to where it gets good".

So, in my experience, strict publish date order has a 50/50 success rate.

[Thanqol]

I've become increasingly disappointed with Terry Pratchett's works over time. His early-middle run of stuff was excellent, but everything after Wee Free Men was increasingly shaky. Essentially Terry Pratchett started to like his own characters too much - they were never really in danger of death before, but they seemed ever less in danger of failure.

This is poison for a story.

This is compounded by the increasing moralising of Pratchett's stories. Going Postal is about the internet, yes I get it. Making Money is about the financial crisis, I know, shut up, you don't understand how this stuff actually works. Thud! is about the Middle East, congratulations. Snuff is about gypsies, I get it, racism is bad, just stop.

Terry Pratchett was better when he was writing fantasy-comedy instead of wordy political cartoons.

[SuperPanda]

The Truth, Going Postal, and Making Money all follow technological developments on the disc in ways that mirror our own technological developments. The Clacks is far more telegraph than internet (though with things like GNU in there the internet and .Com parallels are pretty transparent). The take the innovations and changes to the world which have been set up many books before and expand them in very researched parodies of out world.

Moving Pictures and Soul Music, by contrast, introduce new things for no other reason than to parody them, and when the story is over they're pretty much forgotten. There is no lasting impact from either of those events when they marked pretty big cultural shifts for their time.

The Fifth Elephant is more about the middle east than Thud! was, afterall it has the whole oil drilling subplot. Pratchett goes out of his way to work in BCBs and discussions about how many barrels are needed for the energy consumption of Ahnk Morpork. Those plot lines are about as central to the story as the Scone of Stones (nicely laughing at common trope of making Dwarfs Scotish-like in other fantasy literature) or the Hilter-esque Wolfgang von Uberwald.

Thud! was about Vimes growing into being a father, about races that had hated each other for a long time for no good reason, and about people so invested in their traditions that they were terrified of a different world. You can draw parallels to the middle east if you want to, but they aren't overt in the way that they are in say, Small Gods, which has the worst of all middle eastern religions rolled into one.

I read Snuff far more about plantation owners in the American South than about the gypsies, though that could be my ethnocentrism at work.

Also, it is far more accurate to say that Making Money is a condensed history of the move beyond the gold standard than it is about the Financial Crisis. At the start of the story there is an economy driven by a gold standard (a substance which has been rare enough throughout the discworld books to strain belief that there could possibly be enough to cover all the money in use).

The has been inflation throughout the books with the AM dollar being worth less in Ahnk Morpork in later books than it is in earlier books. Its not very clearly spelled out, but it is there as a slow drift across them, on top of that the population has become more than doubled in a single life-time, and has become more prosperous than ever through new technologies. Technology like the clacks makes world trading possible, and so currency spends less time sitting still. Moving currency increases wealth, but it also makes it hard to count how much is really at play.

By the start of the book Ahnk Morpork isn't on the gold standard anymore, but the "promise of gold" (represented by the gold-ish watch). The wealth standard of Ahnk Morpork is its people, its labor, only no one knows that.

And this is what the world did, it transitioned away from a gold standard with no one looking, and just like in the books, it nearly had a collapsed when it realized this. This was many many years before the most recent financial crisis. The golems at the end are a proxy for the workforce (what are golems after-all if not a workforce). They are a neat metaphor for how the financial world accepted the change and won back the faith in the banking systems.

If that happens to mirror the more recent financial crisis it would be because humans, as a species, are very bad at learning from history.

[dehro]

I agree with panda except that reading small gods I was mostly thinking about religious institutions in general without thinking specifically about middle eastern ones.. in fact, some western ones seem to fall in the description just as nicely ....but yeah, Thangol, I didn't make any of the parallels you made.
it seems to me that Pratchett is mostly exploring how a fantasy/magic and narrative causality-driven/medieval context may morph when you introduce industrialisation and otherwise "modern" concepts.. it's using "fantasy racial powers" and magic the way steampunk uses steam engines, moving out of the middle ages and introducing technological and social advancement through the use of (mostly) magic instead of electricity or indeed steam. to me, there's a much stronger element of victoriana than there is a parallel of current events or situations.

[Manly Man]

I had my first taste of Pratchett's stuff with Good Omens, which was also my first real experience with anything from Neil Gaiman. It's things like this that make concepts like 'super groups' feasible.

As for my first Discworld novel, it was Hogfather, and I'd read that because I was looking for a Christmas-themed story (it was the middle of December, after all). As it turns out, I grew nearly obsessed with the Death line, and have not regretted any last bit of it. I think I may have developed a bit of a thing for Susan as well, although it's more of a connection in the fact that I have a lot of friends and family that are just about as practical in absurd situations as she is, albeit on a mortal scale.

That, and in the Hogfather movie, she's pretty hot. :smallredface:

Susan aside, I tried to get into the Watch line, although I ended up getting more involved with the Witches, since the library I was around at the time had a lot more of that line than the Watch. I really like Magrat, and she said one of my favorite three lines in the entire series: "Witches just aren't like that," said Magrat. "We live in harmony with the great cycles of nature, and do no harm to anyone, and it's wicked of them to say we don't. We ought to fill their bones with hot lead."

I read Monstrous Regiment, and I actually have to say it's one of my favorites. Sure, it's not the most comedic of Pterry's works, but I honestly believe it to be a great story nonetheless. I don't bother to analyze the stuff very much, because to me, a book is to be read and enjoyed, not ground to the finest powder and sieved through the finest sieve. It's good to understand the deeper, less obvious things that a story gets at, but for me, it ruins the fun when you turn it into some kind of project.

[endoperez]

I've become increasingly disappointed with Terry Pratchett's works over time. His early-middle run of stuff was excellent, but everything after Wee Free Men was increasingly shaky. Essentially Terry Pratchett started to like his own characters too much - they were never really in danger of death before, but they seemed ever less in danger of failure.

This is poison for a story.

This is compounded by the increasing moralising of Pratchett's stories. Going Postal is about the internet, yes I get it. Making Money is about the financial crisis, I know, shut up, you don't understand how this stuff actually works. Thud! is about the Middle East, congratulations. Snuff is about gypsies, I get it, racism is bad, just stop.

Terry Pratchett was better when he was writing fantasy-comedy instead of wordy political cartoons.


I agree that Pratchett has grown so fond of his world and characters that it's affecting the quality of his stories.

However, I vehemently disagree with what you call "increasing moralising". Those books aren't about the themes you think they are... SuperPanda analyzed them better.


For me, the most important thing about Pratchett has been the way I've learned to twist things around and find some oblique angle from where it all becomes absurd, on some way or another. Taking a well-known thing and looking into its history, finding a forgotten mystery. Taking a cliché and twisting it until it becomes something new and surprising. I have to admit that the later books haven't been as interesting in that regard as the earlier ones.

I didn't get that feeling from Snuff. I did get a few of those moments from Unseen Academicals. However, I got one of my favourite moments from the Monstrous Regiment.


Monstrous Regiment:

The moment when I realized that the Duchess everyone prayed to was becoming divine, but was still almost powerless. It made sense with everything I knew from Small Gods, another favorite, and it opens the way for so many stories... I also loved the idea of a "god" who is that weak, where the biggest things she moves are thoughts in a bird's brain.



Reading his books thought me to think in new ways, to approach things in different ways. That's a sign of a very good author indeed. I would be a poorer person without him.

[hamishspence]

Pratchett at least seems to be resisting the temptation to rely entirely on fan favourites- and continues to introduce new protagonists.

Any thoughts on Dodger- another standalone in the same vein as Nation?

[Eldan]

Dodger wasn't bad per se. I'd rate it over Snuff. There just wasn't much new in it, again. It felt like a lot of elements I'd already seen in Discworld books, just set in London this time.

[Elder Tsofu]

I'll agree that I unfortunately have felt a lack of excitement for new Discworld books, things have become too ordered and neat. Even the trolls and dwarfs make peace - what is next? The Elves? The Auditors?
I like most of the main characters, but sometimes I just wish that someone would successfully assassinate Vetinari. Or something like that. If nothing else to stir up the ant-heap a bit for new adventures.

[Flickerdart]

I like most of the main characters, but sometimes I just wish that someone would successfully assassinate Vetinari. Or something like that. If nothing else to stir up the ant-heap a bit for new adventures.
Vetinari dying would be Discworld's version of an edition change. It wouldn't really be the same series, since he's basically the reason anything in Ankh-Morpork works the way it does, or works at all.

[The Troubadour]

I've never actually read any of the Witches of Lancre books. Even though taste is very subjective (as shown in this thread alone), how good are they compared to the Death books (my favourite Discworld line)?

[Calemyr]

I've never actually read any of the Witches of Lancre books. Even though taste is very subjective (as shown in this thread alone), how good are they compared to the Death books (my favourite Discworld line)?

I'd put them second on my list, after Death's Family. The witches have a theme of practicality and sensibility that makes the rest of the series pale in comparison.

That said, their stories are a little formulaic. Granny always saves the day, always proves to be more clever or sensible than her enemies, and uses that to win. What's nice about that is that she rarely ever straight up over-powers her enemies. Her victories are also often genuinely brilliant stunts. And her allies are not just window dressing (usually), but rather bring their own unique talents to the challenge.

But I really like the practicality of it. In one book, for example:
Granny insists that you can't "magic" iron, and that you can't use magic to have cause without effect. Then later, in classic Granny fashion, she catches a sword in her hand without getting so much as scratched. Once the adventure was over she then cut her hand open to restore the balance. What makes this more interesting is that she does so *before* digging a new privy, forcing her to dig with an injured hand and ensuring that her action was not without consequence.

[Androgeus]

Don't know if anyone cares, but Small Gods audio dramatization is being broadcast on BBC Radio 4 extra this week. If you want to listen to it you can stream episode 1 here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b5lq5). Episode 2 is broadcast tonight, episode 3 tomorrow and 4 on Friday.

[turkishproverb]

I've become increasingly disappointed with Terry Pratchett's works over time. His early-middle run of stuff was excellent, but everything after Wee Free Men was increasingly shaky. Essentially Terry Pratchett started to like his own characters too much - they were never really in danger of death before, but they seemed ever less in danger of failure.

This is poison for a story.

This is compounded by the increasing moralising of Pratchett's stories. Going Postal is about the internet, yes I get it. Making Money is about the financial crisis, I know, shut up, you don't understand how this stuff actually works. Thud! is about the Middle East, congratulations. Snuff is about gypsies, I get it, racism is bad, just stop.

Terry Pratchett was better when he was writing fantasy-comedy instead of wordy political cartoons.

With all due respect, there was social and political satire in Color. To say nothing of the blatant religious satire. If anything, the move away from fairly strait parody of fantasy has made the parallels less direct.


And I've never felt Pratchett's characters were particularly out of danger. Well, no more than in the "The world will not blow up at the end of this novel" sense that I get when reading almost anything.

[Tengu_temp]

There's a difference between social satire and getting on a soapbox.


I think I may have developed a bit of a thing for Susan as well, although it's more of a connection in the fact that I have a lot of friends and family that are just about as practical in absurd situations as she is, albeit on a mortal scale.

I didn't like Susan much, because she seemed too Suish - always right, the only sane person in a world of crazies, possessing speshul powers nobody else has, her role in humour is limited to snarking and NEVER to being the butt of a joke, and so on.

However, the book that changed my mind was Thief of Time. Suddenly, she has human flaws! Suddenly, she can be funny! Both of those made her several times more likable for me.

[Morty]

I have to agree that Snuff is just a little bit too preachy. I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with the message. The traditional fantasy portrayal of certain sapient species as monsters or vermin needs to die in a fire. But Pratchett's usual subtlety and distance seem to be gone from that book. It's still a good read, obviously. But something is missing.

Also, Vimes getting advice from the Summoning Dark... eh. It seems like a contradiction of his previous characterization.

[dehro]

I hate to say this, but I get the feeling that the last couple of books suffer a bit from the influence of
1) there being a second pair of hands involved (just how much is his assistant limiting himself to writing what the author dictates, I wonder? do they not debate things and maybe change them here and there?..together but inevitably "not just TP anymore"?)
2) the views, purpose and perspective of TP having been at least in some measure affected by his ailing health.

by this I'm not saying that Alzheimer has ruined him as an author..well..not yet as far as we know, but I do think it's inevitable (and documented/openly admitted by himself) that Pratchett's outlook on things has been affected in some measure by his condition, and it's only logical that this should be reflected at least in part in his writing as well.

[ThirdEmperor]

I did not like Snuff. It seemed to me that the writing really was too enamored with Vimes, and the whole thing came very close to a simplified rehash of all the old themes associated with Vimes. Some of 'badass action sequences' really made me groan and by the end, I was wishing we could go back to the original, drunken, mopey, human Vimes. In making him a 'badass' Pratchett stripped him of the very flaws that made him what he was, really.

But I liked Monstrous Regiment. It might have been a different breed than most Discworld books, but I found the characters amusing and I think it made a really amazing point about the self-perpetuating nature of hate. I also liked Unseen Academicals, which was clumsier about making nearly the same point, but was still an amusing take on Romeo and Juliet in my opinion.

[The Troubadour]

I didn't like Susan much, because she seemed too Suish - always right, the only sane person in a world of crazies, possessing speshul powers nobody else has, her role in humour is limited to snarking and NEVER to being the butt of a joke, and so on.

You think so? But in "Soul Music" she's very often mocked - usually by Quoth or by the Death of Rats - exactly because she is (or thinks she is, rather) "the only sane person in a world of crazies".


The traditional fantasy portrayal of certain sapient species as monsters or vermin needs to die in a fire.

I don't think so. Not every non-human race is (or taken to be) representative of foreign cultures. Sometimes an orc is just an orc.

[Ionbound]

I have to agree that Snuff is just a little bit too preachy. I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with the message. The traditional fantasy portrayal of certain sapient species as monsters or vermin needs to die in a fire. But Pratchett's usual subtlety and distance seem to be gone from that book. It's still a good read, obviously. But something is missing.

Also, Vimes getting advice from the Summoning Dark... eh. It seems like a contradiction of his previous characterization.

Well, yes, that did happen. But he did it extremely reluctantly, which fits the "Recognizes beast as useful, but doesn't trust it at all" kinda person he's been shaped as since...Men at Arms, really.

[Morty]

I don't think so. Not every non-human race is (or taken to be) representative of foreign cultures. Sometimes an orc is just an orc.

I fail to see how those are the only alternatives. The traditional fantasy portrayal of "evil" species is nothing more than convenience, one that good fiction doesn't need.


Well, yes, that did happen. But he did it extremely reluctantly, which fits the "Recognizes beast as useful, but doesn't trust it at all" kinda person he's been shaped as since...Men at Arms, really.

Right, except the "beast" has always been a side of his own personality, one that he has always kept back. The [SPOILER] is its own entity.

[Ionbound]

Right, except the "beast" has always been a side of his own personality, one that he has always kept back. The [SPOILER] is its own entity.

I always read the [SPOILER] as his "beast" given shape and a mind by the belief of the dwarves. Guess it's just a difference of opinion, as the point still stands as the [SPOILER] is most certainly representative of the "beast" even if it's not Vimes' personal one.

[Calemyr]

I fail to see how those are the only alternatives. The traditional fantasy portrayal of "evil" species is nothing more than convenience, one that good fiction doesn't need.

But then who can we slaughter wholesale without guilt? Robots, Zombies, Nazis, and Insectoids? Because that's what we have left when we start humanizing "always evil" creatures. But then we'll be told that Insectoids are people too... And eventually there will be nothing to fight but Nazis.

[Aidan305]

I hate to say this, but I get the feeling that the last couple of books suffer a bit from the influence of
1) there being a second pair of hands involved (just how much is his assistant limiting himself to writing what the author dictates, I wonder? do they not debate things and maybe change them here and there?..together but inevitably "not just TP anymore"?)

pTerry uses dictation software for writing. Rob, his amanuensis does bit of editing here and there when the software doesn't properly catch it all, with Pratchett overlooking the edits, but it's pretty much all Pratchett. The writing's (understandably) much harder than it once was though and the words don't come easily.

[dehro]

pTerry uses dictation software for writing. Rob, his amanuensis does bit of editing here and there when the software doesn't properly catch it all, with Pratchett overlooking the edits, but it's pretty much all Pratchett. The writing's (understandably) much harder than i once was though and the words don't come easily.

I'm left wondering about that.. my dad has Parkinson's, and occasionally he'll ask for help in writing an email. in theory parkinson's affects primarily the body where Alzheimers affects primarily the mind.. and my dad is still quite sharp.. but it is very rare that I don't have any sort of input on the content and/or form of the email my father dictates.
then again, I'm not paid and make no bones about criticizing my father if I have something to say about his form.. it may well be that the relationship between pTerry and Rob doesn't work that way.

[Tengu_temp]

You think so? But in "Soul Music" she's very often mocked - usually by Quoth or by the Death of Rats - exactly because she is (or thinks she is, rather) "the only sane person in a world of crazies".

That's part of the beginning of her hero's journey, so to speak - the part where the character only starts to get familiar with the non-mundane world. And her approach turns out to be the right one in the end, so...


But then who can we slaughter wholesale without guilt? Robots, Zombies, Nazis, and Insectoids? Because that's what we have left when we start humanizing "always evil" creatures. But then we'll be told that Insectoids are people too... And eventually there will be nothing to fight but Nazis.

That's exactly the point. Wholesale slaughter should never be something that's done thoughtlessly, without guilt. A hero kills only when he's certain that's the best course of action, or when he has to. Also, someone who hesitates to kill an evil human but easily stabs an equally evil goblin is just racist.

Sidenote: watch Inglorious Basterds.

[Spacewolf]

That's part of the beginning of her hero's journey, so to speak - the part where the character only starts to get familiar with the non-mundane world. And her approach turns out to be the right one in the end, so...



Really? I don't remember her doing anything it that book apart from just observing. She was going to pull a Mort but then doesn't have to because of the music and in the end it's death who sorts it out, while she fails pretty much completely.

As far as i can remember her total contribution to the book was getting a crush on bud, giving Death a reason to actually care what the music did and learning to grieve for her parents.

[The Troubadour]

As far as i can remember her total contribution to the book was getting a crush on bud, giving Death a reason to actually care what the music did and learning to grieve for her parents.

And getting many a lecture from Death in the process.


That's exactly the point. Wholesale slaughter should never be something that's done thoughtlessly, without guilt. A hero kills only when he's certain that's the best course of action, or when he has to.

To be fair, I don't think I've ever read any fantasy story where a supposedly heroic character simply senselessly slaughtered orcs, goblins or what have you.

[warty goblin]

To be fair, I don't think I've ever read any fantasy story where a supposedly heroic character simply senselessly slaughtered orcs, goblins or what have you.
I'm sensing one of those innocent souls who has the good fortune to not have read Terry Goodkind's fantasy epic book about important human themes warcrime apologia Naked Empire. Remember, nothing says hero like hulking out and chopping up peace protesters.

[Coidzor]

I'm sensing one of those innocent souls who has the good fortune to not have read Terry Goodkind's fantasy epic book about important human themes warcrime apologia Naked Empire. Remember, nothing says hero like hulking out and chopping up peace protesters.

Now there's something that doesn't really belong in fantasy. :smallyuk: It's bad enough having peace protestors in the overgenre outside of humor and satire in the first place...

[Kato]

But then who can we slaughter wholesale without guilt? Robots, Zombies, Nazis, and Insectoids? Because that's what we have left when we start humanizing "always evil" creatures. But then we'll be told that Insectoids are people too... And eventually there will be nothing to fight but Nazis.
Ah, but we will ALWAYS have the Nazis. Because nazis are the epitome of evil. Orcs, demons, dark elves... all of those can be forgiven nd redeemed but never a Nazi. Ever.


To be fair, I don't think I've ever read any fantasy story where a supposedly heroic character simply senselessly slaughtered orcs, goblins or what have you.
Someone has read not a lot of fiction it seems to me... Then again, a lot of heroic characters quite mindlessly slaughter other people if they are supposedly evil.

[smuchmuch]

I hate to say this, but I get the feeling that the last couple of books suffer a bit from the influence of
1) there being a second pair of hands involved (just how much is his assistant limiting himself to writing what the author dictates, I wonder? do they not debate things and maybe change them here and there?..together but inevitably "not just TP anymore"?).

A succesfull serial author using second hands to writte, particulary as he's getting old ? Never !

[dehro]

A succesfull serial author using second hands to writte, particulary as he's getting old ? Never !

I know it's nothing new..I'm just wondering how much this has impacted on style, content and so on. a question that will go forever unanswered, I suppose. (that's because I'm a cynic.. not because PTerry isn't forthcoming with how he's dealing with stuff)

[Manga Shoggoth]

I know it's nothing new..I'm just wondering how much this has impacted on style, content and so on. a question that will go forever unanswered, I suppose. (that's because I'm a cynic.. not because PTerry isn't forthcoming with how he's dealing with stuff)

It's a difficult question. Several of the recent Pratchetts grated on me, and ever since the announcement I have picked up each new book thinking "Is this the one where it ends?".

However, all them except Snuff grew on me. I even liked Dodger, and that was after reading the "free first chapter" pamphlet and thinking that it was going to be dreadful. And even Snuff has its moments.

As to the general discussion on quality: Part of the problem is that the middle Pratchetts have set the bar extremely high. Even the worst of of his work is better than a lot of the fiction in the fantasy market.

[Aotrs Commander]

I fail to see how those are the only alternatives. The traditional fantasy portrayal of "evil" species is nothing more than convenience, one that good fiction doesn't need.


I, on the other hand, find the obession with making all other species always on human standards, always thinking the same humans, always being humans with a funny hat on, to be both humanocentric in the very highest degree and extremely tiresome.

While it should be noted that, like in Oots or Discworld, sometimes the alignment question should be raised as a theme or a plot point, like everything else, should NEVER be a unilateral rule, never always be true.

(And even Pratchett has inherently evil species - Elves anyone?)

...

Actually, no, I find the idea of that they are never should be inherently Evil species to be personally offensive, actually being one.

I am so well past tired of being tacitly (in general, not in particular by any one poster) told "nothing is evil, nothing is inherently evil, black and white is wrong and anything that does that is rubbish writing and if you think that way or like it, you must therefore be stupid or childish, 'cos you're clearly not mature enough to appreciate the shades of grey of proper, good fiction, you snotty, backward mentally-feeble peasant" or that philosophical/moral-naval-gazing is Art and anything else isn't and therefore inherently inferior.

If nothing can be inherently evil, nothing can be inherently good. And I have seen enough of the universe to know that is simply untrue in both regards. You may think black and white morality is childish - well, I think grey morality is equally as childish when espoused as the one and only truth; as that not only hides from the truth that evil exists in the world, but it denegrates the truly good. And while they lie on the opposite end of the pool from me, I will defend their existence (though not always their continued lives) as staunchly as I defend my own.

Because I AM Evil and I will defend the fact that evil and inherent evil - and also their reverse - does exist to the death. By which I mean everyone else's.

Grey is not, not has it EVER been, inherently superior (or even superior at all) to black and white - or vice versa. The universe is not either, but both. And good anything does not ignore portions of the spectrum, be they at the extremes or in the middle.

[hamishspence]

(And even Pratchett has inherently evil species - Elves anyone?)

Pratchett never made it clear if they were evil because of their social system or not.

[Morty]

I, on the other hand, find the obession with making all other species always on human standards, always thinking the same humans, always being humans with a funny hat on, to be both humanocentric in the very highest degree and extremely tiresome.


Hate to break it to you, but "always evil" species are humans with funny hats on just as much as those that aren't "always evil". Their hat is simply being universally terrible so that the heroes don't need to act moral when dealing with them.

Because, when it comes down to it, that's all there is to them. You tout them as some sort of statement about how good and evil both exist and shades of grey are an invalid point of view... but they aren't. They're shallow caricatures that pander to the deep human need of having an unambiguous, dehumanized - but not terribly dangerous - Enemy.

[The Troubadour]

I'd put them second on my list, after Death's Family. The witches have a theme of practicality and sensibility that makes the rest of the series pale in comparison. (...)

Oh, I had missed your answer. Thanks for your opinion! :-)


Someone has read not a lot of fiction it seems to me... Then again, a lot of heroic characters quite mindlessly slaughter other people if they are supposedly evil.

I have read quite a lot of fantasy fiction, actually; including Ancient and Medieval fiction. But even when King Arthur and his knights (just for an example) are slaughtering Saracens, that's not because "they're Saracens", but because they're invading Britain or an allied realm. So, while a lot can be said about those stories' discourse on relations between Europe and the Middle-East, within the context of the stories no heroic character senselessly slaughtered evil people.

And let's face it, most fantasy creatures aren't like, say, the Giants in Norse mythology: enemies of the gods and representative of Chaos, but not inherently Evil with a capital "E", and the gods themselves aren't Good, and sometimes both people can be friends, allies or even lovers. They're more like Tolkien's trolls (who think rational beings, like humans, are tastier than sheep), or demons in Medieval stories (evil by nature, not because of societal constraints).

I haven't read Goodkind; he's the guy from the Sword of Truth series, right? The one that inspired that "The Seeker" TV show? A friend and me, we had a blast predicting all the plot "twists" in the episodes, that's how clichéd it was. It turned me off even trying to read the books.

[Eldan]

Pratchett never made it clear if they were evil because of their social system or not.

Now I know what Pratchett needs! A good elf who turns away from the society that tries to make him evil and moves to the Discworld to live free of their influence and their matriarchal society!

[Deathkeeper]

I've been meaning to get into his stuff. I've been thinking about starting with Guards, Guards or Mort since I don't have as much interest in CoM (I've heard the first ones aren't always as good and I accidentally saw the film adaptation before realizing it was something I'd planned on reading. I've no idea if the movie was accurate but at the very least it was funny.)
Anything to help me pick between the two?

[Eldan]

Hm. Can't even remember if hte movie was accurate or not. It followed the general idea but I didn't like half hte actor and thought it wasn't all that well written.

I think your decision should be based on what you are more interested in. A coming of age story mixed with weird metaphysics and defying fairytale conventions or a story of underdog watchmen saving a city and defying adventure story conventions.

[SuperPanda]

Now I know what Pratchett needs! A good elf who turns away from the society that tries to make him evil and moves to the Discworld to live free of their influence and their matriarchal society!

"Nac Mac Feagle!
The Wee Free Men

Nae Laird, Nae Quin, Nae Maester
We willnae be fooled again!"

:P

--------------------

Re Color of Magic:

There are a lot of small to the film, and I think it keeps the essence of the books while being better than them (it is both Color of magic and Light Fantastic by the way). In an interview Pratchett said that the hardest part of making it was fighting the urge to fix all the mistakes he'd made as a young writer.

Big things: Rincewind in the books is middle aged, still spry, and in very good running condition. The University plot with the headmaster isn't nearly as neat in the books (Tim Curry's character doesn't even exist in the books, its the headmaster the whole time there), a change which makes the books better (this plot only crops up in The Light Fantastic and is completely missing in The Colour of Magic. There are some more adventures that got left out for times sake, and the luggage eats many more people in the books.

Other than that you've pretty much got the same stories. The only one which might be jarring for you if you ignore the books and treat the movie as the same is that Rincewind is younger and more fit in the books. I loved film Rincewind though.

[dehro]

"Nac Mac Feagle!
The Wee Free Men

Nae Laird, Nae Quin, Nae Maester
We willnae be fooled again!"

:P

and then they hired a toad.

[SuperPanda]

and then they hired a toad.

They just had to follow the yellow sick toad.

[dehro]

you win..have an internet cookie

[Blightedmarsh]

I personally liked Diskworld Noire (point and click game with original story). I just got fed up with not being able to get my copy to run.

I liked Maskerade, men at arms, moving pictures and the last continent. I think Rincewind is my favorite character.

I just prey that Disney never gets its hands on this IP.

[endoperez]

I just prey that Disney never gets its hands on this IP.

Disney was working on Mort, according to several rumours. They have since shelved the idea, possibly because they didn't get the rights. Any way, I can't see why Disney making a Discworld animation is any worse than someone else doing a Discworld animation; the Soul Music one was far from the Disney standard for example.

Speaking of adaptations, Colour of Magic was decent, Hogfather was fun, and Making Money Going Postal was absolutely hilarious. Making Money Going Postal is also the least faithful conversion, but it just works on the screen so well that I'm not holding any grudges.

Thanks for the correction, Eldan.

[Eldan]

Going Postal, not Making Money. But yes, that one worked really well.

That said, they had Sir Christopher Gorram Lee as the voice of Death in Hogfather. That earns them points, even if they had a paper statue for death.

Edit: my mistake. Apparently, Hogfather was the only one where Lee didn't play Death.

[hamishspence]

Disney was working on Mort, according to several rumours. They have since shelved the idea, possibly because they didn't get the rights. Any way, I can't see why Disney making a Discworld animation is any worse than someone else doing a Discworld animation; the Soul Music one was far from the Disney standard for example.

I recall a Wyrd Sisters one- and seeing some of it. Don't think I saw the Soul Music one though.

[Kato]

Going Postal, not Making Money. But yes, that one worked really well.


To be honest, while I can understand why they made a bunch of choices from the original one really, really, really grinds on my nerves...


The (final?) flashback when Adora "oh my god it is not possible that is so horrible" starts smoking and it sends Moist over the edge. That was so, so, so stupid...

Otherwise it was a decent adaption but far from Hogfather, possibly though because Hogfather also is still a stronger book.

[Eldan]

To be honest, while I can understand why they made a bunch of choices from the original one really, really, really grinds on my nerves...


The (final?) flashback when Adora "oh my god it is not possible that is so horrible" starts smoking and it sends Moist over the edge. That was so, so, so stupid...

Otherwise it was a decent adaption but far from Hogfather, possibly though because Hogfather also is still a stronger book.

Aye, that was unbearably stupid. Really, I think the flashbacks weren't the best choice in general. They were just so damn preachy.

[Thanqol]

I am so well past tired of being tacitly (in general, not in particular by any one poster) told "nothing is evil, nothing is inherently evil, black and white is wrong and anything that does that is rubbish writing and if you think that way or like it, you must therefore be stupid or childish, 'cos you're clearly not mature enough to appreciate the shades of grey of proper, good fiction, you snotty, backward mentally-feeble peasant" or that philosophical/moral-naval-gazing is Art and anything else isn't and therefore inherently inferior.

If nothing can be inherently evil, nothing can be inherently good. And I have seen enough of the universe to know that is simply untrue in both regards. You may think black and white morality is childish - well, I think grey morality is equally as childish when espoused as the one and only truth; as that not only hides from the truth that evil exists in the world, but it denegrates the truly good. And while they lie on the opposite end of the pool from me, I will defend their existence (though not always their continued lives) as staunchly as I defend my own.

As one of the advocates of the other side, allow me to explain why it is that 'inherent total evil' is a concept that bores me.

Conflict breeds truth. When you get a bunch of ideas and argue them out then the weak ideas get picked apart and destroyed. In the course of a narrative with a moral theme the author is setting up a debate between, say, greed and justice and seeing which one wins.

Now, if greed is played straight, played pure, played as unambiguously evil (and also stupid - not paying your minions because that would be LESS MONEY etc) then it's a really one sided debate. There's no conflict; Justice has straight up won that moral argument. There's no tension, it's a foregone conclusion. Adding some grey, diluting the greed, making some admirable/charismatic characters greedy, makes the question go from "Evil Y/N" which is a pretty basic choice to "How much evil?"

'cause I'm pretty sure that's a question that has relevance even to you.

[Flickerdart]

Conflict breeds truth. When you get a bunch of ideas and argue them out then the weak ideas get picked apart and destroyed. In the course of a narrative with a moral theme the author is setting up a debate between, say, greed and justice and seeing which one wins.
Not quite. Conflict breeds effectiveness.

[Aotrs Commander]

I was simply going to let the matter drop entirely - I have more important things to do with my unlife than have a fruitless argument from heavily entrenched diametrically opposed standpoints.

But seeing as it's Thanq:


As one of the advocates of the other side, allow me to explain why it is that 'inherent total evil' is a concept that bores me.

Conflict breeds truth. When you get a bunch of ideas and argue them out then the weak ideas get picked apart and destroyed. In the course of a narrative with a moral theme the author is setting up a debate between, say, greed and justice and seeing which one wins.

Now, if greed is played straight, played pure, played as unambiguously evil (and also stupid - not paying your minions because that would be LESS MONEY etc) then it's a really one sided debate. There's no conflict; Justice has straight up won that moral argument. There's no tension, it's a foregone conclusion. Adding some grey, diluting the greed, making some admirable/charismatic characters greedy, makes the question go from "Evil Y/N" which is a pretty basic choice to "How much evil?"

'cause I'm pretty sure that's a question that has relevance even to you.

And as I've said often enough before, story does not need any kind of moral dictomy or philosophical analysis or anything to be good. (Indeed, I find if that is a story's primary purpose, I am vanishingly unlikely to have any interest in it, period. There is no form of media I partake in that does not have some other primary draw.)

Some of my favourite stories completely ignore all that in favour to telling a tale about a Thing That Is Happening and I often find that far more compelling than any amount of philosophy (et al). (I remind you that my favourite piece of literature of all time, the one that has had the most fundemental affect on my everything only mentions maybe four or five people by name, much less gets into anything character driven, and yet, in bits and pieces, still weaves an unparraleledly fascinating window into another universe.)

One side is not inherently better than the other and a good story often - but not always - has elements of both to varying degrees.

As I said, I just get very tired of basically being tacitly told "if a story isn't an in-depth character/philosophical/moral analysis/debate/whatever is it isn't any good." Because that's cobblers.

The more that sort of thing is forced upon me by writers of all mediums who think themselves rather more clever for doing it - Pratchett is by and large not among them, mainly speaking to the "darker and grittier" obsession - the more I find myself getting positively anti-intellectual in my old age, just out of sheer reaction and desparation not to have the same old crap foisted on me. (I am sure that were the reverse true I would be bemoaning the lack of intelligencia in things.) Sometimes, it is nice just have, as one of the X-Men said once to have "a bit of moderate punching and hitting and all's right with the world." That does not inherently make a lesser story, in the same way the inclusion of exploration of philosophy and morality does not inherently make for a better one. "Deep" does not always mean good, and "shallow" does not always mean bad.



And I defy you to categorise me as "grey" and not "absolutely pitch-black" in terms of morals, proof positive (negative?) that is does happen. (And you're daft enough to keep talking to me, so...)

[enderlord99]

And I defy you to categorise me as "grey" and not "absolutely pitch-black" in terms of morals, proof positive (negative?) that is does happen. (And you're daft enough to keep talking to me, so...)

How many people have you tortured to death in the past year or so?

[Aotrs Commander]

How many people have you tortured to death in the past year or so?

Do you really want me to answer that question?

Especially since the follow up is "how many people have I tortured to death and then locked their soul into a state of agony far beyond what living mortals can experience, beyond physical or mental or even emotional pain, spirit-bound into a pebble and tossed out of the airlock to drift in interstellar space in mindless screaming agony until the end of the universe...?"

(No, seriously, I'd have to go check the logs. I don't keep track of that sort of thing, I've got more important things to do.)

[Forum Explorer]

I'd put them second on my list, after Death's Family. The witches have a theme of practicality and sensibility that makes the rest of the series pale in comparison.

That said, their stories are a little formulaic. Granny always saves the day, always proves to be more clever or sensible than her enemies, and uses that to win. What's nice about that is that she rarely ever straight up over-powers her enemies. Her victories are also often genuinely brilliant stunts. And her allies are not just window dressing (usually), but rather bring their own unique talents to the challenge.

But I really like the practicality of it. In one book, for example:
Granny insists that you can't "magic" iron, and that you can't use magic to have cause without effect. Then later, in classic Granny fashion, she catches a sword in her hand without getting so much as scratched. Once the adventure was over she then cut her hand open to restore the balance. What makes this more interesting is that she does so *before* digging a new privy, forcing her to dig with an injured hand and ensuring that her action was not without consequence.

One of my faviorate witch lines is something like: Some witches thought that the type of herb made a difference and some didn't. Granny didn't and knew that a piece of grass or even nothing at all would do and that's why she was a better witch. Magrat did and that's why she was a better doctor."


Do you really want me to answer that question?

Especially since the follow up is "how many people have I tortured to death and then locked their soul into a state of agony far beyond what living mortals can experience, beyond physical or mental or even emotional pain, spirit-bound into a pebble and tossed out of the airlock to drift in interstellar space in mindless screaming agony until the end of the universe...?"

(No, seriously, I'd have to go check the logs. I don't keep track of that sort of thing, I've got more important things to do.)

Better question, how much paperwork is torturing and soul-locking an individual? And how many of them were after your chocolate?

[Thanqol]

Not quite. Conflict breeds effectiveness.

What would you call an effective philosophy if not truth?


And as I've said often enough before, story does not need any kind of moral dictomy or philosophical analysis or anything to be good. (Indeed, I find if that is a story's primary purpose, I am vanishingly unlikely to have any interest in it, period. There is no form of media I partake in that does not have some other primary draw.)

Oh sure. Like, exploding starships are their own artform.

But if you're going to have the bad guys then they gotta have something more than ineffective, 'pure' evil. Take Star Wars. The bad guys dress in black and are super creepy withered old men and cyborgs. They're bad guys! That's a thing!

Except Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. And now it's a question of 'how important is family?' It's a morality play.

The Emperor is all about hate and spite and rage. But the Emperor is also super powerful! When Luke buys into his philosophy about the Dark Side he starts kicking Vader's ass. Rage, passion and fury are giving Luke power. There are now interesting questions about how much we should allow our emotions to rule us.

It's pretty unambiguous who the bad guys are and why they're bad. However Star Wars points out that the bad guys are very powerful people and maybe it's worth being bad if that can help you get what you want. It concludes by saying that family is worth more than victory. Star Wars is as black and white morality as it gets but even then it's got a moral core that underscores everything it does.


As I said, I just get very tired of basically being tacitly told "if a story isn't an in-depth character/philosophical/moral analysis/debate/whatever is it isn't any good." Because that's cobblers.

Stories have those things, that's what makes them stories! There's never 'the bad guy', the bad guy is bad because he's cruel, or greedy, or a selfish jerkwad who wants to rule the galaxy. That he's defeated is a metaphorical defeat of his failed ideology.

The statement isn't "If a story lacks a meaningful dialectic it isn't any good". It's "If the story's dialectic isn't very good then it isn't very good".


"Deep" does not always mean good, and "shallow" does not always mean bad.

Darn right. As far as morality goes, my go-to example of Star Wars is a pretty shallow discussion. Anger is bad and calm is good, that's basically it. But they're great films! You don't need to argue a complex position to get a good story.

But you need to argue a position otherwise it's just "Spaceships Exploding.gif"

(Which may well be awesome, but I'm sure I could manage a morality play based off the architecture and thereby implied moral positions of the spaceships. I am an English major.)


And I defy you to categorise me as "grey" and not "absolutely pitch-black" in terms of morals, proof positive (negative?) that is does happen. (And you're daft enough to keep talking to me, so...)

You're effective. That makes you grey.

See, this is the thing you haven't yet got your skull around. Being effective is attractive. One of the most enduring questions for humanity is 'What balance should I strike between effectiveness and morality?' Someone like you, as a very effective, intelligent and ruthless individual represents temptation. If we were all like you we'd be able to solve the hell out of all our problems through ruthless application of force.

That is a very tempting position.

Being effective at your job is a redeeming feature. It makes us wonder what parts of our moral structures are holding us back and if they're worthwhile.

Now if you were crap at your job because you were too selfish to delegate command, too cowardly to risk an engagement, and too proud to back down from a conflict then you'd be truly evil - and utterly boring.

EDIT: Best example of this kind of broad-spectrum evil is King Geoffrey from Game of Thrones. However he comes with different moral questions of his own.

[enderlord99]

Do you really want me to answer that question?

Especially since the follow up is "how many people have I tortured to death and then locked their soul into a state of agony far beyond what living mortals can experience, beyond physical or mental or even emotional pain, spirit-bound into a pebble and tossed out of the airlock to drift in interstellar space in mindless screaming agony until the end of the universe...?"

(No, seriously, I'd have to go check the logs. I don't keep track of that sort of thing, I've got more important things to do.)

...That is clearly a fictional character, even though you refer to him in the first-person singular.

[Forum Explorer]

What would you call an effective philosophy if not truth?



Oh sure. Like, exploding starships are their own artform.

But if you're going to have the bad guys then they gotta have something more than ineffective, 'pure' evil. Take Star Wars. The bad guys dress in black and are super creepy withered old men and cyborgs. They're bad guys! That's a thing!

Except Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. And now it's a question of 'how important is family?' It's a morality play.

The Emperor is all about hate and spite and rage. But the Emperor is also super powerful! When Luke buys into his philosophy about the Dark Side he starts kicking Vader's ass. Rage, passion and fury are giving Luke power. There's now an interesting questions about how much we should allow our emotions to rule us.

It's pretty unambiguous who the bad guys are and why they're bad. However Star Wars points out that the bad guys are very powerful people and maybe it's worth being bad if that can help you get what you want. It concludes by saying that family is worth more than victory. Star Wars is as black and white morality as it gets but even then it's got a moral core that underscores everything it does.



Stories have those things, that's what makes them stories! There's never 'the bad guy', the bad guy is bad because he's cruel, or greedy, or a selfish jerkwad who wants to rule the galaxy. That he's defeated is a metaphorical defeat of his failed ideology.

The statement isn't "If a story lacks a meaningful dialectic it isn't any good". It's "If the story's dialectic isn't very good then it isn't very good".



Darn right. As far as morality goes, my go-to example of Star Wars is a pretty shallow discussion. Anger is bad and calm is good, that's basically it. But they're great films! You don't need to argue a complex position to get a good story.

But you need to argue a position otherwise it's just "Spaceships Exploding.gif"

(Which may well be awesome, but I'm sure I could manage a morality play based off the architecture and thereby implied moral positions of the spaceships. I am an English major.)



You're effective. That makes you grey.

See, this is the thing you haven't yet got your skull around. Being effective is attractive. One of the most enduring questions for humanity is 'What balance should I strike between effectiveness and morality?' Someone like you, as a very effective, intelligent and ruthless individual represents temptation. If we were all like you we'd be able to solve the hell out of all our problems through ruthless application of force.

That is a very tempting position.

Being effective at your job is a redeeming feature. It makes us wonder what parts of our moral structures are holding us back and if they're worthwhile.

Now if you were crap at your job because you were too selfish to delegate command, too cowardly to risk an engagement, and too proud to back down from a conflict then you'd be truly evil - and utterly boring.

EDIT: Best example of this kind of broad-spectrum evil is King Geoffrey from Game of Thrones. However he comes with different moral questions of his own.

Now I disagree with this completely. Effectiveness is tempting yes, but so is evil. It's tempting because it gets you what you want instead of having to make sacrifices that being good requires. The scariest villains are those who can be impersonal and take the long view of things. But that in no way makes them less evil. It just means they aren't raving lunatics.

[Coidzor]

Now I disagree with this completely. Effectiveness is tempting yes, but so is evil. It's tempting because it gets you what you want instead of having to make sacrifices that being good requires. The scariest villains are those who can be impersonal and take the long view of things. But that in no way makes them less evil. It just means they aren't raving lunatics.

I find the scariest villains are the ones who make us realize just how little really separates us from them.

[Thanqol]

Now I disagree with this completely. Effectiveness is tempting yes, but so is evil. It's tempting because it gets you what you want instead of having to make sacrifices that being good requires. The scariest villains are those who can be impersonal and take the long view of things. But that in no way makes them less evil. It just means they aren't raving lunatics.

What? What is 'evil'? Is evil being greedy? Being cruel? Being selfish? Being proud? Being ungodly? Some combination of these? What ratio?

AOTRS' position is 'selfishness with effectiveness'. That's both contemptible and tempting. It's a moral position. You seem to be defining evil as 'getting what you want without making sacrifices'. That's indistinguishable from luck.

You know what the definition of Evil is? "Morally wrong or bad" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil). It is defined by opposition, so when someone says they're evil then you have to ask evil by which moral standard?

And if someone claims to be objectively evil they're either claiming one moral standard as objectively good or claiming they're incorrect by all moral standards.

[Forum Explorer]

What? What is 'evil'? Is evil being greedy? Being cruel? Being selfish? Being proud? Being ungodly? Some combination of these? What ratio?

AOTRS' position is 'selfishness with effectiveness'. That's both contemptible and tempting. It's a moral position. You seem to be defining evil as 'getting what you want without making sacrifices'. That's indistinguishable from luck.

You know what the definition of Evil is? "Morally wrong or bad" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil). It is defined by opposition, so when someone says they're evil then you have to ask evil by which moral standard?

And if someone claims to be objectively evil they're either claiming one moral standard as objectively good or claiming they're incorrect by all moral standards.

My problem is you defining evil by effectiveness. I don't think AORTS is any less evil because they are effective at what they do. They are evil because of the action they take.

So what is evil? Evil is taking evil actions. So what is an evil action? Well that's harder to pin down. There's the basics like stealing, murder, and kidnapping, but there are exceptions to those. However there are some I would consider without exception like Genocide, torture, and trapping someone's soul in a gem to always be evil.

Evil is not any sort of emotion. Emotions are hard to control and I don't think people should be blamed for wanting stuff, or being lazy. It's what they do in response to those emotions that matters. For example if wanting stuff causes you to work hard at two jobs then I wouldn't say that's bad. Or if being lazy means you drive to work rather then bike.

But I'm not about to claim my point of view is objective. It's what I consider to be evil or good. But I will argue my point of view as being correct because I want more people to be good by my definition.

[Thanqol]

My problem is you defining evil by effectiveness. I don't think AORTS is any less evil because they are effective at what they do. They are evil because of the action they take.

No, I'm saying they're not one dimensional evil because they have admirable elements. AORTS is smart and most of his rants are done because he hates stupidity. He values life enough to condemn someone who would throw it away for the sake of honour. He's deeply rational. He condemns nuclear warfare as stupidity. These are all admirable elements.


So what is evil? Evil is taking evil actions. So what is an evil action? Well that's harder to pin down. There's the basics like stealing, murder, and kidnapping, but there are exceptions to those. However there are some I would consider without exception like Genocide, torture, and trapping someone's soul in a gem to always be evil.

Your definition of evil is called into question hundreds of times before you're through the first sentence. Stealing to survive? Murder for revenge, or justice, or to prevent a war? Kidnapping someone who doesn't realize they're about to be murdered? Genocide of a race of cloned serial killers? Blah blah blah, it's all complex and exception based and there's tonnes of media discussing all this.

I think there's no morality associated with actions, actions just are and it's a mugs game to try and work out the rightness or wrongness of any act or class of acts. I think that morality stems from virtues and vices, the core emotions and impulses that make us who and what we are. The intention behind the thing is the thing.

Trolly problem. Two groups of people on the train tracks, can kill 5 to save 1. The rational robotic response is to save the 5. The moral response is to identify this as a horrible situation, make the call, and then regret it afterwards and do whatever you can to prevent that from happening again.


Evil is not any sort of emotion. Emotions are hard to control and I don't think people should be blamed for wanting stuff, or being lazy. It's what they do in response to those emotions that matters. For example if wanting stuff causes you to work hard at two jobs then I wouldn't say that's bad. Or if being lazy means you drive to work rather then bike.

So in your world there's 'vices you have' and 'decisions you make' and those are separate things?

I don't think they are. I think the vices you have define the decisions you make. You don't decide to rise above your vices, you cultivate the virtue of discipline until you are capable of doing so reliably.

[Forum Explorer]

No, I'm saying they're not one dimensional evil because they have admirable elements. AORTS is smart and most of his rants are done because he hates stupidity. He values life enough to condemn someone who would throw it away for the sake of honour. He's deeply rational. He condemns nuclear warfare as stupidity. These are all admirable elements.



Your definition of evil is called into question hundreds of times before you're through the first sentence. Stealing to survive? Murder for revenge, or justice, or to prevent a war? Kidnapping someone who doesn't realize they're about to be murdered? Genocide of a race of cloned serial killers? Blah blah blah, it's all complex and exception based and there's tonnes of media discussing all this.

I think there's no morality associated with actions, actions just are and it's a mugs game to try and work out the rightness or wrongness of any act or class of acts. I think that morality stems from virtues and vices, the core emotions and impulses that make us who and what we are. The intention behind the thing is the thing.

Trolly problem. Two groups of people on the train tracks, can kill 5 to save 1. The rational robotic response is to save the 5. The moral response is to identify this as a horrible situation, make the call, and then regret it afterwards and do whatever you can to prevent that from happening again.



So in your world there's 'vices you have' and 'decisions you make' and those are separate things?

I don't think they are. I think the vices you have define the decisions you make. You don't decide to rise above your vices, you cultivate the virtue of discipline until you are capable of doing so reliably.

One dimensional doesn't mean not Pure Evil. Like Xykon is very interesting, cool, and even offered to spare the hero. I wouldn't say he's anything less then pure evil. He even has admirable traits.

It gets even more complex when you realize that just because you took one evil action (or even plenty) doesn't make you evil. But I would say that Genociding a race of Cloned Serial Killers is Evil. It's making the assumption that none of the clones are even capable of being redeemed or simply being normal. After all only the original has actually done something wrong. Look at V from OotS, using Familicide was considered to be evil even though she was doing it against an 'Always Evil' race and was doing it to protect her family.

I disagree. Action are ultimately what really matters. I mean if I murder someone because they raped my sister vs me murdering someone because they I felt they were utterly worthless are both me murdering someone. If I murdered someone to protect someone else, then that is a big difference, but whether I did it out of guilt, terror, bravery, or even blind rage doesn't matter.

I agree completely and I wouldn't blame the person who couldn't decide or even chose to save the one, even if that meant they killed my entire family. Because they aren't at fault for being forced into such a horrible decision.


I don't understand how some people struggle to control their vices, and so that makes it hard for me to sympathize with that point of view. If I wish to avoid a vice, I simply avoid situations in which it might arise, and I've never really struggled to do so. If I wish to indulge a vice, well that's generally easy enough to do. Have I made mistakes in indulging a vice when I should have resisted? Yeah, certainly. But I have to admit that I wasn't really trying to avoid the vice, I simply made a bad judgement call in my priorities at that time.

So again ultimately it's what you actually do that matters. Not necessarily what results, but what you do.

[Coidzor]

What? What is 'evil'? Is evil being greedy? Being cruel? Being selfish? Being proud? Being ungodly? Some combination of these? What ratio?

What happened to harming others?

[Thanqol]

One dimensional doesn't mean not Pure Evil. Like Xykon is very interesting, cool, and even offered to spare the hero. I wouldn't say he's anything less then pure evil. He even has admirable traits.

If the OotS pursued their goals as ruthlessly as Xykon they'd have won by now. V's little dragon stunt proved that.

So the question is 'how much evil?' Which is interesting. Which is what I'm saying. It's never a binary switch.


It gets even more complex when you realize that just because you took one evil action (or even plenty) doesn't make you evil. But I would say that Genociding a race of Cloned Serial Killers is Evil. It's making the assumption that none of the clones are even capable of being redeemed or simply being normal. After all only the original has actually done something wrong. Look at V from OotS, using Familicide was considered to be evil even though she was doing it against an 'Always Evil' race and was doing it to protect her family.

That's right. It's complex. It's a question worthy of discussion and debate in media. A webcomic is exactly the right place to have that kind of dialogue.


I disagree. Action are ultimately what really matters. I mean if I murder someone because they raped my sister vs me murdering someone because they I felt they were utterly worthless are both me murdering someone. If I murdered someone to protect someone else, then that is a big difference, but whether I did it out of guilt, terror, bravery, or even blind rage doesn't matter.

Yes it does. Because your emotional reaction defines what you do next.


I agree completely and I wouldn't blame the person who couldn't decide or even chose to save the one, even if that meant they killed my entire family. Because they aren't at fault for being forced into such a horrible decision.

Exactly! That's my point - after the switch has been pulled those guys are super dead. The only meaningful question at that point is 'what do you do next?'


So again ultimately it's what you actually do that matters. Not necessarily what results, but what you do.

It's a narrow difference but you're assigning value-judgements to the actions. I'm assigning value-judgements to the decisions.


What happened to harming others?

So the prison system is evil?

It's all subjective is what I'm saying.

But that doesn't mean that morality is meaningless. I've forged my ideas of right and wrong and will hold to those in the face of floods and fire. If my code of ethics demands it I will kill or maim. I will trample other cultures and ideas underfoot to see my ideals ascendant.

But at no point do I pretend that I'm buying into objective good or evil. I only have one guide: My judgement.

[Forum Explorer]

If the OotS pursued their goals as ruthlessly as Xykon they'd have won by now. V's little dragon stunt proved that.

So the question is 'how much evil?' Which is interesting. Which is what I'm saying. It's never a binary switch.



That's right. It's complex. It's a question worthy of discussion and debate in media. A webcomic is exactly the right place to have that kind of dialogue.



Yes it does. Because your emotional reaction defines what you do next.



Exactly! That's my point - after the switch has been pulled those guys are super dead. The only meaningful question at that point is 'what do you do next?'



It's a narrow difference but you're assigning value-judgements to the actions. I'm assigning value-judgements to the decisions.



So the prison system is evil?

It's all subjective is what I'm saying.

But that doesn't mean that morality is meaningless. I've forged my ideas of right and wrong and will hold to those in the face of floods and fire. If my code of ethics demands it I will kill or maim. I will trample other cultures and ideas underfoot to see my ideals ascendant.

But at no point do I pretend that I'm buying into objective good or evil. I only have one guide: My judgement.

But then they wouldn't be good. And there's no guarantee that would work or have worse repercussions for them all in the end. It is highly complex and it's incredibly hard to simplify.

Sure, a webcomic is a great place to discuss morality. As long as it doesn't interfere with the story. Because getting preached to in a story is a big problem. Which some people think have been a problem with the latest Discworld novels :smallwink:


I disagree. My emotions might influence what I do next, but I strive to make my actions based on what I think is the right choice, not what I'm feeling at that moment. Losing control of your emotions is forgivable, but something to be avoided. In my books anyways.

Emphasis on the do


It is a narrow difference which makes this so fascinating. But I feel a decision without any action is about as moral as a wish. It's how you act on that decision that matters.

[Lord Raziere]

I was going to make my usual "I find Discworld boring" comment…but this debate is much better, and for more interesting.

however Thanqol- effectiveness can be also subjective. if an action accomplishes all that I want but destroys the objective morality I hold myself in the process, that would not be very effective at all, for the physical would be achieved at the cost of the spiritual. spirit, mind, body, all must be harmony to be effective. it is a proven fact that someone needs both a healthy body and a healthy mind to truly be healthy.

furthermore just because these issues are complex, does not you can go around labeling everything as subjective, I wholeheartedly say that there are objective moral answers to these questions, they are just more complex and need to be well thought out than the ones we are used to. we have graduated from figuring out basic morality: don't kill, don't steal, etc etc, and now we a civilization are starting to move on to the more complex questions.

I consider simplistically going around labeling everything of moral value as "subjective" is acknowledging the problem of how complex morality can be, but sadly running away from the problem by putting it all under one stamp and thinking that one can just "wing it" when these are serious issues that need to be solved, when saying thats it subjective and therefore a matter purely of taste is counter-productive and doesn't contribute anything to actually solving these problems. Its acknowledging the differences of viewpoint without actually making any attempt to bridge the gap and find a workable compromise or better solution. Which I cannot accept in any shape or form.

Furthermore, you acknowledge that your morality is nothing but taste then you acknowledge that you will gladly force your tastes upon others, which is morally wrong to me. there is a difference between forcing your own morality on others and punishing people for breaking moral codes. and I don't think subjectivism recognizes the difference.

finally, if its all subjective, you have made an objective statement, therefore its not all subjective because you just made an objective statement that all morality is objectively subjective. there is no true moral subjectivism, for you must make an objective statement about morality to believe in it. You may think morality matters in such a case, but you have devalued it to etiquette and preference, when there is a clear reaction from people to bring those justice who do wrong, and a clear need in humanity to have things are wrong and things that are right. a person who sees someone kill another reacts instinctively to bring that person to justice in ordinary society. keep in mind- military and prison are very extreme socialization institutions and are not indicative of the norm.

why do we have this instinctive need for right and wrong, if isn't objective? if it was all subjective, where does the desire for justice come from at all? where, does the desire for everyone to get along come from, if not at some level we need an objective morality?

after all, would you, Thanqol, like it if a person took your own medicine and shoved it down your throat? if they trampled over all your ideas and culture to see theirs ascend instead? remember the golden rule: do unto other as they would have do unto you. and I very much desire not to harm anybody. of course this rule applies in reverse- in self defense. if a person attacks me, I am obligated to defend myself, golden rule. likewise, if a criminal commits a crime we as society imprison them in self defense, where if a person did not commit a crime, they are fine and we are obligated to treat them as normal. golden rule.

to me, objective morality is not only a thing that exists, it is a thing that is needed.

[Coidzor]

So the prison system is evil?

It's all subjective is what I'm saying.

But that doesn't mean that morality is meaningless. I've forged my ideas of right and wrong and will hold to those in the face of floods and fire. If my code of ethics demands it I will kill or maim. I will trample other cultures and ideas underfoot to see my ideals ascendant.

It certainly can be as has been argued ad nauseum by people from philosopher to poet, screenwriter to vlogger. That wasn't why I brought it up though, and I imagine you already know what the retort to the surface of your reply would be anyway.

I'm merely pointing out that you lose a level of nuance if you describe qualities as evil and ignore actions and lifestyles that stem from those qualities.

The greediest pig in the world isn't evil if he never crosses the line into harming others for his greed, and a person who has foresworn material gain and never felt a desire for lucre can promulgate systems of abuse which harm generations of children in the name of their "best interests."


But at no point do I pretend that I'm buying into objective good or evil. I only have one guide: My judgement.

I mostly agree, though it might just be a semantic quibble, but I find that the discourse of others has been useful, though that might just be because it has helped develop my judgment by reacting to what they put forth.

[warty goblin]

finally, if its all subjective, you have made an objective statement, therefore its not all subjective because you just made an objective statement that all morality is objectively subjective. there is no true moral subjectivism, for you must make an objective statement about morality to believe in it.

This doesn't work out. The subjectivity of something can be objective, even if the thing itself is still completely subjective. I like lots of chili powder in my cooking, which is entirely subjective. It can objectively verified as a subjective opinion because I know people who would be in agony at some of the dishes I make and enjoy.


You may think morality matters in such a case, but you have devalued it to etiquette and preference, when there is a clear reaction from people to bring those justice who do wrong, and a clear need in humanity to have things are wrong and things that are right. a person who sees someone kill another reacts instinctively to bring that person to justice in ordinary society. keep in mind- military and prison are very extreme socialization institutions and are not indicative of the norm.
This really depends on the culture. If I saw one man knife another because the second had called him gay, I, with my cultural background, would want the first man brought to justice. If I lived in tenth century Iceland I would consider the above episode a completely legal and just outcome.

Or suppose I rule some swath of land, and want more wealth and larger labor force. Generally speaking today we'd frown on me getting the lads together, sailing across the way, setting somebody else's land on fire, killing all the men, and taking the women and children as slaves. For much of history this sort of action is not just acceptable, but downright laudable.


why do we have this instinctive need for right and wrong, if isn't objective? if it was all subjective, where does the desire for justice come from at all? where, does the desire for everyone to get along come from, if not at some level we need an objective morality?
If there's an objective morality, how come people have cooked up so many of them?


after all, would you, Thanqol, like it if a person took your own medicine and shoved it down your throat? if they trampled over all your ideas and culture to see theirs ascend instead? remember the golden rule: do unto other as they would have do unto you. and I very much desire not to harm anybody. of course this rule applies in reverse- in self defense. if a person attacks me, I am obligated to defend myself, golden rule. likewise, if a criminal commits a crime we as society imprison them in self defense, where if a person did not commit a crime, they are fine and we are obligated to treat them as normal. golden rule.
Subjectively I agree with all of this. However I can offer very little in the way of objective proof. Even the golden rule rests fundamentally on an assumption of equally privileged viewpoints, that one person's pain is equivalent to another's. It's a perfectly fine thing to believe, but it's pretty hard to verify as objectively true.


to me, objective morality is not only a thing that exists, it is a thing that is needed.
Again, if it's objective, why are there so many?

[Thanqol]

But then they wouldn't be good.

Who defines good?

I do. I don't trust anyone else with something so incredibly important. I listen to advice but the final decision is up to me.

You should certainly operate on the same process.


I disagree. My emotions might influence what I do next, but I strive to make my actions based on what I think is the right choice, not what I'm feeling at that moment. Losing control of your emotions is forgivable, but something to be avoided. In my books anyways.

I feel the duality between thoughts and emotions is a false one. Controlling your emotions through iron discipline is just another emotional pattern.


It is a narrow difference which makes this so fascinating. But I feel a decision without any action is about as moral as a wish. It's how you act on that decision that matters.

A decision not to act is still a decision. A decision you don't follow through on is not a decision.


however Thanqol- effectiveness can be also subjective. if an action accomplishes all that I want but destroys the objective morality I hold myself in the process, that would not be very effective at all, for the physical would be achieved at the cost of the spiritual.

That would be, uh, the nature of morality. Don't compromise your own moral standards. I think if anything is evil it's compromising your own moral standards.

If your moral standards are crap they need to be updated and changed, but if you're holding yourself to a certain level then you'd better live up to it.


furthermore just because these issues are complex, does not you can go around labeling everything as subjective, I wholeheartedly say that there are objective moral answers to these questions, they are just more complex and need to be well thought out than the ones we are used to. we have graduated from figuring out basic morality: don't kill, don't steal, etc etc, and now we a civilization are starting to move on to the more complex questions.

What? We've graduated from basic morality? So I guess using robot drones to kill people in foreign nations is like, high school morality then?


I consider simplistically going around labeling everything of moral value as "subjective" is acknowledging the problem of how complex morality can be, but sadly running away from the problem by putting it all under one stamp and thinking that one can just "wing it" when these are serious issues that need to be solved, when saying thats it subjective and therefore a matter purely of taste is counter-productive and doesn't contribute anything to actually solving these problems. Its acknowledging the differences of viewpoint without actually making any attempt to bridge the gap and find a workable compromise or better solution. Which I cannot accept in any shape or form.

Furthermore, you acknowledge that your morality is nothing but taste then you acknowledge that you will gladly force your tastes upon others, which is morally wrong to me. there is a difference between forcing your own morality on others and punishing people for breaking moral codes. and I don't think subjectivism recognizes the difference.

Everything is subjective. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for your subjective beliefs tooth and nail, with all the zeal and conviction as you would otherwise. I believe in my own cause enough to kill or die for. I don't need a deity or a floating, disembodied platonic concept of THE GOOD written in golden letters to do the right thing. It just means that it is on me to figure out what good is. I can't take my cues from anyone else.

Other people may have different ideas from me. Someone might believe that it's totally acceptable for, say, the government to spy on all citizens because of the increased safety in exchange. I find the idea reprehensible and will strive with all my will to fight for privacy and free speech but I never at any point dehumanise my opponents by saying that some objective third party has decreed them cosmically wrong.

I'm not running away from my problems with subjective morality. I am very clearly and prominently declaring that my moral system is the best one I can possibly live by on the grounds that every time I encounter a better system I steal the parts of it I like and add it to my own.


finally, if its all subjective, you have made an objective statement, therefore its not all subjective because you just made an objective statement that all morality is objectively subjective.

Schematics. Referring to subjectivity does not mean everything ever is subjective so, like, we can't really know anything man


there is no true moral subjectivism, for you must make an objective statement about morality to believe in it. You may think morality matters in such a case, but you have devalued it to etiquette and preference, when there is a clear reaction from people to bring those justice who do wrong, and a clear need in humanity to have things are wrong and things that are right. a person who sees someone kill another reacts instinctively to bring that person to justice in ordinary society. keep in mind- military and prison are very extreme socialization institutions and are not indicative of the norm.

why do we have this instinctive need for right and wrong, if isn't objective? if it was all subjective, where does the desire for justice come from at all? where, does the desire for everyone to get along come from, if not at some level we need an objective morality?

I actually totally understand the objection you're having here. Morality is more important than taste and preference. Morality is how we live our lives. Morality is everything. Morality is the most important thing we have.

That isn't incompatible with subjective morality.

Subjective morality just means there's no word from on high that shows us the one true way. Subjective morality means we have to make some hard decisions about what our causes are going to be. Subjective morality is eminently humanizing - only YOU can decide what is right, you know it, you feel it deep in your heart, and no one can tell you different.

This doesn't mean that other people have positions as valid as yours. It doesn't mean you should even respect their position. It means you shouldn't take God's name as justification for what you do.


after all, would you, Thanqol, like it if a person took your own medicine and shoved it down your throat? if they trampled over all your ideas and culture to see theirs ascend instead? remember the golden rule: do unto other as they would have do unto you. and I very much desire not to harm anybody. of course this rule applies in reverse- in self defense. if a person attacks me, I am obligated to defend myself, golden rule. likewise, if a criminal commits a crime we as society imprison them in self defense, where if a person did not commit a crime, they are fine and we are obligated to treat them as normal. golden rule.

The first rule of my moral system is to adopt the best parts of other moral systems as I become aware of them. I've stolen stuff from every major religion and plenty of minor and extinct ones to form the foundation of who I am. If someone else comes to me with a moral system then I'll be happy to argue it out with them until the campfire burns low. If we both approach with open minds we'll both learn something about ourselves and about each other and step closer to the Truth.

If someone's moral system is closed against debate then I find that revolting and will use whatever other means are necessary to stand up for my convictions.


to me, objective morality is not only a thing that exists, it is a thing that is needed.

Objective morality is only needed if you don't believe in the magnificent potential of human souls to change, grow and ascend.


The greediest pig in the world isn't evil if he never crosses the line into harming others for his greed,

If someone is 'greedy' but never acts on his greed then whatever virtue is restraining him is superior to the greed. He is to be praised for his virtue and cannot be said to be greedy at all.


and a person who has foresworn material gain and never felt a desire for lucre can promulgate systems of abuse which harm generations of children in the name of their "best interests."

A holistic approach to the world is necessary. Money isn't evil and poverty isn't good, both those ideas are abhorrent. Wealth is a means to an end and if your endgame sucks then you suck.

[Misery Esquire]

If someone is 'greedy' but never acts on his greed then whatever virtue is restraining him is superior to the greed. He is to be praised for his virtue and cannot be said to be greedy at all.


...But the presented point was that the person is being greedy, just failing to harm others in the greed.

:smallconfused:

/outofcontext

[Thanqol]

...But the presented point was that the person is being greedy, just failing to harm others in the greed.

:smallconfused:

/outofcontext

> Premise: Greed that never harms anyone
> Definition of greed: Intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.
> Selfishness part of the definition
> Greed without selfishness: Intense desire for something
> Intense desire for something: Passion, love, obsession
> Why would this be evil?

[Forum Explorer]

Who defines good?

I do. I don't trust anyone else with something so incredibly important. I listen to advice but the final decision is up to me.

You should certainly operate on the same process.



I feel the duality between thoughts and emotions is a false one. Controlling your emotions through iron discipline is just another emotional pattern.



A decision not to act is still a decision. A decision you don't follow through on is not a decision.



If someone is 'greedy' but never acts on his greed then whatever virtue is restraining him is superior to the greed. He is to be praised for his virtue and cannot be said to be greedy at all.



A holistic approach to the world is necessary. Money isn't evil and poverty isn't good, both those ideas are abhorrent. Wealth is a means to an end and if your endgame sucks then you suck.

I certainly do define good when I see it. My problem is that I often lack all of the details to judge other people's actions. But I can certainly judge my own actions.

Now that I disagree with. My emotions and instincts are not the same as my thoughts. There is a big distinction between angry me and rational me and just because rational me is in charge, doesn't mean I don't hear angry me. I will admit that despite my best efforts my emotions will always have some input, because otherwise I'd be a robot with no emotions, which is something I'm not willing to do.

Agreed that a decision to not act is a decision. But if a decision that isn't followed up on isn't a decision, then how is that different from an action?


Not necessarily, I can fully act upon my own greed (I'm fairly greedy) without crossing any sort of line. I take more then my fair share of the food, I love to collect my possessions and hate sharing them. If I do share something I expect it back and a certainly expect reimbursement if it breaks. Once something is mine I hate to give it back and I expect to be repaid for favors, if only in kind.

Though recently I've been trying to be more Generous. With a decent amount of success too. I still like eating all the food though.


> Premise: Greed that never harms anyone
> Definition of greed: Intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.
> Selfishness part of the definition
> Greed without selfishness: Intense desire for something
> Intense desire for something: Passion, love, obsession
> Why would this be evil?

Greed in of itself isn't evil. And when it isn't it's often seen as obsession or passion or ambition. But at the same time it could simply be the opposite of generosity. You keep what you earn and refuse it to others.

and the point is that it isn't evil. It's greedy, but greed isn't evil.

[Lord Raziere]

subjectivism is always mistaking a wealth of viewpoints as proof that none of them are right. the number of views on something means nothing, it only means that its harder to find- or figure out- the correct one.

furthermore, just because someone holds a different viewpoint from another time or another culture, doesn't mean its right to think that way or that they are immune to criticism or being wrong. circumstances like that are irrelevant,
if a person is wrong, they are wrong. culture, time, be darned. they are factors that cloud the issue are ultimately tangential to the actual question of morality.
they are ultimately barriers that are counterproductive to real discussion of what is really moral, and the use of such factors in subjectivism are really nothing but shields to further avoid real discussion with "but here is a group of people who think differently!" when really, if you look hard enough, humanity has a tendency to disagree on everything, even basic facts that almost everyone knows is true. disagreement is nothing special on its own, and all it proves is that you THINK that your right, but proves nothing else.

and yes I believe in the power of humanity's potential to grow, adapt change, improve and generally become and greater, wholeheartedly. there would be no point to objective morality otherwise, and no point to science, technology or progress in general. and furthermore, no point to philosophy.

that and its arrogant to assume that morality is some sort of beautiful figurine that captures your individuality that you made yourself. and this is speaking as a staunch individualist. you do not be moral for the sake of "hey everyone look, I have my own morality! look how moral I am by my own standards!" you be moral because it is right. and nothing else. morality is only about yourself insofar as it pertains your mental, spiritual and physical health. otherwise it how you treat others, and often how everyone should treat everyone else.

and no subjectivism isn't about not taking some higher powers say or anything- that is atheism. a lack in belief in higher powers. I do not believe in higher powers such as that, but I still consider morality objective, otherwise morality is meaningless. I don't consider it "stealing" I consider taking such lessons as discovery and sort out the true good from the mistaken.

[Thanqol]

I certainly do define good when I see it. My problem is that I often lack all of the details to judge other people's actions. But I can certainly judge my own actions.

Good! Then the question is where you set your standard.


Now that I disagree with. My emotions and instincts are not the same as my thoughts. There is a big distinction between angry me and rational me and just because rational me is in charge, doesn't mean I don't hear angry me. I will admit that despite my best efforts my emotions will always have some input, because otherwise I'd be a robot with no emotions, which is something I'm not willing to do.

I do not accept this artificial separation of mind, emotion, body, and soul. You are you. Don't demonize parts of yourself or reactions you have!


Agreed that a decision to not act is a decision. But if a decision that isn't followed up on isn't a decision, then how is that different from an action?

Assigning moral agency to the action leads to stupid generalizations like 'killing is bad' when plainly killing is necessary in certain situations.


Not necessarily, I can fully act upon my own greed (I'm fairly greedy) without crossing any sort of line. I take more then my fair share of the food, I love to collect my possessions and hate sharing them. If I do share something I expect it back and a certainly expect reimbursement if it breaks. Once something is mine I hate to give it back and I expect to be repaid for favors, if only in kind.

Though recently I've been trying to be more Generous. With a decent amount of success too. I still like eating all the food though.

Then your standards are low. Raise your standards.


Greed in of itself isn't evil. And when it isn't it's often seen as obsession or passion or ambition. But at the same time it could simply be the opposite of generosity. You keep what you earn and refuse it to others.

and the point is that it isn't evil. It's greedy, but greed isn't evil.

Well, uh. Congratulations. I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that 'greed without hurting anyone' is either due to low standards of hurt (world of scarce resources) or an oxymoron.

[Thanqol]

subjectivism is always mistaking a wealth of viewpoints as proof that none of them are right. the number of views on something means nothing, it only means that its harder to find- or figure out- the correct one.

furthermore, just because someone holds a different viewpoint from another time or another culture, doesn't mean its right to think that way or that they are immune to criticism or being wrong. circumstances like that are irrelevant,
if a person is wrong, they are wrong. culture, time, be darned. they are factors that cloud the issue are ultimately tangential to the actual question of morality.
they are ultimately barriers that are counterproductive to real discussion of what is really moral, and the use of such factors in subjectivism are really nothing but shields to further avoid real discussion with "but here is a group of people who think differently!" when really, if you look hard enough, humanity has a tendency to disagree on everything, even basic facts that almost everyone knows is true. disagreement is nothing special on its own, and all it proves is that you THINK that your right, but proves nothing else.

and yes I believe in the power of humanity's potential to grow, adapt change, improve and generally become and greater, wholeheartedly. there would be no point to objective morality otherwise, and no point to science, technology or progress in general. and furthermore, no point to philosophy.

So how do you go about proving what is objectively correct?


that and its arrogant to assume that morality is some sort of beautiful figurine that captures your individuality that you made yourself. and this is speaking as a staunch individualist. you do not be moral for the sake of "hey everyone look, I have my own morality! look how moral I am by my own standards!" you be moral because it is right. and nothing else. morality is only about yourself insofar as it pertains your mental, spiritual and physical health. otherwise it how you treat others, and often how everyone should treat everyone else.

What's wrong with some arrogance?

We don't have to dream that we are important.


and no subjectivism isn't about not taking some higher powers say or anything- that is atheism. a lack in belief in higher powers. I do not believe in higher powers such as that, but I still consider morality objective, otherwise morality is meaningless. I don't consider it "stealing" I consider taking such lessons as discovery and sort out the true good from the mistaken.

For objective morality to exist then there has to be a physical platonic object floating around in some parallel dimension which has all of morality written down on it. There has to be an object. That is what objective means. This is the actual meaning of what you are saying, that somewhere there is some divine or transdimensional object that defines all goodness in relation to it.

I consider the idea absurd. There are only the standards that people, either individually or collectively, decide upon.

[Forum Explorer]

Good! Then the question is where you set your standard.



I do not accept this artificial separation of mind, emotion, body, and soul. You are you. Don't demonize parts of yourself or reactions you have!



Assigning moral agency to the action leads to stupid generalizations like 'killing is bad' when plainly killing is necessary in certain situations.



Then your standards are low. Raise your standards.



Well, uh. Congratulations. I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that 'greed without hurting anyone' is either due to low standards of hurt (world of scarce resources) or an oxymoron.


I am me, but my emotions are my emotions, my body is my body, and my soul is my soul. They are separate parts but they are all part of one whole. Like my foot is part of my body, but my foot also is a separate part of my body, and if there is a problem with my foot that risks the rest of my body, my foot can be cut off for the greater good.


Stupid generalizations are simply stupid. Moving moral agency to the decision doesn't prevent stupid generalizations. I don't think anything can.

Oh don't worry my greed is fully under control. My desire to be greedy certainly is a thing, but I control that desire and do not let it impact my actions. For example I may not like loaning things out, but if I can't think of a reason not to I do share my possessions.


That actually opens up a whole different can of worms. That of personal responsibility to the world. I certainly use more resources then the majority of the world, because I live in a first world country and am middle class. Does that mean I'm obligated to give up my stuff and live a life of poverty til everyone is equal? Am I greedy for not doing so?

[SuperPanda]

So many things here...


Re: Thought / Emotion -

The brain is so imesnely complex that the fraction we understand is already more complex than the most advanced computer system we've ever endeavoured to build as a species. We can't begin to untangle the functions of the various constructs in the brain (and we can mostly only guess at the full extent of the chemical synapses, knowing very little about them compared to the electrical ones).

I actually think Wee Free Men's "second thoughts" characterized this excellently as did Le Jean in Thief of Time We are the darkness behind the eyes, and there is more than one of us at any given time. Emotion is one voice thought takes, but there are many others. Some of them are calm and logical, some of them are The Beast and will be there when we call, and some of them are the innocent face looking back at us holding a bloody knife and asking "why are you always picking on me officer?" a moment before it springs.

Re: Objective/Subjective.

Maybe, from very far away from here, examined carefully in the 90% of the universe that is the paperwork there is a metric which can count the full effect of a life and determine if is was a net positive or net negative. Even then though, a net positive for who/what/why... Any logically rigorous operalization of "Good" requires it to be set to a metric and compared against something else. Something could be objectively "Good for your health" or "Good for the planet" or "Good at the job" but when you remove the qualifier and it just becomes "Good" the question is "good at what?

In Carpe Jugulum Pratchett deconstructs that question by showing that for one part of Uberwald, the way to be good is to be bad, and the way to be bad is the be good. He calls it being smart and being stupid, but it works out the same.

In The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents the protagonists are left wondering how any creature could be as evil as to teach their young to dream of a world where all creatures could live together in peace, and then devise the most nasty death traps for those same species they dream of living in harmony with. To talk of peace while devising methods of torture is uniquely human throughout the Discworld books.

If anything, we are the "always evil" species and the other groups just learn how to turn our attentions to some ther poor sucker.

I love how Pratchett's books (as a whole) completely deconstruct the ideas of good and evil and then reconstruct something else at a very subtle level. The characters who take "evil-ish" and turn it to good are the Hero characters of his books. Vimes (wrath), Granny (Greed - witches are selfish, they protect what is theres and how dare you take what is mine), Rincewind (sloth... well, when not running), Vetenari (pride - the firm confidence that he simply is bette than everyone), Lipwig (Con-man, theif), Rob Anybody (Drinking an' Stealin' an' fightin'!)...

And yet the traditional Good characters are really powerful.
Carrot - Personal isn't the same as important.
Sybil - Has never hurt anyone and has swayed not just the racists, but the low-king simply with a song and a smile).
Nanny Ogg - Implied in Wintersmith to be, and have always been, more powerful than Granny but having enough sense to not let Granny find out because Granny needs a friend to keep from going bad, and can't be friends with anyone she sees as a challenge.

[Lord Raziere]

So how do you go about proving what is objectively correct?



What's wrong with some arrogance?

We don't have to dream that we are important.



For objective morality to exist then there has to be a physical platonic object floating around in some parallel dimension which has all of morality written down on it. There has to be an object. That is what objective means. This is the actual meaning of what you are saying, that somewhere there is some divine or transdimensional object that defines all goodness in relation to it.

I consider the idea absurd. There are only the standards that people, either individually or collectively, decide upon.

1. With great difficulty and patience.

2. because arrogance leads to pride and pride goeth before the fall.

3. I don't really care for physicalism/materialism either. I still think there is objective morality. people collectively deciding upon morality has been shown to be wrong before and is nothing but cultural relativism, when many people who we consider moral beings were the minority who spoke against the majority and showed how the majority were morally wrong.

[Thanqol]

1. With great difficulty and patience.

No, seriously. How? There's a process, right? What is the process? A secret committee of philosophers talking it out? Congressional legislation? "Society"? Which societies? Who's doing this great and difficult task? Can I learn from them?


2. because arrogance leads to pride and pride goeth before the fall.

That's a bible quote. Is the implication from this that the Abrahamic religions have a claim on objective morality? Because there are other moral systems that say that pride is perfectly healthy, even necessary.

Why should I accept humility as a virtue?


3. I don't really care for physicalism/materialism either. I still think there is objective morality. people collectively deciding upon morality has been shown to be wrong before and is nothing but cultural relativism, when many people who we consider moral beings were the minority who spoke against the majority and showed how the majority were morally wrong.

Objective morality means that somewhere, out there, there is an actual One True Code Of Conduct. Which One True Way is it? How do we know which one is right? What is the difference between the One True Way and an entire foolish, misguided culture?

This minority of moral beings - who are you referring to? The communist agitators in England and France during the Cold War? The Maoist guerillas in India? The violent revolutionaries of 1733?

Stop talking in vague, unsupported generalisations. Man up and be specific. Objective morality exists: Who defines it? What is it? Why should I take your word for it?

[dehro]

when did this thread become about judging/questioning one another's values, morality and ethics?

[Thanqol]

when did this thread become about judging/questioning one another's values, morality and ethics?

I didn't mean it! People just kept being wrong!

I was planning on piping down right around now anyhow.

[Aotrs Commander]

when did this thread become about judging/questioning one another's values, morality and ethics?

Largely because me and Thanqol.



We could be, like a sitcom. Bleakbane and Thanqol! One is a malevolent, vindictive, megalomanical, omnicidal Undead abomination with grandure and the other is... um... Thanqol! Together, they fight crime derail threads!

[Killer Angel]

We could be, like a sitcom. Bleakbane and Thanqol! One is a malevolent, vindictive, megalomanical, omnicidal Undead abomination with grandure and the other is... um... Thanqol! Together, they fight crime derail threads!

I'm sure you'll both find a place on the back of Great A'Tuin. :smallwink:

[Thanqol]

Largely because me and Thanqol.



We could be, like a sitcom. Bleakbane and Thanqol! One is a malevolent, vindictive, megalomanical, omnicidal Undead abomination with grandure and the other is... um... Thanqol! Together, they fight crime derail threads!

I do like how Thanqol is the only adjective worthy of describing Thanqol the noun.

(Goddamn it, I've already got too many things I need to draw.)

[Aotrs Commander]

I do like how Thanqol is the only adjective worthy of describing Thanqol the noun.

I thought you might...



(Goddamn it, I've already got too many things I need to draw.)

I do keep telling you all I'm Evil.

[endoperez]

Going back to the "greedy but not acting on it" thing...

Alcoholism is a desire to drink alcohol. A person who has been an alcoholic can keep from drinking alcohol, but the desire still stays. A person may be an alcoholic without having taken a single sip of alcohol for years.

For me, it's easy enough to imagine the same situation, with almost any vice taking the place of alcoholism. Some examples from Discworld:


Vimes: A violent man fighting against his violent nature. He's pretty good at the "no killing" thing. Also a recovering alcoholic. In Jingo, he was very careful to not let his bigotry affect his crime-solving.

Granny Weatherwax: As explained in Witches Abroad, she'd have been much better at being an evil than her sister. However, since she believes in balance and her sister took the evil role, she's forcing herself to be good.

Angua: As a werewolf, she hunts for meat. She's managing to keep herself in check, so she only goes after chickens and - once the full moon's over - goes back as a human and pays for them.
"It was hard to be a vegetarian who had to pick bits of meat out of her teeth in the morning. She was definately on top of it, though. It was easy to be a vegetarian by day. It was preventing yourself from becoming a humanitarian at night that took the real effort.”"

[Lord Raziere]

No, seriously. How? There's a process, right? What is the process? A secret committee of philosophers talking it out? Congressional legislation? "Society"? Which societies? Who's doing this great and difficult task? Can I learn from them?



That's a bible quote. Is the implication from this that the Abrahamic religions have a claim on objective morality? Because there are other moral systems that say that pride is perfectly healthy, even necessary.

Why should I accept humility as a virtue?



Objective morality means that somewhere, out there, there is an actual One True Code Of Conduct. Which One True Way is it? How do we know which one is right? What is the difference between the One True Way and an entire foolish, misguided culture?

This minority of moral beings - who are you referring to? The communist agitators in England and France during the Cold War? The Maoist guerillas in India? The violent revolutionaries of 1733?

Stop talking in vague, unsupported generalisations. Man up and be specific. Objective morality exists: Who defines it? What is it? Why should I take your word for it?

no one, we haven't figured it out yet, to say that anyone right now has figured it out yet is foolish, because its all the current stuff is flawed ok? there is no example that defines the real objective morality, because its not a thing that you can come by easily, its still in the process of being figured out, and probably not be fully figured out for quite some time, probably not even in our lifetime.

its probably not even a culturally based thing. or a thing that maps exactly to any current conception of what we think it is. your thinking that its already figured out, its not. no one defines it, because no one has figured it out fully, to say that you have is the pride I'm talking about.

yet still! I search for it. I look for the parts that are probably it and incorporate into it, I discover what I can. but I do not presume to define it, because no one has figured it out yet. you are a fool if you think you have.

[endoperez]

no one, we haven't figured it out yet, to say that anyone right now has figured it out yet is foolish, because its all the current stuff is flawed ok? there is no example that defines the real objective morality, because its not a thing that you can come by easily, its still in the process of being figured out, and probably not be fully figured out for quite some time, probably not even in our lifetime.

Since there's no proof, your claim that objective morality exists is a subjective opinion.

It seems that this specific argument got started from your post on page 5, where you say as follows (paraphrased). I'm going to throw similar arguments back at you. Hopefully the arguments you use against my statements here will be clever enough that they can't be turned against your original statements, quoted below.



finally, if its all subjective, you have made an objective statement, therefore its not all subjective because you just made an objective statement that all morality is objectively subjective. there is no true moral subjectivism, for you must make an objective statement about morality to believe in it.

to me, objective morality is not only a thing that exists, it is a thing that is needed.

If there was an objective morality that humanity does not know of, and has no way to recognize (yet), deciding which rules of morality to follow is a subjective choice. Since it is subjective until an objective morality is proven, there is no true moral objectivism (for us, now), for you must make a subjective statement about morality to believe in it.

To me, objective morality does not exist in the sum of human knowledge at the moment, it might never exist, and it's not a thing that is needed.

[Lord Raziere]

and it is no surprise that humanity is too flawed to see it now. however I maintain hope that humanity will find it someday with enough perseverance, diligence and adhering to what is right. giving up on the search and saying that it hopeless will not help matters. that is just needless pessimism.

assuming that all values are equal is naive. there are clearly things we should objectively value over other things, and we should maximize and sharpen how we should value them, because there are clearly some values in this world that lead to better, happier worlds for everyone over others.

why throw it all away for this cultural relativism/subjectivism, which makes it sound like we are all picking things we pretend to believe in while other people are around for the sake of social convention, as if we are all in some pretty childish play and that we should all not try and hurt peoples feelings because of the role they have chosen? a form of morality where the only true crime is not getting caught? as if morality is some sort of fraudulent thing, a mask we wear

loyalty and tolerance may be virtues, yes.

but loyalty is only as good as the cause you are loyal too, and tolerance is only as good as what you are tolerating.

[Tengu_temp]

This discussion doesn't have anything to do with Pratchett anymore, does it?

Okay, so... What are your three favorite Terry Pratchett books? Only ones he wrote alone, so no Good Omens - besides, everyone loves it, so it'd be on everyone's list anyway.

My list, in no order: Reaper Man, Small Gods, Nightwatch. Extremely controversial, I know.

[dehro]

I'm actually not that enamoured with Good Omens.. it's good but wouldn't make my top 3.

I have trouble listing only 3 as my favourites, mostly because they tend to shift according to which ones I've re-read last, and because I would be hard pressed to point out more than a couple of books that don't deserve to be in someone's top 3.
so.. here goes..in no particular order
thief of time
the last hero
the fifth elephant

with honorable mentions to Small Gods, Guards Guards, going postal, the wee free men, nightwatch, Jingo and so many more..

[Androgeus]

Okay, so... What are your three favorite Terry Pratchett books? Only ones he wrote alone, so no Good Omens - besides, everyone loves it, so it'd be on everyone's list anyway.

What about the Science of Discworld series? The story chapters are solely penned by Pratchett.

[endoperez]

and it is no surprise that humanity is too flawed to see it now. however I maintain hope that humanity will find it someday with enough perseverance, diligence and adhering to what is right. giving up on the search and saying that it hopeless will not help matters. that is just needless pessimism.

1) humanity needs to keep adhering to what is right
2) what is right has to be defined using either objective or subjective morality
3) Since humanity can't follow the objective morality yet, humanity has to follow subjective morality for now

Agree or disagree?


assuming that all values are equal is naive. there are clearly things we should objectively value over other things, and we should maximize and sharpen how we should value them, because there are clearly some values in this world that lead to better, happier worlds for everyone over others.

The bolded part has no relation to subjective morality as I view it.

The rest of what you're saying agrees with my subjective moral stance, except for the single word in italics - drop that and I agree with your words there.



why throw it all away for this cultural relativism/subjectivism, which makes it sound like we are all picking things we pretend to believe in while other people are around for the sake of social convention, as if we are all in some pretty childish play and that we should all not try and hurt peoples feelings because of the role they have chosen? a form of morality where the only true crime is not getting caught? as if morality is some sort of fraudulent thing, a mask we wear

loyalty and tolerance may be virtues, yes.

but loyalty is only as good as the cause you are loyal too, and tolerance is only as good as what you are tolerating.

You lost me here. You seem to be arguing that subjective morality is wrong. You yourself said that objective morality hasn't been defined yet. What kind of morality do you follow, the one that isn't correct yet, or the one that is wrong? What is the difference?

[Tengu_temp]

What about the Science of Discworld series? The story chapters are solely penned by Pratchett.

If it's the story parts then yes. Though for me the non-fiction parts of these books is what makes them really shine.

[Aotrs Commander]

If it's the story parts then yes. Though for me the non-fiction parts of these books is what makes them really shine.

"Lies-to-children" was a wonderful phrasic creation and one I find myself using fairly frequently when explaining complex things.

[Kato]

This discussion doesn't have anything to do with Pratchett anymore, does it?
Yeah, I don't mind some philosophy but while Pratchett is not the lest likely author to spawn such a discussion it would be better placed in itw own thread if you guys feel the need to go into detail...


Okay, so... What are your three favorite Terry Pratchett books? Only ones he wrote alone, so no Good Omens - besides, everyone loves it, so it'd be on everyone's list anyway.

Urgh, I suck at top lists... and top Dicworld books are even worse.
BUT I can give you my possibly Top Three Discworld moments if anyone cares. (in no particular order, though)
a) The finale of Hogfather. "The sun will not rise..." (That one actually is kind of relevant to the above discussion I guess)
b) Quite a few parts in Wintersmith when the book deals with the issue of death, probably foremost when Tiffany explains to her dad how she has been with many, many people when they were dying during her training.
c) And last something light hearted: Everything involving cross dressing Nobby :smalltongue:



"Lies-to-children" was a wonderful phrasic creation and one I find myself using fairly frequently when explaining complex things.
Yeah, that's a pretty nice phrase. Though I guess "lie" does make it sound worse than it is.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yeah, that's a pretty nice phrase. Though I guess "lie" does make it sound worse than it is.

But it is accurate.

You do sometimes have to oversimplefy things in order to achieve the basic understanding so you can then use that to expliain the complicated things.



(Also, the whole "lying is inherently bad" is kind of a lie in itself, since there are times when you do need to lie for a varying of reasons. But let's not let me sidetack the thread again...)

[Goosefeather]

Picking a top three is incredibly difficult, as it means leaving out at least one major set of characters, so I'm going to approach this slightly differently.

Best Rincewind novel: Interesting Times. Honourable mention to The Last Continent. Rincewind suffers in that half his major books were written very early on, before Pratchett really found his feet, whilst later on he's relegated to minor/cameo character status. FaustEric is just weird.

Best in the Death/Susan series: Reaper Man. Honourable mention to Hogfather. Mort, Soul Music, and Thief of Time are all great fun though.

Best Witches novel: Ooh, tricky. I'm going to say Witches Abroad. Honourable mention to Lords and Ladies, I think, though Carpe Jugulum is also great.

Best Watch novel: Night Watch. His best work, in my opinion. However, this is possibly my favourite sub-series overall, barring Snuff, so an honourable mention is difficult. I think it'd have to go to Men at Arms, but that's no slight on the rest of the Watch novels - they're all fantastic.

Best stand-alone (and including the Moist novels): Small Gods. Pyramids and Monstrous Regiment were fun, The Truth and Moving Pictures were a bit forgettable, and the Moist novels, while enjoyable, can't compete with Small Gods.

Right, I'm sure I've provided at least something in there that everyone can disagree with. :smalltongue:

[Elder Tsofu]

Darn you people bringing up "Best of Pratchett", suddenly I remembered that I'd promised myself to invest in the illustrated version of "Eric". And "The Last Hero". And a signed print. And some stickers. And a few postcards...
...well the last 4 parts were not so old promises but still.

But best of Pratchett? Hard choice, but if I were to lose all my collection in a fire but 3 it would be:

Interesting Times
Reaper Man
Small Gods


The first is probable mostly due to nostalgia since it was the first Pratchett book I really got into.

[Forum Explorer]

This discussion doesn't have anything to do with Pratchett anymore, does it?

Okay, so... What are your three favorite Terry Pratchett books? Only ones he wrote alone, so no Good Omens - besides, everyone loves it, so it'd be on everyone's list anyway.

My list, in no order: Reaper Man, Small Gods, Nightwatch. Extremely controversial, I know.

Alright then

Best of Terry Pratchett

1.) Jingo
2) The Last Continent
3) Faust Eric

[Eldan]

Difficult. Night Watch and Last Hero are a given for me. Then it gets difficult. I kind of want to put one of hte actually funny ones on there. But Thud! is so tempting, as are the Tiffany Aching books.

[Kato]

But it is accurate.

You do sometimes have to oversimplefy things in order to achieve the basic understanding so you can then use that to expliain the complicated things.
Hm I can't find my SoD...
But wasn't one of the early examples how a rainbow is created because the light of the sun is dispersed in droplets of water? That's not... false. It's widely inaccurate but it's not false. So it still far less a lie than.... I don't know. What do parents tell their children a rainbow is? An angel taking a piss? Pardon my Klatschian.

[dehro]

Hm I can't find my SoD...
But wasn't one of the early examples how a rainbow is created because the light of the sun is dispersed in droplets of water? That's not... false. It's widely inaccurate but it's not false. So it still far less a lie than.... I don't know. What do parents tell their children a rainbow is? An angel taking a piss? Pardon my Klatschian.
I'm pretty sure that's not it.. or children worldwide wouldn't go "oooh" when they see one.
they'd be going "eeeww"

[Goosefeather]

I'm pretty sure that's not it.. or children worldwide wouldn't go "oooh" when they see one.
they'd be going "eeeww"

Knowing kids, a more likely response is 'AWESOME, I wanna poke it!' :smalltongue:

[Manly Man]

My favorite is most definitely Hogfather. Getting a sleigh full of pigs to move by yelling out APPLE! SAUCE! is absolutely hilarious. That, and my favorite like out of any of the books is there, when Death explains to Susan just what the Auditors are.

On top of that, how Teatime dies is terribly ironic, and I lapped up every last drop of it.

Next in line is actually a tie between Reaper Man and Soul Music. I have a hard time deciding between the two of them, though the main edge I give Soul Music is that I keep imagining Buddy singing something by Queen.

The third is another tie, although this time it's between Wyrd Sisters and Maskerade. Wyrd Sisters has the advantage of being the first Witches book I've read, so there's the nostalgia factor, but then I can also kinda relate to Maskerade in that the statement how two witches are just trouble for each other, but three of them are trouble for everyone else is something I can claim to have firsthand experience in; living with a coven can be kind of awkward.

[The Troubadour]

Okay, so... What are your three favorite Terry Pratchett books?

It's not an easy list to make, but I'd say:

1) Soul Music.
2) The Last Hero.
3) Men at Arms.

[AstralFire]

1) Thief of Time
2) Small Gods
3) Night Watch

[Aotrs Commander]

Hm I can't find my SoD...
But wasn't one of the early examples how a rainbow is created because the light of the sun is dispersed in droplets of water? That's not... false. It's widely inaccurate but it's not false. So it still far less a lie than.... I don't know. What do parents tell their children a rainbow is? An angel taking a piss? Pardon my Klatschian.

I recall the example they used was more complicated issue of atomic electron orbitals, which you need to digest before going to the next step, (college in the UK) where they tell you it's far more complicated than that.

(For one, the "orbits" aren't.)

It's like when (on numerous occasions) someone says "oh it's a bit like this then" and get the response to the tune of "that is an illustrative, but woefully inaccurate analogy." (The one I can think of off the top of my head in UA when they were talking with the necromancer wizard.)

[SlyGuyMcFly]

I recall the example they used was more complicated issue of atomic electron orbitals, which you need to digest before going to the next step, (college in the UK) where they tell you it's far more complicated than that.

(For one, the "orbits" aren't.)

Nothing like facing a room full of adolescents and saying "Well folks. We're going to spend the next few days studying Rutherford's Model. It's sorta like the Santa Claus of Chemistry - Everything I say from now on will be a lie, but you're expected to believe it for a while."

Good times, good times.

[warty goblin]

Nothing like facing a room full of adolescents and saying "Well folks. We're going to spend the next few days studying Rutherford's Model. It's sorta like the Santa Claus of Chemistry - Everything I say from now on will be a lie, but you're expected to believe it for a while."

Good times, good times.

I still feel ill used that at one point in my early education, a math text tried to convince me that you couldn't subtract five from three.

[Aotrs Commander]

I still feel ill used that at one point in my early education, a math text tried to convince me that you couldn't subtract five from three.

That's pretty bad; I knew about negative numbers from an early age.

Funny story, actually: I must have been very young and was watching the TV one day and there was an open university program on (maybe it was a Saturday morning, before the cartoons started, I dunno.) I didn't understand any of the concepts, but there was a chart of sorts behind the chap, with positive and negative numbers (with some engineering functions) and the chap was illustrating something and saying "and so on to infinity, and then [technobabble of some mechanic] and so on to minus infinity" and I understood that part. And I never had a problem with negative numbers ever.

The funny part came when I was doing my university degree, and bugger me if they didn't show that very same documentary (knocking on twenty years later!) - I recognised it very easily! - in one of the classes. (It was actually dealing with fractures in materials, I think I can't recall the specfics, as even that instance is about ten years ago!) I (quietly) nearly killed myself laughing.

[warty goblin]

That's pretty bad; I knew about negative numbers from an early age.

Funny story, actually: I must have been very young and was watching the TV one day and there was an open university program on (maybe it was a Saturday morning, before the cartoons started, I dunno.) I didn't understand any of the concepts, but there was a chart of sorts behind the chap, with positive and negative numbers (with some engineering functions) and the chap was illustrating something and saying "and so on to infinity, and then [technobabble of some mechanic] and so on to minus infinity" and I understood that part. And I never had a problem with negative numbers ever.

The funny part came when I was doing my university degree, and bugger me if they didn't show that very same documentary (knocking on twenty years later!) - I recognised it very easily! - in one of the classes. (It was actually dealing with fractures in materials, I think I can't recall the specfics, as even that instance is about ten years ago!) I (quietly) nearly killed myself laughing.
Oh I knew the book was full of it. I'd been watching my six years the elder sister do algebra for years before I got to arithmetic. It just annoyed me that it saw the need to try some BS about no numbers less than zero. Of course there's numbers less than zero!

[Eldan]

On the subject of SoD: Anyone read Science of Discworld 4 yet? Just saw it at a bookstore.

[hamishspence]

I read it- and thought it was entertaining enough. We get to see a few characters that have not been seen in a long time.