Reading Discworld!

[Calemyr]

Lemmy, I got a question for you, having recently gotten through Maskerade. There are two scenes at the end that get two different readings, and I'm curious where you, fresh off of reading it, would find yourself.

During the fight with murderer, Granny pulled the old sword catch despite saying it's not supposed to be possible to do that, but she "don't have time to bleed". After returning home, she sets herself down with a sharp knife, clean bandages, and a needle and thread and mutters to herself that she "has time now". Next we see her, she's digging a privy with an badly injured (but neatly tended) hand.

Clearly, there's magic involved, but I've seen two interpretations of what that magic is:

Spoiler: Time Magic

Show

Granny used magic to shunt the damage into the future, when she'd be able to better handle the consequences. It's a pretty straight-forward theory, that nicely fits Granny's approach to what is and isn't possible.

Spoiler: Headology

Show

Granny couldn't magick steel, like she says, but simply magicked her hand to be tough enough to catch the blade unharmed. That's a pretty impressive feat, but not really a surprising one given her other achievements. However, Granny is always afraid of becoming a "bad witch", and the first step to gingerbread houses is convincing yourself that you can be exempt from consequences. So, yeah, in the heat of the moment she cheated and used magic to do something she's not comfortable with. In order to balance the books and keep herself grounded, she inflicted the wound she avoided herself once she wasn't in a life-or-death circumstance. Critically, she made a point of doing this before digging a new privy - a difficult, dirty task that puts heavy pressure on her hands - to make the consequences as severe as she feasibly could.

Which kind of magic do you think she used?

[Lemmy]

Lemmy, I got a question for you, having recently gotten through Maskerade. There are two scenes at the end that get two different readings, and I'm curious where you, fresh off of reading it, would find yourself.

During the fight with murderer, Granny pulled the old sword catch despite saying it's not supposed to be possible to do that, but she "don't have time to bleed". After returning home, she sets herself down with a sharp knife, clean bandages, and a needle and thread and mutters to herself that she "has time now". Next we see her, she's digging a privy with an badly injured (but neatly tended) hand.

Clearly, there's magic involved, but I've seen two interpretations of what that magic is:

Spoiler: Time Magic

Show

Granny used magic to shunt the damage into the future, when she'd be able to better handle the consequences. It's a pretty straight-forward theory, that nicely fits Granny's approach to what is and isn't possible.

Spoiler: Headology

Show

Granny couldn't magick steel, like she says, but simply magicked her hand to be tough enough to catch the blade unharmed. That's a pretty impressive feat, but not really a surprising one given her other achievements. However, Granny is always afraid of becoming a "bad witch", and the first step to gingerbread houses is convincing yourself that you can be exempt from consequences. So, yeah, in the heat of the moment she cheated and used magic to do something she's not comfortable with. In order to balance the books and keep herself grounded, she inflicted the wound she avoided herself once she wasn't in a life-or-death circumstance. Critically, she made a point of doing this before digging a new privy - a difficult, dirty task that puts heavy pressure on her hands - to make the consequences as severe as she feasibly could.

Which kind of magic do you think she used?

That's an interesting question...

At first I thought she had somehow reinforced her hand to prevent the damage... But then Nanny Ogg mentions the feat and Granny answers something like "It's not my fault! I didn't have the time to be hurt!", which implies she did somehow save her injury for later. Therefore, at least to me, it felt like some sort of time/fate magic (which makes sense for a world with narrative-based physics, such as Discworld)... But that's not all. She later goes on saying that there must always be consequences to action, otherwise, things get out of control and the world goes mad, revealing that it could have very severe consequences (also makes sense by Discworld rules). Later on, when she finally says "I figure I have time now..." and lets herself get wounded, it's because she knew she had to deal with the consequences and finally "allowed" it to happen... I figured she did it right before digging a new privy because if she did at a time where it wouldn't matter, like before going to bed, for example, it wouldn't really be a consequence. (Besides, IIRC, Granny Weatherwax clearly knows about the risk of becoming a "Bad Witch", but doesn't seem to fully realize how close she gets to that point when she's bored. If I'm not mistaken, throughout the book, it's Nanny Ogg who sees it more clearly and actually takes direct action to make sure Granny doesn't get too bored or overconfident).

The whole thing fits perfectly with Granny's usual approach of more subtle magic* , and feels a bit outside of what headology can achieve.

That's how I first read it, anyway. I can see how the Headology theory makes sense... And I'm not the best at noticing subtleties on the first reading, specially from a a writer as clever as Pratchett...

*Well... Other than her transformation duel against the arch-chancellor of UU all the way back in Equal Rites... But I mostly ignore it because it's the only Discworld book I legitimately dislike. I'll get into more details after reading Hogfather... Since that marks the halfway point of the series, I intend to post a quick recap of my readings so far and what books I like most (or least).

[tyckspoon]

*Well... Other than her transformation duel against the arch-chancellor of UU all the way back in Equal Rites... But I mostly ignore it because it's the only Discworld book I legitimately dislike. I'll get into more details after reading Hogfather... Since that marks the halfway point of the series, I intend to post a quick recap of my readings so far and what books I like most (or least).

This can be chalked up to Early Installment Weirdness anyways - the Granny Weatherwax of Equal Rites largely only shares a name with the character she would become in later books, as well as the operation of magic itself changing after the events of Sourcery (later book wizards would be concerned about things like 'conservation of mass', and would likely consider transforming themselves to be a particularly stupid form of suicide.)

[Evil DM Mark3]

GURPS Discworld took the attitude that the shapeshifter-duel was actually all illusions. This also raises questions, but fewer.

I am on the "Time Magic" side, but her comment of "I reckon I got time now" I take differently.

She is holding the wound off, there is a similar trick she shows another Witch in a later book regarding pain, and it is stated that carrying it is difficult and exausting. I reckon she got home, got our her kit and, as soon as she had everything ready she let go. She didn't do it before moving the privy out of masocism or some sense of morality but because the longer you carry something the more likley you are to end up dropping it. The comment was just a thought, her thinking back to the conversation with Nanny.

[Lemmy]

This can be chalked up to Early Installment Weirdness anyways - the Granny Weatherwax of Equal Rites largely only shares a name with the character she would become in later books, as well as the operation of magic itself changing after the events of Sourcery (later book wizards would be concerned about things like 'conservation of mass', and would likely consider transforming themselves to be a particularly stupid form of suicide.)

Oh, absolutely. I don't hold the weirdness against Pratchett at all... And even the not-quite-Granny character was still the best part of the book by far. The weirdness isn't why I dislike the book... But I digress. I'll talk a little morr about it in my recap.

[Wizard_Lizard]

don't really have anything to say, but..
on the whole granny thing...I think that she held off the pain by sheer force of will.

[farothel]

Lemmy, I got a question for you, having recently gotten through Maskerade. There are two scenes at the end that get two different readings, and I'm curious where you, fresh off of reading it, would find yourself.

During the fight with murderer, Granny pulled the old sword catch despite saying it's not supposed to be possible to do that, but she "don't have time to bleed". After returning home, she sets herself down with a sharp knife, clean bandages, and a needle and thread and mutters to herself that she "has time now". Next we see her, she's digging a privy with an badly injured (but neatly tended) hand.

Clearly, there's magic involved, but I've seen two interpretations of what that magic is:

Spoiler: Time Magic

Show

Granny used magic to shunt the damage into the future, when she'd be able to better handle the consequences. It's a pretty straight-forward theory, that nicely fits Granny's approach to what is and isn't possible.

Spoiler: Headology

Show

Granny couldn't magick steel, like she says, but simply magicked her hand to be tough enough to catch the blade unharmed. That's a pretty impressive feat, but not really a surprising one given her other achievements. However, Granny is always afraid of becoming a "bad witch", and the first step to gingerbread houses is convincing yourself that you can be exempt from consequences. So, yeah, in the heat of the moment she cheated and used magic to do something she's not comfortable with. In order to balance the books and keep herself grounded, she inflicted the wound she avoided herself once she wasn't in a life-or-death circumstance. Critically, she made a point of doing this before digging a new privy - a difficult, dirty task that puts heavy pressure on her hands - to make the consequences as severe as she feasibly could.

Which kind of magic do you think she used?

Pratchett goes more into this in the Tiffany Aching series.

Spoiler

Show

Tiffany can remove pain from someone and put it in herself, even while not feeling it (she keeps it separate), before placing it into an object, which then becomes quite hot. She used it to keep the old baron comfortable.

So I assume that Granny uses a similar system in Maskerade, where she puts the wound in a separate part of herself and only let's it come forward at a later date.

[Wraith]

Pratchett goes more into this in the Tiffany Aching series.

Spoiler: Wound transferring

Show

The 'transfer a wound' thing is a significant plot point in Carpe Jugulum, which predates Tiffany Aching by several years. Tiffany probably learned it from Granny - she certainly learned the 'heat transfer' trick from her, as demonstrated in Wintersmith.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Spoiler: Wound transferring

Show

The 'transfer a wound' thing is a significant plot point in Carpe Jugulum, which predates Tiffany Aching by several years. Tiffany probably learned it from Granny - she certainly learned the 'heat transfer' trick from her, as demonstrated in Wintersmith.

Spoiler

Show

Are you refering to the trick with the anvil? Because that is transferring the PAIN into the anvil, not the wound. And indeed while Nanny first explains it to Tiffany it is Granny she learns it from (Nanny openly admits that Granny is much better at it than she is, which imediately makes me wonder if she is.)

[lord_khaine]

Spoiler: Masquerade

Show

After close consideration, then i think ill go towards the camp that the following injury was self-inflicted.
We did get an explanation for how the feat could be accomplished (skin hardening).
We did get an explanation for why said feat should not be carried out (cause and effect).
And lastly i cant see what other reason Esme would have for dragging out a sharp knife.

[Eldan]

Spoiler

Show

Cutting bandages, I guess? Can't say the idea that she dealt herself a wound ever occured to me, but it does make some sense.

[Divayth Fyr]

Spoiler: maskerade wounds

Show

Cutting bandages, I guess? Can't say the idea that she dealt herself a wound ever occured to me, but it does make some sense.

Spoiler

Show

She also needed to cut the thread somehow, although with her character, I'm sure she could stare at it in a way that would make it cut itself

[Wraith]

Spoiler

Show

Are you refering to the trick with the anvil? Because that is transferring the PAIN into the anvil, not the wound. And indeed while Nanny first explains it to Tiffany it is Granny she learns it from (Nanny openly admits that Granny is much better at it than she is, which imediately makes me wonder if she is.)

Spoiler: Carpe Jugulum again

Show

What I took from it was that she didn't just transfer the pain into the anvil, but she also transferred *vampirism* into it as well. The 'wound' in this case being the curse/disease/whatever it is in Discworld terms that makes you turn into a b-vord-sucker.

She does it with pain and small wounds quite often - as in Maskerade - but wasn't sure if she could pull it off with something as big and dangerous as being turned by Count de Magpyre. That's why she had Mightily Oates and his axe on standby, in case it didn't work.

That's how I read it, anyway - otherwise if the anvil thing was just for the pain and not the 'disease', then it looks like she just decided to not be a vampire, which is a lot even for Granny.

[Calemyr]

Spoiler: My personal take on the masquerade question

Show

I didn't want to put in my two cents until people had a chance to voice their opinions, though I wager my bias was clear in the question to begin with...

I'm on the side of Headology.

I don't question whether Esme could shunt a wound into time, she's done it to a whole kingdom, and I fully admit it's exactly her style to say something is impossible, up to, including, and after the point where she's done it herself. A move as grandiose as that is exactly the kind of finishing blow she'd use, and she used it as a finishing blow. Perfect fit.

Unfortunately, that's not how Esme actually does things. She's a minimalist. She could turn a man into a frog, but finds it more amusing to make them think she's turned them into a frog. She could curse them, but she'd rather just say she cursed them and let them attribute the next bad thing to happen to them to that curse. She could use a gout of flame to smite her enemies, but she'd rather use a hairpin. If she doesn't need phenomenal magic to no-sell an unhinged maniac with a sword, she's just not going to use it.

The other reason I side on Headology is personal bias: I just think the consequences are simply too badass to put into words. Esmeralda Weatherwax is so absolutely badass and devoted to the balance of consequences that she'll take a frickin' butcher knife to her hand, tend it, and go outside and dig a privy with it, just because while she can catch a sword in her bare hand with no consequences that doesn't mean she should. She will sit down, calmly collect everything she'll need to clean up the mess afterwards, all with the express intent to pay the price for her actions even when nobody but her is calling for it. And while she sets up ideal circumstances (a clean, sharp knife, clean bandages, handy needle and thread, and a controlled space to do it), she intentionally schedules it to be as personally inconvenient as she can - it's her that pays the consequence, not anyone else. Hell, at very least she could have asked someone to dig the privy for her, someone would have done it even if she didn't wave the wounded hand in their face. Nanny would just have to mention it under her breath and a half dozen Ogg boys with shovels would be lining up at the door. But, no, Esmeralda insists on paying the price, and paying it in full, because it's right and no other reason is needed.

That. Is. Bad. Ass.

What I've always adored about Granny is that she walks the walk more than she talks the talk. This is a woman who absolutely believes that "The hard way is very hard, but not near so hard as the easy way." She means it, down to the blood, down to the bones. And the very thought of that kind of hardcore belief just gives me chills.

At least, that's how I've always read it.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Spoiler: Carpe Jugulum again

Show

What I took from it was that she didn't just transfer the pain into the anvil, but she also transferred *vampirism* into it as well. The 'wound' in this case being the curse/disease/whatever it is in Discworld terms that makes you turn into a b-vord-sucker.

She does it with pain and small wounds quite often - as in Maskerade - but wasn't sure if she could pull it off with something as big and dangerous as being turned by Count de Magpyre. That's why she had Mightily Oates and his axe on standby, in case it didn't work.

That's how I read it, anyway - otherwise if the anvil thing was just for the pain and not the 'disease', then it looks like she just decided to not be a vampire, which is a lot even for Granny.

Spoiler

Show

But we see where the Vampireism is while the anvil is being heated. Granny is fighting it. "I knows who you is, I've always known you, Count Magpyre let you out but I always knew who you are Esme Weatherwax." (roughtly, from memory). She has already gotten into the Magpyres at this point, she rode in in her blood, this was the fight to ensure their influence didn't overpower her.

[Durkoala]

Spoiler

Show

But we see where the Vampireism is while the anvil is being heated. Granny is fighting it. "I knows who you is, I've always known you, Count Magpyre let you out but I always knew who you are Esme Weatherwax." (roughtly, from memory). She has already gotten into the Magpyres at this point, she rode in in her blood, this was the fight to ensure their influence didn't overpower her.

Spoiler: Carpe Jugulum

Show

Because Oates' vampire hunting notes said that most victims of vampire bites become subservient to the vampire, NOT vampires themselves, I always took that scene to be Granny pushing the pain out so she could fight the Magpyrs' control. The danger was in becoming a servant to the vampires, not in becoming Esme, Mistress of the Night. And it was already in shown in Witches Abroad that Granny is very good at reversing what's usually a one-way magical connection...

[hamishspence]

Spoiler: Carpe Jugulum

Show

Because Oates' vampire hunting notes said that most victims of vampire bites become subservient to the vampire, NOT vampires themselves, I always took that scene to be Granny pushing the pain out so she could fight the Magpyrs' control. The danger was in becoming a servant to the vampires, not in becoming Esme, Mistress of the Night. And it was already in shown in Witches Abroad that Granny is very good at reversing what's usually a one-way magical connection...

From what the Magpyrs say though:

Spoiler

Show

while biting does not normally cause the victim to turn, they'd done the extra that means the victim would normally turn.

p247

"She won't be killed. Not as such. At her time of life I should welcome a little immortality."
"But she hates vampires!"
"This may present her with a problem when she comes round, since she will be a rather subservient one."

[Durkoala]

From what the Magpyrs say though:

Spoiler

Show

while biting does not normally cause the victim to turn, they'd done the extra that means the victim would normally turn.

p247

"She won't be killed. Not as such. At her time of life I should welcome a little immortality."
"But she hates vampires!"
"This may present her with a problem when she comes round, since she will be a rather subservient one."

Fair enough. It's been a while since I last read it.

[Wizard_Lizard]

same......

[Lemmy]

Hey there! Finished readinf "Feet of Clay" yesterday. Sorry it took so long... I had read about 2/3 of the book, but then couldn't find the time to actually finish it for while. What with working, writing 3 campaigns and trying to salvage the modicum of social life I still have.

Feet of Clay

As usual for city watch books, a lot of great characters are introduced. Cheery and Dorfl are pretty interesting themselves, and make for really good examinations in questions of sexuality, prejudice and personal freedom... And with far, far greater thought, insight and care than 99.99% of anything published recently, which are rarely anything else than wealthy celebrities and giant corporations paying lip service in a hollow attempt at virtue signaling. Not being one of the people whose struggles are meant to be represented, or at least showcased, by Dorfl, I cannot say how much of it Pratchett gets right or wrong... But even I can tell he at very least really cared about the issue. Cheery's sexuality is a big part of her identity, but it isn't all of it (I love the concept of a dwarf alchemist-forensics investigator). And her journey of self-discovery and liberation, while sometimes taking a bit too long, still adds to the story, rather than derailing it. It creates a clear parallel to how Golems are treated, gives us insight on dwarven society and Ankh-Morpork. I truly wish more media would tackle these subjects with even half as much heart and thought.

But that's only one fraction of the book... And not the most interesting one, IMO. I greatly enjoyed the murder mystery. It's the first actual mystery in a Discworld book, and the investigation makes for a very engrossing read. With every clue and red herring I wanted to know more about it. Who actually planned it and why... And how they achieved it. And it's always great to spend time with Vimes, Nobby and Colon. Detritus, sadly doesn't appear much, but whenever he does, it's a great scene! Oh, and Wee Man Arthur is hilarious and I hope to see more of him! . Carrot and Angua are both great characters, but they were probably the least interesting characters in this particular book. Angua got some needed character development. She really needed to be expanded upon as an individual character, rather than as a werewolf. Carrot's overeager honesty and idealism are always enjoyable too... But the other character just got to shine more this time. At least IMO.

The books has some really great scenes. Two of my personal favorites were the one where Dorfl slowly begins to realize what "you own yourself" means, and the one showing Vimes' inner monologue when he's looking at the books in the heraldry office ("The room was full of tall piles of book. People use them to look down"). I also loved how Vimes shows no reaction to Cheery's name, but laughs his ass off after she leaves. I like the implied message: "It's OK to think someone is funny. It's OK to joke. It's not OK to humiliate them.". Indeed. I'll always defend people's right to joke about anything they want... But the moment it becomes personal, and is used to attack someone, that's a problem. A comedian making jokes, even "offensive" ones? Perfectly fine. Making personal attacks against someone and attempting to humiliate them? Rude, at very least.

All in all, I'd say "Feet of Clay" is the best written city watch book so far (although I think I enjoyed "Guards! Guards!" a little more). And one of the best Discworld books too.

Oh, and I found a much better picture of the City Watch!

Spoiler: Line Up

Show

Next is Hogfather. I'm intrigued by this book, because this Hogfather figure has been mentioned in passing quite a few times already, at least as far back as Reaper Man, I believe. It should be fun to find out more about it.

Thank you all for reading and commenting on my humble journey through Sir Terry Pratchett's imagination. I'm always happy to see new posts and hear what you guys have to say. I hope you enjoy this thread as much as I do.

Now... On I go to learn the secrets of the Hogfather!

[Silfir]

Strictly speaking, Cheery's sexuality is not the issue. (I don't even remember if it ever came up. Does she have a partner in the later books? She could be asexual for all I know.)

What she's about is gender identity - she wants to be openly female, which is incompatible with traditional dwarven culture, which is radically and comically androcentric to any outside observer, but treated as a very serious thing by the dwarves themselves - because it's the culture they grew up in, which has a way of making you blind to its injustices. Even Carrot is not immune to it. Another case of the Discworld holding up a mirror to the real world.

Lovely book.

[Lemmy]

By "sexuality" I meant "all things sex/gender-related, including identity, orientation, self-expression, etc".

[Rynjin]

Hogfather is really interesting. It's also one of the few with a movie/tv special/whatever adaptation, and it's actually really good, so might be worth giving a watch afterward. Christopher Lee as Death is always a treat in the Discworld adaptations, and it's sad he'll never get the chance to do it again.

Maybe others disagree though; the Hogfather movie was actually my introduction to Discworld, so I have a lot of nostalgia for it.

Edit: It was niggling at me, so I looked it up...Hogfather is one of the ones where Death is NOT voiced by Christopher Lee. Huh. Still a great performance though.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I loved the mystery too, but the moment that always hits me is Vimes finding out about Mrs Easy. Up to that point Vimes was almost having fun, in his own strange way. But when he found out about Mrs Easy, he went spare. Mudering the patrician is one thing, in this city it's just ordinary politics. But Mrs Easy's death was murder and you don't murder inocents on Vime's watch.

[The New Bruceski]

What I appreciated in Feet of Clay was the golem names. They're all Yiddish and all insults. Klutz (clumsy oaf), bobkes (nothing, worthless), shmata (dishrag). Dorfl himself doesn't follow the theme, his name means village in some Yiddish dialects, but it reinforces the framing of the golems as sub-person.

[tyckspoon]

What I appreciated in Feet of Clay was the golem names. They're all Yiddish and all insults. Klutz (clumsy oaf), bobkes (nothing, worthless), shmata (dishrag). Dorfl himself doesn't follow the theme, his name means village in some Yiddish dialects, but it reinforces the framing of the golems as sub-person.

Worth noting that before the events of Feet of Clay golems were mostly named for their function - they were seen as appliances, not people. Shmata was probably literally a dish-washer. Even after emancipation/they discovered the concept of self-ownership many of them just kept those names.

[The New Bruceski]

Worth noting that before the events of Feet of Clay golems were mostly named for their function - they were seen as appliances, not people. Shmata was probably literally a dish-washer. Even after emancipation/they discovered the concept of self-ownership many of them just kept those names.

Klutz labors in the pickle factory, Bobkes is of the coal merchant, and Shmata toils at the seven-dollar tailor's in Peach Pie Street.

[Rodin]

Klutz labors in the pickle factory, Bobkes is of the coal merchant, and Shmata toils at the seven-dollar tailor's in Peach Pie Street.

Since the names are all in Yiddish, I'd assume that those were their original names when they were created by the priests centuries ago. They've been sold and re-sold since then, meaning that their names no longer match their jobs.

I always liked the concept of the "willfully stupid machine" - the golems act literally on orders as a form of rebellion, because it's the only form of rebellion they have.

----

Hogfather is the book I'm most nostalgic about from the entire series. It's the book that introduced me to Discworld when one of my cousins gave it to me as a Christmas gift when I visited England when I turned 18. Big family Christmas with my mother's entire extended family, many of whom I hadn't seen in over 5 years. We had a white Christmas that year, too, which was quite the treat for a Louisiana kid.

The book makes me think not only of Christmas, but THAT Christmas. Plus, it's just a really damn good book. Easily the best in the Death series, and in my top 5 overall.

[The New Bruceski]

Since the names are all in Yiddish, I'd assume that those were their original names when they were created by the priests centuries ago. They've been sold and re-sold since then, meaning that their names no longer match their jobs.

You're backloading later book elements onto one where that simply wasn't a thing. If a story has a slave named "hill of beans" it's not because they work with legumes.

[brionl]

I was kind of disappointed after Feet of Clay that they didn't do more with the golems. There's an aside mention of Dorfl in Jingo, and then almost nothing until Going Postal and Making Money.