Discworld discussion thread

[123456789blaaa]

I have to agree with that; it was so different from what I was expecting (and in a way, so stereotypical) that it broke my suspension of disbelief.

There's always at least one part of pretty much every Discworld book that gets to me. For example, in Night Watch, it was the last scene in the graveyard. In Snuff, I'd have to say it was when

Spoiler

Show

the Watch is going down to the tenements where the goblins live, and they talk to a old goblin and her grandson. While the grandmother thinks and talks in terms of pure goblin culture, her grandson says that his Goblin name is stupid and that he'd prefer to be called Billy. And than Angua (I think) says, "We all turn towards human in the end."

That just stuck with me.

Spoiler

Show

I never really got that scene. In the books all the nonhuman races act pretty human anyways (even the auditors are basically humans with bits cut out). Could you explain it to me if it's not too much trouble?

Pratchet has a tendency to aflict his populations with...."Bumkinism" is what I call it.

Masses can be simple, but they are usually not dumb.

But pratchet cranks it up to 22, afflicting them with such a level of stupid that it just is too much.

He also has a tendency to ignore real fantastic race issues in favor of "RACISM IS BAAAAAAAAAAD"

Seriously, Im still spooked by golems. Give them a book to read and suddenly their opinion is quickly changed. "Just like humans Har har har"

Would be said inbook but means much more to near indestructible, super strong mega beings.

Yessssss. This.

Also, from now on I'd like you all to pretend that all my critisicms of Snuff and future pratchett books have an invisible "I know the man is suffering from alzheimer's" " and for critisicms of all of his books to have an invisible " Pratchett writes awesome books and all of these critisicms don't detract from that fact". I never wanted to give the impression that I think Pratchetts books are anything less than awesome.

One thing I really hated about Soul Music was the "LOGIC AND RATIONALISM AND EDUCATION ARE BAD" message . I get that a sense of wonder and creativity are important but that doesn't mean we should believe in freakin fairy tales! The books message only works because discworlds reality is as thin as paper!.

I'm probably missing something.

[Scowling Dragon]

Oh sure. I have GREAT respect for the man. But as a piece of artwork I treat it no differently then any other.

[123456789blaaa]

Oh sure. I have GREAT respect for the man. But as a piece of artwork I treat it no differently then any other.

One problem I consistently have with Pratchetts writing is that some of the things in it just don't apply to the discworld. Death for example (not the anthromorphic personifiction). Why is people dying a tradgedy when you can just pop on down to the necromancers office down the street and have a chat with them? Furthermore, why don't the watch ever use necromancers for murder investigations? I know Vimes hates magic but that's ridiculous (IMO). Also, the books imply that a lot of people don't know what happens when you die. Why is this? the wizards know what happens and can easily summon Death so if people want proof they can have it.

Also, theres a theme through the books that people see what they want to see. In RL I could maybe buy this but in the (magic saturated) discworld this just doesn't make sense. Why the heck do people find the concept of a talking dog so inconceivable when there's a freakin orangutan in the library? What about the Luggage? what about zombies? They're freakin corpses that talk!

[Scowling Dragon]

Or Witches. They constantly complain about Stereotypes.

Where did they originate from then?

[Lord Raziere]

Discworld.

meh. never found it funny really. maybe a chuckle or two but…

it just seems boring.

[AKA_Bait]

[QUOTE=123456789blaaa;14175622]

Spoiler

Show

I never really got that scene. In the books all the nonhuman races act pretty human anyways (even the auditors are basically humans with bits cut out). Could you explain it to me if it's not too much trouble?

That was one of my favorite scenes too. I'll try to explain why it hit me:

Spoiler

Show

It reminded me of how immigrant cultures change and melt into the culture of the place they have moved to. I went to grade, middle, and high school with a lot of first generation Americans, many of whom had the exact same attitude toward their parents and grandparents' cultures (a lot of Asian kids who called themselves "Mike" for example). Perhaps it hit me and CoffeeIncluded that way in particular because we are both New Yorkers and see a lot of the pot as it melts?

Also, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think Pratchett is probably the greatest currently writing satirist. Although I do agree that his last two books haven't impressed me as much as some of the earlier ones, in particular the Ank-Morpork centered Night Watch books and spin offs like Making Money and The Truth, he still has an incredible knack of comically parallelling real world issues on a disk resting on the back of a giant tortoise.

[endoperez]

One problem I consistently have with Pratchetts writing is that some of the things in it just don't apply to the discworld. Death for example (not the anthromorphic personifiction). Why is people dying a tradgedy when you can just pop on down to the necromancers office down the street and have a chat with them? Furthermore, why don't the watch ever use necromancers for murder investigations? I know Vimes hates magic but that's ridiculous (IMO). Also, the books imply that a lot of people don't know what happens when you die. Why is this? the wizards know what happens and can easily summon Death so if people want proof they can have it.

Also, theres a theme through the books that people see what they want to see. In RL I could maybe buy this but in the (magic saturated) discworld this just doesn't make sense. Why the heck do people find the concept of a talking dog so inconceivable when there's a freakin orangutan in the library? What about the Luggage? what about zombies? They're freakin corpses that talk!

There are problems with Discworld, but those particular ones don't fit.

People wouldn't have necromancers talking with the dead. Necromancers are Evil. I think one of the books, perhaps Reaper Man, had a medium doing that stuff though, but usually there were only a few spirits around.

And since various religions are true (reincarnation, desert, valkyries, various inventive punishments, hell... there have been many afterlives presented in the books) a person might not know what happens to him. Except when he's religious, in which case he often knows exactly. Which might not be an improvement.

Oh, and one more thing. In addition to the Vimes logic of not using magic to solve crime, there's the problem of setting a precedent. Let's say you can get sentenced because a spirit (summoned by a wizard) answered questions (that the wizard asked). Who can say that it's the right spirit, and not, say, a demon. Or an illusion. And who wants to ask that question when, if you are right, you just 1) angered a wizard, 2) that can 'prove' that you are guilty of all the crimes he can think of.



The second example is more problematic. The internal logic doesn't hold up - sometimes people see things they don't believe, sometimes not.

Any way, if there's an existing word for it, there's space for the concept in the heads of the people. Zombie is zombie. Orangutan is orangutan. Dog is dog. Golem is a golem. The people know they exist in their world.
According to Discworld logic, people would disbelieve that there's anything special in this zombie or orangutan or dog, not the existence of one.
For example, people should have disbelieved that a golem talks, or that an orangutan understands what's being said.

Another problem is that people know there are monsters, and then they see a boogieman, and they know it's a boogieman and not one of the real monsters.
Or they see a child dressed up as a tooth fairy, but not a petite woman doing his shift as a tooth fairy.



Any way, here's another favourite scene of mine, from an otherwise not-his-best book Monstrous Regiment.

Spoiler

Show

"Soldiers of Borogravia, attention!", said to a catacomb full of zombies illuminated with nothing but speck of belief...

Taking the concept of "gods without worship die until they become nothing more than voices in the wind", another concept I liked, and turning it the other way around, and having the powerless spirit become an object of worship...
The slow build-up, the "miracles" that don't even deserve to be called that.
The idea just resonates with me for some reason.

Appreciating Pratchett's writing takes a specific sort of a mind, that can enjoy abstract wordplays and bad puns. Even more, Pratchett does with concepts what he does with words (at least it feels like the same thing to me).

If "a lack of pies, a pack of lies" is a spoonerism, after a certain Mr Spooner... what is a pratchettisism? or pterrism? It's hard to find of something snappy enough.

Lancre operated on the feudal system, which was to say, everyone feuded all the time and handed on the fight to their descendants.

[Scowling Dragon]

Again: Makes them all Bumpkins.

He goes too far.

What insulted ME was in "Interesting times" he sort of said "The common peasant doesn't need anything so any struggle for basic rights is stupid"

[Socratov]

Typically a pratchett novel has the following things:

1. puns. some good, some bad, some un-bear-able
2. logic pretty much violated, yet still making sense
3. footnotes. Oh god the sheer volume of footnotes. Some last for half a page...
4. concepts and things happening eerily similar to things in the 'real' world
5. an adult theme explained in such a way that a 3 year old child will understand them

(and that is without getting specific). Out of these options I'd guess #2 is a PTerryism.

[123456789blaaa]

There are problems with Discworld, but those particular ones don't fit.

People wouldn't have necromancers talking with the dead. Necromancers are Evil. I think one of the books, perhaps Reaper Man, had a medium doing that stuff though, but usually there were only a few spirits around.

And since various religions are true (reincarnation, desert, valkyries, various inventive punishments, hell... there have been many afterlives presented in the books) a person might not know what happens to him. Except when he's religious, in which case he often knows exactly. Which might not be an improvement.

Oh, and one more thing. In addition to the Vimes logic of not using magic to solve crime, there's the problem of setting a precedent. Let's say you can get sentenced because a spirit (summoned by a wizard) answered questions (that the wizard asked). Who can say that it's the right spirit, and not, say, a demon. Or an illusion. And who wants to ask that question when, if you are right, you just 1) angered a wizard, 2) that can 'prove' that you are guilty of all the crimes he can think of.



The second example is more problematic. The internal logic doesn't hold up - sometimes people see things they don't believe, sometimes not.

Any way, if there's an existing word for it, there's space for the concept in the heads of the people. Zombie is zombie. Orangutan is orangutan. Dog is dog. Golem is a golem. The people know they exist in their world.
According to Discworld logic, people would disbelieve that there's anything special in this zombie or orangutan or dog, not the existence of one.
For example, people should have disbelieved that a golem talks, or that an orangutan understands what's being said.

Another problem is that people know there are monsters, and then they see a boogieman, and they know it's a boogieman and not one of the real monsters.
Or they see a child dressed up as a tooth fairy, but not a petite woman doing his shift as a tooth fairy.

<snip>

You say that "those" particular examples don't fit (implying that both don't fit) but you seem to agree with my second one .

Anyways, I can't recall there being any indication of necromancers being evil in the discworld books at all except for the fact that necromancy is "frowned upon" and that's only because the Faculty who " in these enlightened post-dribbly-candles days, wish to present the image of a forward-looking University, which is confidently grasping opportunities to change."

The Department of Postmortem Communications is a place that is encountered in Making Money who are necromancers (that's the whole joke). You can easily go there.

Why couldn't Death tell them where they would go? Because he is the anthromorphic personification of death he presumably knows that people in the discworld go where they beleive they will go unless they don't beleive in anything (in which case reincarnation is the default).

Its true that the spirit could lie but it's still a very usefull resource. Witnesses in the real world can lie too but we don't stop using witnesses. Also, what are the chances of a demon knowing (and for some reason having the inclination too) convince the wizard to not summon the spirit and take it's place (and can demons shapeshift)? For illusions and all the previous stuff I mentioned I assume there would be precautions. They wouldn't just blindly trust in necromancy. Perhaps there could be more wizards on by to verify the authenticity of the spirit. Furthermore, why would the wizard be angry if you turned out to be right? He still gets paid doesn't he? Why would he care? Moreover, how would he 'prove' that you are guilty of all the crimes he can think of?

[endoperez]

You say that "those" particular examples don't fit (implying that both don't fit) but you seem to agree with my second one .

Yes, I started arguing against the second one but ended up finding examples FOR it. I forgot to edit the beginning.

Anyways, I can't recall there being any indication of necromancers being evil in the discworld books at all except for the fact that necromancy is "frowned upon"

Wizards used to destroy cities. Wizards are tolerated. Necromancers are not. It's not clearly state until Unseen Academicals I think, but that one also has a case of necromancy being used to resolve a plot point.

Why couldn't Death tell them where they would go? Because he is the anthromorphic personification of death he presumably knows that people in the discworld go where they beleive they will go unless they don't beleive in anything (in which case reincarnation is the default).

I think Death might have specifically mentioned that he does not know what comes after.
He's the waiter, and on duty. He takes people to their tables (when they have reservations), and knows the menu, might suggest you something. But he has never sat down and eaten there, because he's on duty.
It's the gods and demons who handle the actual afterlife. Sometimes new afterlives are created, sometimes old ones get abandoned.

Spoiler

Show

In Last Hero, something special was prepared for Cohen & Co specifically.
In Wintersmith, the remains of a Greek underworld are explored. There's Kharon the ferryman, the cerberos died (they couldn't feed the poor thing), and the place is in ruins.


Also, if someone has Men At Arms, a clown keeps asking questions about the Afterlife, and Death tells him there won't be pies, or something like that. That scene might clear thing up, assuming Pratchett has actually been consistent with what Death knows and what he doesn't. He often ignores logic when it'd ruin an otherwise good joke.

Moreover, how would he 'prove' that you are guilty of all the crimes he can think of?

I meant that the wizard could lie intentionally.

[123456789blaaa]

Yes, I started arguing against the second one but ended up finding examples FOR it. I forgot to edit the beginning.



Wizards used to destroy cities. Wizards are tolerated. Necromancers are not. It's not clearly state until Unseen Academicals I think, but that one also has a case of necromancy being used to resolve a plot point.



I think Death might have specifically mentioned that he does not know what comes after.
He's the waiter, and on duty. He takes people to their tables (when they have reservations), and knows the menu, might suggest you something. But he has never sat down and eaten there, because he's on duty.
It's the gods and demons who handle the actual afterlife. Sometimes new afterlives are created, sometimes old ones get abandoned.

Spoiler

Show

In Last Hero, something special was prepared for Cohen & Co specifically.
In Wintersmith, the remains of a Greek underworld are explored. There's Kharon the ferryman, the cerberos died (they couldn't feed the poor thing), and the place is in ruins.


Also, if someone has Men At Arms, a clown keeps asking questions about the Afterlife, and Death tells him there won't be pies, or something like that. That scene might clear thing up, assuming Pratchett has actually been consistent with what Death knows and what he doesn't. He often ignores logic when it'd ruin an otherwise good joke.

I meant that the wizard could lie intentionally.

In the Mage Wars wizards used to destroy cities. The new wizards need to go have a lie down after a single blast from their staff (there's almost no Wild Magic left on the disc). For an analogy imagine a superstrong,superfast race of people were born. You'd be afraid of them right? Now imagine that all their descendants were born without arms or legs. Would you not tolerate them? Soucerers also used to destroy cities (maybe) but wizards aren't soucerers.

Necromancers aren't tolerated because they remind people of the "dribbly candle" magic of the non-Ponder Stibbons generation. Not because they are evil or dangerous. As I said in a previous post, the Department of Post-Mortem Communications are necromancers under a different name and they're tolerated.

Actually only some of the afterlives are handled by gods and demons. People go to where they beleive they will go (and their seems to be a fair number of people who know about this). On the Death issue: whichever statement came later is the correct one (all the discrepencies in the discworld books are because of the history monks).If Death mentioned that he does not know what comes after before Men at Arms then he knows about the afterlife and vice versa.

[CoffeeIncluded]

[QUOTE=AKA_Bait;14178825]

Spoiler

Show

I never really got that scene. In the books all the nonhuman races act pretty human anyways (even the auditors are basically humans with bits cut out). Could you explain it to me if it's not too much trouble?

That was one of my favorite scenes too. I'll try to explain why it hit me:

Spoiler

Show

It reminded me of how immigrant cultures change and melt into the culture of the place they have moved to. I went to grade, middle, and high school with a lot of first generation Americans, many of whom had the exact same attitude toward their parents and grandparents' cultures (a lot of Asian kids who called themselves "Mike" for example). Perhaps it hit me and CoffeeIncluded that way in particular because we are both New Yorkers and see a lot of the pot as it melts?

That is exactly the reason.

[endoperez]

Actually only some of the afterlives are handled by gods and demons. People go to where they beleive they will go (and their seems to be a fair number of people who know about this). On the Death issue: whichever statement came later is the correct one (all the discrepencies in the discworld books are because of the history monks).If Death mentioned that he does not know what comes after before Men at Arms then he knows about the afterlife and vice versa.

I disagree about the history monks. The early books were direct fantasy parodies, and trolls could grow big as mountains. Trolls turn to stone at the slightest touch of sunlight. At night they weren't stupid. Then Pratchett introduced trolls to Ankh Morpork, and they were different - stupid in Ankh Morpork, all the time, but never total statues. Then one of them got character development, and they changed again. Then Thud! happened, and things changed (subtly) again.

Things change between books. Things don't need an in-universe explanation.

This is doubly true for Death.
Death remembers his future and is outside of Time, so he can't be affected by the History Monks any way.

[hamishspence]

Necromancers aren't tolerated because they remind people of the "dribbly candle" magic of the non-Ponder Stibbons generation. Not because they are evil or dangerous. As I said in a previous post, the Department of Post-Mortem Communications are necromancers under a different name and they're tolerated.

emphasis on "tolerated". Doctor Hix is an "officially bad person"- the one university rules allow. And even then, limited to mildly bad acts- that tend to be beneficial overall.

[123456789blaaa]

I disagree about the history monks. The early books were direct fantasy parodies, and trolls could grow big as mountains. Trolls turn to stone at the slightest touch of sunlight. At night they weren't stupid. Then Pratchett introduced trolls to Ankh Morpork, and they were different - stupid in Ankh Morpork, all the time, but never total statues. Then one of them got character development, and they changed again. Then Thud! happened, and things changed (subtly) again.

Things change between books. Things don't need an in-universe explanation.

This is doubly true for Death.
Death remembers his future and is outside of Time, so he can't be affected by the History Monks any way.

The troll thing actually got an explanation in Men at Arms . Basically trolls brains are built for cold temperatures like at the tops of mountains (which is where they come from) however when they come down to Ankh Morpork they become stupid because of the heat.

As for the history monks thing: I heard that Pratchett said it directly. However now I can't seem to find the quote *shrugs*.

What about the necromancer debate? Do you agree with me now?

[endoperez]

The troll thing actually got an explanation in Men at Arms . Basically trolls brains are built for cold temperatures like at the tops of mountains (which is where they come from) however when they come down to Ankh Morpork they become stupid because of the heat.

Yes, I know about troll brains. That was also the explanation for why sunlight turned them into unmoving stone (even that heat was too much!), in Colour of Magic or whatever book introduced them first.
That was changed when Pratchett wanted to write a story about city trolls.
The first trolls also talked perfectly at night, even though the temperature difference was miniscule, and the biggest troll was the size of a hill.


And no, just because I don't bother to answer all of your points doesn't mean I agree with them.

[123456789blaaa]

Yes, I know about troll brains. That was also the explanation for why sunlight turned them into unmoving stone (even that heat was too much!), in Colour of Magic or whatever book introduced them first.
That was changed when Pratchett wanted to write a story about city trolls.
The first trolls also talked perfectly at night, even though the temperature difference was miniscule, and the biggest troll was the size of a hill.


And no, just because I don't bother to answer all of your points doesn't mean I agree with them.

I concede the point about trolls.

Also, if you want to stop having a debate then I believe the polite thing to do is tell the person you're debating with that you want to stop, not just suddenly stop debating. If you wanted to reply to the top part of my post but weren't ready to continue the debate than you say "I'm not ready to reply to your post on this debate yet. Give me some time" below.

[Bouregard]

Trolls got quite a bit of the spotlight in Moving Pictures, there it is explained that they can work/live in daylight provided they rub their skin with some type of sun lotion first.

[endoperez]

I concede the point about trolls.

Also, if you want to stop having a debate then I believe the polite thing to do is tell the person you're debating with that you want to stop, not just suddenly stop debating. If you wanted to reply to the top part of my post but weren't ready to continue the debate than you say "I'm not ready to reply to your post on this debate yet. Give me some time" below.

I'm sorry you feel like I dropped the debate. I didn't think you'd care about the opinion of one internet-goer. I guess you were interested in finishing the debate properly? I can understand that, it's quite annoying when the other guy just drops an discussion I was interested in continuing. I'm afraid I'm still going to do it, though. Sorry.

For whatever reason, we seem to have different opinions on several small details about the Discworld. We could keep arguing for a long time, but I don't think that'd be good for the thread. I have an annoying habit of trying to argue against inconsequential statements and even opinions, and honestly, this discussion is either there already, or going that way.

For example, there wasn't really much need for the necromancer argument. Necromancers as friendly neighborhood wizards would fit Discworld well, even if they aren't represented that way in the books.

And whether or not history monks are behind the continuity problems is really up to the reader, as an interpreter. There I'd be arguing for my opinion to be more official than yours, and that's not something I should be doing, IMO.

[Kato]

Regarding the history monk and pasts issue...
I think Pratchett doesn't put too much value on the seriousness if that issue...

Warning. The following link will direct you to tvtropes.org. Only look at what you came there for and leave immediately afterwards.

Here are two quotes of his regarding Discworld's past(s).

[123456789blaaa]

I'm sorry you feel like I dropped the debate. I didn't think you'd care about the opinion of one internet-goer. I guess you were interested in finishing the debate properly? I can understand that, it's quite annoying when the other guy just drops an discussion I was interested in continuing. I'm afraid I'm still going to do it, though. Sorry.

For whatever reason, we seem to have different opinions on several small details about the Discworld. We could keep arguing for a long time, but I don't think that'd be good for the thread. I have an annoying habit of trying to argue against inconsequential statements and even opinions, and honestly, this discussion is either there already, or going that way.

For example, there wasn't really much need for the necromancer argument. Necromancers as friendly neighborhood wizards would fit Discworld well, even if they aren't represented that way in the books.

And whether or not history monks are behind the continuity problems is really up to the reader, as an interpreter. There I'd be arguing for my opinion to be more official than yours, and that's not something I should be doing, IMO.

It's not that you decided to drop the debate, it's that you didn't tell me first. The reason I find it annoying is that it makes you look like you're running away from having to admit that you were wrong.

A for the history monks thing...without the quote I've decided to stop speculating about it. There's just not enough concrete information.