|
Why do you make it sound like we need your approval or permission to enjoy Discworld, or anything for that matter?
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
pratchett's take on religion isn't atheist but a pretty generic humanism, placing the power and authority inherent to religious belief in its believers rather than the external sources of authority professed by the religion itself (gods, etc). you can chalk this up to the sort of feel-good wishy-washiness inherent to many of his contemporaries but since his entire mythos revolves around objects of belief becoming literally realized his treatment of religious belief also naturally falls under that umbrella. it doesn't mock the concept of religious faith so much as encourage one to first examine the origins and aims of religion before incorporating it into one's own ideas of morality, which is probably especially useful today, since we're at the end of the world and moreso than ever any prominent people who express fervent religious belief tend to be psychopathic grifters still, yes, it's a shallow treatment of the subject. easily digestible, like a biscuit the only passage i've read that put forth a convincing argument for non-humanist religious belief is the mormon priest's story from cormac mccarthy's The Crossing - "god requires no witness." i'm on the record as being deeply unimpressed with dostoevsky's piety and while i've only read Foucault's Pendulum eco seems to take the same humanist tack to conspiratorial thinking as pratchett does to religion (agliè's numerology scene in particular comes to mind). need to check out White Teeth tho Oxxidation fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Mar 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Why do you make it sound like we need your approval or permission to enjoy Discworld, or anything for that matter? you don't! but you should be able to criticize it, or hear criticism of it. Oxxidation posted:the only passage i've read that put forth a convincing argument for non-humanist religious belief is the mormon priest's passage from cormac mccarthy's The Crossing - "god requires no witness." i'm on the record as being deeply unimpressed with dostoevsky's piety and while i've only read Foucault's Pendulum eco seems to take the same humanist take to conspiratorial thinking as pratchett does to religion (agliè's numerology scene in particular comes to mind). need to check out White Teeth tho really need to re-read the crossing. rose definitely still has a lot of the same humanism as pendulum (not that there's anything wrong with that), but i found his depictions of monasticism and worship in rose to have a real sympathy and vitality to them, and it manages to indict pretty damningly the worst elements of religion without losing that sympathy or becoming dull
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
I also haven't read Canticle for Leibowitz in ages but I remember it being simultaneously satirical and sympathetic towards religion, in that it picked apart Catholicism for the sometimes callous tendency to disregard any trappings of faith that didn't fit whatever particular time period in which it existed, while also giving lip service to the utmost importance of ritual and tradition. But the book also highlights how faith is central to most of human existence and that it's more human fallibility that leads to us cherry-picking what works at any particular moment. It's not a totally positive view of religion, but it's clearly written from the perspective of someone who has examined his own faith (or lack thereof, as the case may be) to a great degree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:so this is another way of saying that discworld is light reading, which i agree with. since it's light, it deals shallowly with its subject matter, asks for little thought from its readers, and generally communicates a handful of simple easily-digested messages while trying to earn some laughs along the way. that's what it means for something to be light reading. you can still enjoy it, i guess, but you don't need to defend it, and you should be able to marshal some kind of critical distance between you and it instead of feeling compelled to defend it as though you, personally, were being attacked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Why are you people still listening to him as though he wasn't an obnoxious bad-faith prick with no constructive input?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
it’s working well enough for me
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
What is BotL can never die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:Why are you people still listening to him as though he wasn't an obnoxious bad-faith prick with no constructive input? what would you define as "constructive?" it's generally just used to mean "saying nice things about", and i only ever see it deployed when people are upset that someone is criticizing something they like. i genuinely don't know what that would mean in terms of literary criticism. like, "chaucer's deployment of allegorical personification in these lines from the house of fame is rather flat and rigid" "do you have anything constructive to say?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:you don't need to defend it, and you should be able to marshal some kind of critical distance between you and it instead of feeling compelled to defend it as though you, personally, were being attacked. chernobyl kinsman posted:the bulk of atheists - and all of the evangelical type - can only engage with the external trappings of religion, as they lack both the personal experience of mature faith and any interest in understanding what that experience is like. this makes their writing and their thoughts on the matter shallow and silly. they are emotionally and intellectually stunted, locked in a permanent stage of angry reaction against their parents for dragging them to sunday school when they were twelve. this is the sort that terry pratchett is Can't imagine why anyone would feel personally attacked, mm-hm.  chernobyl kinsman will have posted:But I was attacking Pratchett not the people in this thread, and I can't imagine for an instant why anyone who finds an author's work meaningful would transfer an assertion that the author is emotionally and intellectually stunted into an implication that those same qualities pertain to them!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
the issue arises from one of the great nerd fallacies, which is the equation of one's personal identity with the media that one consumes. his writings on religion are shallow and silly, and he does primarily engage with its external trappings while showing little genuine understanding of or sympathy with its lived experience (except insofar as it becomes liberal humanism). that sharply narrows his emotional and intellectual range.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
I think you make some decent points, and should also work on not sounding like an enormous shithead
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
i cant do that because i am, at the end of the day, an enormous shithead
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
just absolutely massive. a thundering sack (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:just absolutely massive. a thundering sack Too close to the sun Icarus fly lower!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:the issue arises from one of the great nerd fallacies, which is the equation of one's personal identity with the media that one consumes. Regardless of the accuracy of your evaluation of Pratchett's insight (or lack thereof) into the religious mind, one doesn't have to "equate one's personal identity with the media one consumes" to find it vaguely insulting to have an author whose work speaks to one on an emotional or intellectual level labelled as "emotionally and intellectually stunted". I have to believe you're being disingenuous here, because the discourse can effectively be summarised as : quote:Alice: I really enjoy the works of [Author]! I've always felt they say something quite profound about the world. Edit: For thread related content, this place tipped me off to The Sea and Little Fishes which I hadn't read before and really is a quintessential Witches story as well as a lovely piece of backstory to underwrite some of the Tiffany Aching relationships. The_White_Crane fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Mar 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Is it the prevailing thought to begin reading Pratchett with Discworld and to begin Discworld with The Colour of Magic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
More or less, although that's nobody's favorite Discworld book. It's just there to set Discworld up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
If I wanted to give Pratchett an honest go, where should I start do you think? It's not unusual for me to duck out of a series everyone thinks is amazing because I can't get through the set up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
I'd honestly recommend starting with Mort, Wyrd Sisters, or Guards! Guards! (depending on if you're particularly into death, witches, or town guardsmen) and reading in publication order from there. The earliest books are still, like, worth reading; but unless you've already committed to reading the whole series for some reason you might as well start with one of the books that are more indicative of Discworld's whole deal. edit: yeah if you're worried about being put off by setup don't start with The Color of Magic. Not only is it a completely different style, Its events have basically no bearing on the rest of the series, and is in fact actively contradictory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Mort was the first one in the series I really legitimately enjoyed and Guards! Guards! really blew me away. I'd say one of those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
The DPRK posted:If I wanted to give Pratchett an honest go, where should I start do you think? It's not unusual for me to duck out of a series everyone thinks is amazing because I can't get through the set up. Men at Arms. It's the second book of the Watch series, works well as a stand-alone novel, and is a very good introduction to Pratchett's style of writing and humor. e: Starting with Mort or Guards, Guards! is also a good choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
That's brill. Thanks folks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
At what point can I read Night Watch? Last time ITT I was told basically "read all of Discworld first" but nobody got time for that
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
If you're really uncertain, start with Going Postal. Re: Night Watch, it's a time travel story that's basically comparing the older books to the newer ones so. At least read all the Watch novels that came first. YggiDee fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Mar 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:At what point can I read Night Watch? Last time ITT I was told basically "read all of Discworld first" but nobody got time for that It requires a bit of context to hit as hard as it does. You should probably just read the five other previous Watch novels first because those contain most if not all of Vimes' development. Thief of Time helps, sort of, but it's far from necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
I noticed he switched publishers part way through his bibliography. I'm into music more than reading, but whenever a big band does this it often has implications for the music. Is that the case with Pratchett?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Nah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
the first two discworld books i read were the last continent and night watch, bought from a mall bookstore for some reason. must have been 13-14 years ago probably not the best jumping-off point but it didn't matter much, i must have looked very foolish bent over and giggling on one of the benches
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Arist posted:It requires a bit of context to hit as hard as it does. You should probably just read the five other previous Watch novels first because those contain most if not all of Vimes' development. Thief of Time helps, sort of, but it's far from necessary. So I don't have to read all of the Death books first too? I mean I'll probably get Hogfather shortly because its supposed to be fun but I already have Night Watch and have read the rest of the Watch books already
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:So I don't have to read all of the Death books first too? I mean I'll probably get Hogfather shortly because its supposed to be fun but I already have Night Watch and have read the rest of the Watch books already Nope, Night Watch is only tied to Death in the sense that people die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
dmboogie posted:Nope, Night Watch is only tied to Death in the sense that people die. Death hangs out with Vimes all the time though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
The DPRK posted:I noticed he switched publishers part way through his bibliography. I'm into music more than reading, but whenever a big band does this it often has implications for the music. Is that the case with Pratchett? Nah, his publishing history covers 30+ years, changing publishers during that long a stretch is not uncommon, especially for authors whose sales numbers increase substantially.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Arist posted:Mort was the first one in the series I really legitimately enjoyed and Guards! Guards! really blew me away. I'd say one of those. Mort was where I accidentally started as a kid when I found it in a box of old books, and is a perfectly good starting point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:At what point can I read Night Watch? Last time ITT I was told basically "read all of Discworld first" but nobody got time for that If you want to read Night Watch (and you should, it's my favourite Discworld book), here's the sequence I'd go through: Guards! Guards! Men At Arms Feet of Clay Jingo (optional, it's a City Watch novel and has some interesting stuff but I didn't find it as memorable as the others or as necessary for characterisation) The Fifth Elephant Night Watch Someone mentioned Thief of Time and that is also one of my favourites and might improve your enjoyment due to it introducing a relevant group of characters, but that also has a lot of lead-in for a couple of main characters, Death and Susan Sto-Helit. If you want their whole deal, you'd need to read: Mort Reaper Man (one of Pratchett's best, a must-read in general imo) Soul Music Hogfather Thief of Time tl;dr: Definitely read the City Watch books to understand the characters of Vimes & co, but IMO read the Death books too because a) Thief of Time will help with Night Watch b) The Death books loving own
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
The zombie plot in Reaper Man is honestly kind of weak but the Death half of that book is enough to elevate the entire thing to some of the strongest material in the entire series.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Cicadalek posted:Doesn't even use chapters. Hasn't got a clue. Not being British, I always wondered about that quote- is it from an influential reviewer, or just some random in a provincial paper? Arist posted:The zombie plot in Reaper Man is honestly kind of weak but the Death half of that book is enough to elevate the entire thing to some of the strongest material in the entire series. My copy of Reaper Man has the Ankh Morpork and the Bill Door sections printed in different fonts. (I guess the two narratives never cross, ever, which is pretty odd.) Do all editions have that feature? I went slowly mad working it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
Arist posted:The zombie plot in Reaper Man is honestly kind of weak but the Death half of that book is enough to elevate the entire thing to some of the strongest material in the entire series. It was the first one I read, and it definitely hooked 11-year old me despite skimming most of the Windle Poons stuff because I just wanted more Death. I actually got it by accident because my parents were dumb enough to let me join the Science Fiction Book Club, one of those mailers from the 90s where unless you sent back the card every month saying you didn't want the books, they sent them and billed you for them anyway. It's also how I got Jingo, which I devoured right after Reaper Man, and an omnibus of Book of the New Sun, which was waaaaay too dense for preteen me but is now one of my favorite books.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Death books do own, but I always thought Susan was kind of a tiresome character. Every book has her start off aloof and she ends up learning the same lessons from her adventures. They're not bad, but they're not my favorite parts. Reaper Man is the best Death book. The faculty of Unseen University being a gaggle of jackasses led by
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 02:48
|
|