|
John C. Wright was a hardcore libertarian anarchist atheist who overnight converted to a hardcore Roman Catholic. He wasn't right in the head either before or after.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:John C. Wright was a hardcore libertarian anarchist atheist who overnight converted to a hardcore Roman Catholic. He wasn't right in the head either before or after. Ahh, overcompensation explains a lot. Snuff wasn't bad but i thought that it did not flow easily compared to previous books, rereading Night Watch and it just reinspires my liking of his writing. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 11:08
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:How the gently caress can you hate Terry? seriously, this man must be one of the few human beings with cold blood running through their veins. I love Terry to death but let's be honest, he's a liberal atheist who writes comedy-come-period-dramas set in a magic world ruled by a satire of The Prince where witches are good, the Gods are wankers and absolutely nobody is perfect. Of course only one of these things seems to matter to this guy: quote:It is not the author who appalled me, it was the audience, including myself. Hello I'm just going to pad my nonsense-hate in eloquence and wearisome imagery and if you so much as sniff disapprovingly at me
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
What is this guy's actual complaint about Pratchett? Just that he's atheist and famous?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:What is this guy's actual complaint about Pratchett? Just that he's atheist and famous? It was a sit-down dinner in Pratchett's honour that he used in-part to talk about the legalization of voluntary euthanasia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:It was a sit-down dinner in Pratchett's honour that he used in-part to talk about the legalization of voluntary euthanasia. Ah, that makes sense. Maybe this Wright guy should have devoted some of his time to actually mentioning the topic of discussion instead of spending paragraph after paragraph describing his revulsion at the "pure evil." I'm just sitting here thinking "what evil?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
quote:I sat and listened to pure evil being uttered in charming accents accentuated by droll witticism, and I did not stand up, and I did not strike the old man who uttered them across the mouth Clearly this man deserves a medal for his super-human restraint
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
I can see how the idea of legal voluntary euthanasia would bring out strong emotions in people, though. He would be crazy if he was getting so huffy over Pratchett's writing work. But euthanasia is a controversial topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 15:04
|
|
|
You know what's evil? Allowing people who are in pain that will never end until they are dead to seek relief from that pain. Not forcing people who will never in life know any release from agony and loss of dignity- that is, of course- ah, nah, I can't even say it sarcastically without hating myself. This guy's an evil jerk and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same thread as Terry Pratchett.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 15:24
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:You know what's evil? Allowing people who are in pain that will never end until they are dead to seek relief from that pain. Not forcing people who will never in life know any release from agony and loss of dignity- that is, of course- ah, nah, I can't even say it sarcastically without hating myself. This guy's an evil jerk and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same thread as Terry Pratchett. You have to put it in context of his religious belief that the act of self termination would put the soul in eternal torment. In that light it would be wrong to advocate for people to release themselves, for it'd end their transient suffering for an eternal one. So hes mostly just misguided.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
veekie posted:You have to put it in context of his religious belief that the act of self termination would put the soul in eternal torment. In that light it would be wrong to advocate for people to release themselves, for it'd end their transient suffering for an eternal one. Dude, he said he wanted to punch Pratchett in the mouth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
Ataru13 posted:Dude, he said he wanted to punch Pratchett in the mouth. If I thought that someone was advocating for sending people to eternal torture, I'd want to kick their rear end, too. If he truly believes in Christianity, his reaction is justified. So we should not mock him for his belief on euthanasia, we should mock him for his belief in God - that's where the stupidity lies. Personally, I am wondering why this hardcore christian is even in the audience of an atheist with well-known opinions contrary to christian morality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:If I thought that someone was advocating for sending people to eternal torture, I'd want to kick their rear end, too. If he truly believes in Christianity, his reaction is justified. So we should not mock him for his belief on euthanasia, we should mock him for his belief in God - that's where the stupidity lies. John C. Wright's brain is more hosed up that Pratchett's. Man used to be a card-carrying Randian atheist, then he had a heart attack and near-death experience complete with a personal vision of the Virgin Mary speaking directly to him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Also just finished Snuff, and I mostly liked it. It seemed wordier to me - more time spent in Vimes' head, more long speeches, a lot of talking from Willikins. Somehow the whole major plot around the goblins getting legally recognized as people didn't resonate with me, for reasons similar to what whatpuppy said. It also reminded me of a slight problem I had with Unseen Academicals in that orcs and goblins hardly existed in the Discworld before, and suddenly they're both these terribly persecuted, maligned groups. I think the only thing that I really disliked about the whole book though was Vetinari. He's downright chatty in Snuff, similar to Unseen Academicals, and I don't know, it just takes away from his character to have him get obviously sentimental. Stiffie-Hellman posted:Some of Sybil's comments to Vimes and the bit about her breasts during the music performance were a bit jarring. I'm pretty sure previous books all the way back to Guards Guards have had similar asides, so it didn't seem to out of place to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
So I could talk about how I just read Snuff and how it was very enjoyable but full of loving monologues and all the characters' "voices" were wrong (has Vimes ever made prison rape references before?), but I'm rereading Unseen Academicals and instead I want to talk about the Cabinet of Curiosity. Basically, there's a bit where Ponder and Ridcully talk about some member of the faculty eating a bacon sandwich he found in there. Thing is, nothing in the Cabinet's pink - they specifically reference this in the context of discussing the bacon sandwich. So what the hell's going on? What colour was this mysterious bacon? I need answers before the aspergers consumes me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
A deliciously golden brown, streaked with dull red.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
Penguingo posted:So I could talk about how I just read Snuff and how it was very enjoyable but full of loving monologues and all the characters' "voices" were wrong (has Vimes ever made prison rape references before?), but I'm rereading Unseen Academicals and instead I want to talk about the Cabinet of Curiosity. uh, well, while uncooked bacon is pink I find in general that when I cook bacon it turns brown.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Mr. Bill posted:uh, well, while uncooked bacon is pink I find in general that when I cook bacon it turns brown. This may come as a surprise, but colors aren't exactly rigidly defined. Cooked bacon is white in the fatty bits and brown (a.k.a. dark red) in the lean areas, and in the areas where the fat content is intermediate, it can appear somewhere between white and dark red - i.e., pink.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:This may come as a surprise, but colors aren't exactly rigidly defined. Cooked bacon is white in the fatty bits and brown (a.k.a. dark red) in the lean areas, and in the areas where the fat content is intermediate, it can appear somewhere between white and dark red - i.e., pink. You really thought he needed to be educated on that, did you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:You really thought he needed to be educated on that, did you? Yes. He thought it was worth pointing out that meat changes color when you cook it. Fight fire with fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
I finished Snuff last week, and while enjoyable, it didn't have the same satisfaction factor as any of the other Watch books. The main weakness, as others have pointed out, is that the prose seems to be a bit off. I think another thing is that, with the exception of Night Watch, most (if not all) of the other City Watch books used the other characters more extensive, even when they were peripheral to the story. This was definitely 99% Vimes. The interplay between the other characters seem to give a certain extra layer of humor that seemed lacking here. For those of you who have to wait for the book or just don't wanna buy it, complete spoilers are available here: http://spoiler-alerts.com/snuff-book-spoiler/ Some thoughts: It was interesting to see Carrot actually sitting at Vimes' desk. In the other books, PTerry is always careful to point out that Carrot generally takes the respectful action of establishing a seperate desk next to Vimes' own. Carrot has grown to be one of my absolutely favorite characters, and I think perhaps the only main character in the Watch who has never gotten a written internal monologue. What is going on in that head? In T5E Vimes noted that Carrot seemed fated, and wondered what would happen if he got in the way of Carrot's destiny. Perhaps PTerry is hinting that we'll soon found out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
Carrot doesn't have an internal monologue. That would imply a difference between what is and what is seen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 09:16
|
|
|
veekie posted:You have to put it in context of his religious belief that the act of self termination would put the soul in eternal torment. In that light it would be wrong to advocate for people to release themselves, for it'd end their transient suffering for an eternal one. No...malicious. See, when it comes to a debate like euthanasia, you are LITERALLY (yes) arguing for the right to control someone else's choices. You can dress it up with the moral trappings of religion, but it's just about exerting control over someone else. "I must make you suffer now for your own good" is something a sadist says to convince themselves of the rightness of their cruelty. Here, I can make a fallacious religious argument just as he does. He says killing yourself is against God's will. Well, everything is God's will, therefore the act of killing yourself is part of God's plan. Nope, can't accept that. YOU don't know what God's plan is, but *I* do, and it's that you keep suffering. He's not misguided. He's malicious. He obviously has gone off the deep end of religion, like most converts do, and is using any religious justifications he can find to fuel his angry, impotent rage against people he dislikes and wants to control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 10:30
|
|
|
John C Wright (and his wife, for that matter) are trolls and fuckwits, and the best response is to ignore them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:No...malicious. Allright let's take a step back from the ledge here. That's not it for a lot of people. I can hold my view that a person should be allowed the right to determine his own fate without turning the other party into a Michael Bay villain, cackling wildly over his plans to control the lives of others at last bearing malicious, succulent fruit. Most people who believe that euthanasia is wrong, in my experience, either believe it goes against their religion (whether Christianity or Buddhism or Islam) and that they would then either be condemning another person or themselves to infinite suffering, or they are religious or non-religious people simply not comfortable with voting yes on saying someone can kill themselves. They're allowed to do that. You can tell them they're not and you can call them evil for it, but that doesn't make it true. quote:He's not misguided. He's malicious. He obviously has gone off the deep end of religion, like most converts do, and is using any religious justifications he can find to fuel his angry, impotent rage against people he dislikes and wants to control. This guy, yeah, obviously. I mean heck I posted half his rantings here. But "most converts"? There is a world outside of Christianity outside of the ridiculously prejudiced and the American money-grabbers who appear on Bible-belt television programmes. As a great man once said, slow your roll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
I loved Snuff. Not Night Watch good, but nothing is. I had 2 things I could not figure out though. 1. Who was Stinky? A regular goblin? Or some sort of god/gathering dark/ character in a book from Vimes youth? 2. What did Vetinari mean by "I, for so many reasons, envy you." I am also excited that it did not wrap up like ISWM. Makes me think another Watch book could still be coming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
Is there any official word on Carrot and Angua's relationship? Are they married or do they simply have an understanding or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Is there any official word on Carrot and Angua's relationship? Are they married or do they simply have an understanding or what? I'm sure if they'd gotten married, it would have been mentioned in one of the books. I'll assume in the meantime that they're still together, and have been together long enough that Ankh-morpork's take on common law marriage statutes apply 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 08:28
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Allright let's take a step back from the ledge here. That's not it for a lot of people. I can hold my view that a person should be allowed the right to determine his own fate without turning the other party into a Michael Bay villain, cackling wildly over his plans to control the lives of others at last bearing malicious, succulent fruit. Oh, but it does. Here's the thing: in the end, it's still about controlling another person. Look at the arguments: it's for their own good. They don't know what will happen, but I do. I know what's best for someone else. I'm doing it for their sake. All of those really mean: I want other people to do and think as I say. You can say they're "not comfortable" with someone else's choices--since when is that a valid reason for controlling other people's choices? In fact, people don't even really KNOW what's going to happen after we die, but they're so desperately afraid that they COULD be wrong that they'll torture people to prove to themselves they're right. It's just a veiled attempt to force other people to conform to your beliefs about life and the afterlife. Not convince. Not persuade. FORCE. I'd like to hear what is considered evil if not treating people like objects to control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 08:44
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:Oh, but it does. Here's the thing: in the end, it's still about controlling another person. Look at the arguments: it's for their own good. They don't know what will happen, but I do. I know what's best for someone else. I'm doing it for their sake. You can proselytize all you want but you're still warping people's point of view to fit your own without actually backing this up. If you want to believe all people everywhere that are voting against legalizing voluntary euthanasia are doing so in order to enact a Machiavellian plot to gain utter mastery over others then there's nothing I can say to dissuade you from that aim, because you're just going to say "No but this is what they really believe." This isn't about whether it's right or wrong to allow to legalize euthanasia (it is), this is you asking me to believe that you know what people think in order to change my views on them. quote:You can say they're "not comfortable" with someone else's choices--since when is that a valid reason for controlling other people's choices? In fact, people don't even really KNOW what's going to happen after we die, but they're so desperately afraid that they COULD be wrong that they'll torture people to prove to themselves they're right. This is making the assumption that all people conform to your view of them. To reiterate in my experience people who vote against euthanasia do so for a whole variety of different reasons but mostly because they are uncomfortable with the idea of having their finger on the button of allowing another person to die. That has nothing to do with control for them, and to say they're torturing people to prove a point they may not support in the first place is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
Was it just me, or was Fred Colon completely different in Snuff to earlier books? I haven't read many watch books in a while, but he seemed off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 12:16
|
|
|
Space Butler posted:Was it just me, or was Fred Colon completely different in Snuff to earlier books? I haven't read many watch books in a while, but he seemed off. Wasn't Fred Colon unpossessed only in it for like ten pages? I do agree that in those ten pages his old fat racistness was put forward quite heavily though, I thought Jingo and Men at Arms were supposed to be his character development past that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
How old is Vimes as of Snuff? I make it to be around 56/57, assuming he was around 17 when he first joined the Watch. He'd have been mid-thirties when we first see him in Guards! Guards! and he's definitely grown much older since then. This is of course all assuming that the length of time that passes between each novel corresponds to the time that passes in real life between publishing dates. It's silly to assume that with a lot of things, but with Discworld it seems to work (Young Sam, for example, has aged about six years and is described as 'almost seven', he was a baby when Thud! was published about the same length of time ago). You can also work out several other characters relative ages using this, for example I think Nobby is... anything between eight to twelve years younger than Vimes is, Colon's something like fifteen years older and Carrot would have been about 18 in Guards! Guards! or maybe it's all a work of fantasy and their ages aren't actually relevant or thought about, who knows
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
hemp posted:You can also work out several other characters relative ages using this, for example I think Nobby is... anything between eight to twelve years younger than Vimes is, Colon's something like fifteen years older and Carrot would have been about 18 in Guards! Guards! In Night Watch Vimes as Keel describes Colon as pretty much still being a lad so I think he's only about 5 or 6 years older than Vimes which would place Colon in his mid twenties during the glorious revolution and early 60s during Snuff, that seems about right to me. thebardyspoon fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Oct 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
I finished the book last night and I enjoyed it despite all the things that were off. Jethro as a character went kinda haywire and Stratford struck me as a Carcer knock off. I liked Feeney and I would absolutely read the poo poo out of Jane's book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
thebardyspoon posted:In Night Watch Vimes as Keel describes Colon as pretty much still being a lad so I think he's only about 5 or 6 years older than Vimes which would place Colon in his mid twenties during the glorious revolution and early 60s during Snuff, that seems about right to me. Ah, I guess I'm mis-remembering adult Vimes thinking "he'll learn coppering off the likes of Quirke and Fred Colon" meaning Colon was a proper grown-up watchman at this point, in his early 30's at least. I guess that would make him almost 70 at this point... which considering it's been stated for several books now that he's past the retirmement age wouldn't be that much of a stretch? Who knows, it doesn't really make much of a difference either way. What about the witches? Hang on, when was the last time we even had a book about them? The wizards probably don't even know themselves. Cohen et al are dead. Moist could be anything between early 20's and late 30's, and not being able to pin that down is half his character. Hang on, when was the last time we heard about Rincewind? He was the main man of all this at one point. Hah, the fact that young Vimes would have learnt corruption and dodgy coppering under Quirke if not for the intervention of Keel really puts their antagonism in Men At Arms in a new light, doesn't it? rejutka posted:Stratford struck me as a Carcer knock off. Oh, definitely, Stratford was very much Carcer 2.0 - but worse, if possible. Sure, Carcer threatened it, but Stratford actually went into his son's room first with the intention of killing him, without even going near Vimes's room. I don't know that even Carcer would have gone that far. hemp fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Oct 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
Rincewind was in UA, he's still a coward. For really crazy passage of time stuff in the Discworld books, Ponder was taking his exams in Moving Pictures presumably quite young since he was taking them at the same time as the main character of MP. Then in UA he mentions finding a grey hair while he was in the shower when Ridcully calls him a boy. Meanwhile Gaspode, a normal dog also first appeared in MP and is still alive in the latest books, he's a magic dog but still. It was lucky Terry put the History Monks in to totally deflect these sort of questions really. Last time we had a book about the Witches was last year? The Tiffany series is basically about Witches and they appear alot but you might not count that I guess. If not then it's Carpe Juggulum which came out before I went to secondary school so yeah it's been ages since we've had a Lancre coven book. thebardyspoon fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Oct 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
hemp posted:Hang on, when was the last time we heard about Rincewind? He was the main man of all this at one point. Rincewind has a supporting role in Unseen Academicals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 20:17
|
|
|
hemp posted:
I'd phrase it as more stupid than Carcer. Carcer knew what Vimes is like. Stratford clearly thinks Vimes is some Duke Mucky Muck like the Rusts. Maybe he never heard about the 37 guys and the dog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
Anyone know how long you usually have to wait to get the book from the Paul Kidby website? I ordered it on the 6th and I'm starting to get a little impatient but I don't want to buy another copy considering the cost of the first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 20:49
|
|
