Much as I love Terry & Discworld...

[Bouncy Castle]

I was standing on one leg, Dug!

[Who's Wee Dug]

So I was half right then.

[=Tamar]

Terry himself has commented a couple of times on how much money he makes, whilst simultaneously rubbing his hands together. At least, a couple of times at Con that I can remember. The audience seemed to appreciate it, maybe they also make obscene amounts of money and like to see it in others. I thought it was a bit odd to gleefully tell fans how much they're being taken for, but everyone has a right to spend their money as they wish. I probably won't be spending mine at con again though, I don't think I got my money's worth (Strangely Fascinating being the exception )

That (rubbing hands) is a comedy routine, in case you hadn't noticed. I see it as a humorous way to say thank you to the fans who presumably like his work and are happily paying money to see him. To belabor the point a bit, Sir Terry has earned his money. Like many others, he grew up poor. Why shouldn't he be able to admit in public that he's glad he has done well? He isn't a CEO, making all his profit from the works of others. Last I read, he didn't even get royalties on things like the embroidery patterns. I believe he once said that it took him as much time to do one of the Diaries as it would have to write a complete novel, which is one of the reasons they stopped producing them.

[Dotsie]

That (rubbing hands) is a comedy routine, in case you hadn't noticed. I see it as a humorous way to say thank you to the fans who presumably like his work and are happily paying money to see him.

Thanks, but I'm not stupid. I wouldn't begrudge anyone their success, and I wouldn't say he doesn't deserve it, but I do think it's tasteless to make jokes about it as often as he does, to people who at the moment might not have a pot to piss in. When I've had to go overdrawn to get to con, why would I laugh?

[jtrhoades]

If you infer insult where he didn't intend to imply it, then it's your own fault that you're insulted, no one else's.

Having met, and chatted at length with the man, I can promise you that he didn't in any way want to make anyone feel uncomfortable about their financial state.

[Dotsie]

I can tell that inferring insult is not the fault of the receiver. If you were pissing people off, would you not want to know why? I have also met and chatted at length with the man, and I don't think it's his intention to be offensive, but the fact is that he was! If you're not insulted, why do you give a crap if I am?

[Catch-up]

I don't think anyone would doubt that he didn't mean to be offensive, just funny. However, turning around and dumping on Dotsie because she did find it offensive, with sound reasoning, is not called for. You can't dictate to someone what does or doesn't feel offensive to them, or disregard their feelings because you disagree in some way.

[raisindot]

Er, back to the original topic...

Bouncy, as much as I love a lot of the 'stuff' (says the man who spent $80 US to get one of two Thud! sets in the U.S.)I do agree with you in some ways. As the concept owner, he deserves the right to commercially exploit DW however he wants to, and like others have said, we have the right not to buy into it. We all wish our art creators would be artistically pure, but when does that ever happen? It used to bug the snot of out of me when Charles Schulz would whore out Snoopy and Charlie Brown to shill everything from insurance to third-rate dessert cakes, but it was his right to do so.

You do know that an author has kind of jumped that commercial literary shark when you start seeing apostrophes being added, as in, "Terry Pratchett's Discworld" or "Frank Herbert's Dune" over the title of some lousy sequel or spin off created by someone else.

[lawrenson]

Hi,

I agree with all the points above.

However, as I sit here looking at a large pile of Dodgers, all slightly different, I do wonder sometimes...

Cheers,
karen

[Who's Wee Dug]

Hi,

I agree with all the points above.

However, as I sit here looking at a large pile of Dodgers, all slightly different, I do wonder sometimes...

Cheers,
karen

Is that the Jammie Dogers, or the books,W/stone slipcased one, the W/stone one with extra story, the signed one from PJSM Prints one and I think W S Smith had something extra with theirs, thats a lot if you bought them all and I see PJSM ARE OFFERING the slipcased one signed for £200 I suppose if you are a completist you buy it in which case youre paying £170 for a signature, that's a serious amout of money for just one book unless you're as they say minted.

[Molokov]

You do know that an author has kind of jumped that commercial literary shark when you start seeing apostrophes being added, as in, "Terry Pratchett's Discworld" or "Frank Herbert's Dune" over the title of some lousy sequel or spin off created by someone else.

So you mean all those playscripts that say "Terry Pratchett's <foo> adapted for the stage by Stephen Briggs" are indications of said shark being jumped?

[Who's Wee Dug]

The plays bring a new and welcome dimension to Discworld as far as I'm concerned, I don't buy the scripts but I have been to a few productions which I have enjoyed.

[raisindot]

You do know that an author has kind of jumped that commercial literary shark when you start seeing apostrophes being added, as in, "Terry Pratchett's Discworld" or "Frank Herbert's Dune" over the title of some lousy sequel or spin off created by someone else.

So you mean all those playscripts that say "Terry Pratchett's <foo> adapted for the stage by Stephen Briggs" are indications of said shark being jumped?

No, because in that situation Briggs is adapting an existing piece of Pterry's work for a different medium. Whereas, something with the header of "Terry Pratchett's Discworld" over a title such as "CMOT's Dibbler's Seven Habits of Barely Successful Businesspeople by Joe Smith and Mitt Twit" is what I'm talking out. The thing itself may be quite good, but Pterry may have nothing at all to do with the work itself other than whoring out the license.

[Molokov]

Ok, fair enough

I think the only 'unofficial' Pratchett-related thing I have is Lawrence Watt-Evans' "The Turtle Moves" which isn't very good. Glad I didn't buy it, I won it as part of the UU Challenge prize at DWCon 2010. Because of its poor quality, I've avoided the few other "unofficial" guides out there, because I didn't want to waste my money on them if they weren't going to be any good.

[Selkie]

I think , on the whole, Terry has done a good job of maintaining the quality of the "extras", 70 different versions of Dodger aside (yes, I exaggerate).

I don't think he has sold out. Certainly, when you look at all the Harry Potter tat that's around, the Discworld stuff is exceptional.