Snuff *Warning Spoilers*

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Postby LilMaibe » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:29 pm

Okay, folks, a few questions in connection with the tvtropes spoilers:

1.trope entry:

Karma Houdini: Defied. Willikins serves the same role as Pepe in Unseen Academicals, when the Psycho for Hire escapes from custody again, instead of apprehending and returning him to police and having the justice system hang him, Willikins slits his throat in the night for going after young Sam. Vimes wanted to, and Vetinari asked if he gave the order, but Vimes' inner Watchman is still in control.


Is that really so? the 'arbitrary law is a-okay' attitude baffled me in UA already.

2.

Brick Joke: Jane Gordon's novel. Pride and Extreme Prejudice.


Is that really said out loud in text? Is the joke REALLY explained?

3.
Cheerful Child: Young Sam, poo expert, instant friend to goblins.


Please, please tell me there is MORE to that friendship than the fact that he well, knows sh't...
LilMaibe
 

Postby Willem » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:05 pm

90 pages in and the book hasn't disappointed me so far.
Scientists are predicting the future will be much more futuristic than originally predicted
User avatar
Willem
Member
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:13 pm
Location: Weert, The Netherlands

Postby swreader » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:27 am

I’m now working on my third reading of Snuff, which I find just as brilliant in its own, but slightly different way as I Shall Wear Midnight.

Pratchett is a writer who can be read in different fashions. With nearly all of his books, there is a strong comic, sometimes parody element, although his parody sometimes is the satiric parody of a situation, rather than just the parody of form. And it is possible to read his books purely at this level; indeed some (for example Soul Music) have very little else in them. But Pratchett, if one is really to understand his books, demands that the reader have a significant knowledge of literature, as well as of a number of other disciplines. And it usually takes me at least two readings to begin to pick up all the allusive elements. In an odd way, Pratchett’s writing style can be compared to the complexity of Goblin speech (as described by Miss Beedle) where the meaning depends on the speaker, the person spoken to, and a long string of other qualifiers.

Thus, those who pull small quotes out of context for dismissive comment (as is the case with all the spoilers quoted in LilMaibe’s post) demonstrate their lack of understanding and their failure to read carefully. Trying to judge a book based on these, particularly in the case of Pratchett, is to run the risk of totally misunderstanding what the book is and does.

Snuff, stylistically, is an allusive parody of both Jane Austin and the classic Murder Mystery/Police Procedural. In his allusive references to Austin, Pratchett is pointing out the silly (if dangerous) notions of superiority of the gentility—whether in 19th century England, or the gentility of money of the 21st century. These are people who assume that laws and morality are what they say they are; they see themselves as above the rule of law.

In Pride and Prejudice, Lady Catherine assumes that because of her station she has the right to tell Elizabeth Bennett she must not think of Mr. Darcy as a husband as he is of a superior class. (Of course, the fact that she hopes to marry her own daughter to him is conveniently overlooked by Lady Catherine.) The gentry as portrayed in Snuff bear a considerable resemblance (in some ways) to Austin’s gentry. Gravid, the highly illegal , self-appointed Board of Magistrates members, and even the “lower classes” believe that it is perfectly legal and moral to exploit, or even kill, goblins for their own amusement or profit.

Pratchett begins with an exaggerated version of the Bennett sisters, who are transformed into Hermione (the lumberjack), Jane (the odd one who wants to write) and the other four who are waiting rather hopelessly for someone to be willing to marry them without a dowry.

When asked what he thinks of writing as a career, Sam asks Jane what sort of thing she was thinking of writing.

“Well, commander, at the moment I’m working on what might be considered a novel about the complexities of personal relationships, with all their hopes and dreams and misunderstandings.”

That could easily be used as a simplified description of Pride and Prejudice (by the other Jane). Sam approves generally, but finds himself wondering if any author

“…has thought about the relationship between the hunter and the hunted, the policeman and the mysterious killer, the lawman who must think like a criminal sometimes in order to do his job, and may be unpleasantly surprised at how good he is at such thinking, perhaps.”

This description (while obviously relevant to Snuff) is also a description of the best of crime writing. Only Pratchett would dare to blend a comedy of manners with a police procedural.

Pratchett has (amongst many other elements) used these two allusive parodies brilliantly in his still more complex novel so that the reader can chortle at the last lines of the book:

“…Vimes was totally amazed to find that the bestselling novel taking the
Ankh-Morpork literary world by storm was dedicated to Commander Samuel Vimes.

The title of the book was Pride and Extreme Prejudice.”
User avatar
swreader
Member
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.

Postby LilMaibe » Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:08 am

He. Explained. The. Joke.

I'm....speechless....and underwhelmed
LilMaibe
 

Postby Tonyblack » Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:45 am

LilMaibe wrote:He. Explained. The. Joke.

I'm....speechless....and underwhelmed
Who explained what joke?

I have no idea what you are talking about. :?
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 28668
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Postby LilMaibe » Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:55 am

There was, first of, to be a '?' after joke.
As I am not certain if I understood it correctly, but if I did this whole 'subtle' shout out to Jane Austen was basically explained by given the book title...
LilMaibe
 

Postby Tonyblack » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:05 am

The title of the book: Pride and Extreme Prejudice is actually the very last sentence in the book. If you haven't gotten the "shout out" up until then, it's hardly going to spoil the rest of the book.

Of course, it won't come as any sort of surprise to anyone who has been reading spoilers.
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 28668
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Postby LilMaibe » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:10 am

Still.
As said, I am usually one of the people who can enjoy a story even if she knows the spoilers for it.
In fact I have grown to prefer spoilers, as so far each time I went into a movie, bough and read a book or even played a game I had NO informations before, and be it just a recomendation and very minor spoilers) whatsoever I had always gotten greatly disappointed.
LilMaibe
 

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:17 pm

I'm not entirely sure there is a joke as you mean it Meeps.

Sharlene's over-simplified on Austen's style of writing - she's a satirist too and uses stereotypes as monstrous cariacatures, like Lady Catherine de Burgh, to illustrate her parodies and heap (very polite) scorn on her main themes in this case of Pride creating Prejudice to use against both her antagonists (LC) and her protagonists Elizabeth Bennet. I'll come back to that point soon because I will not allow P&P to be sold so short as Sharlene's outlined it... :wink:

Austen's style is of course itself rooted in the mores and hierarchy of her own time, so in turn, someone like Terry can come along in later times and turn her environments on their head as well. There's something comforting in that because it'll likely happen with Terry sooner or later... :lol:

OK Pride and Prejudice is a book of its time written by a vicar's daughter who remained single all her life and stuck to the very sensible premise that really you can't write comprehensively and in detail about things you know nothing about - so you only get a public view of relationships like marriages, never have male-only scenes and for the heroines to never never get to the kissy bits... However, Jane's station in life was uniquely qualified to observe the extremes of village society (again she only dips into city life very superficially) so you get her feisty gels visiting the 'deserving poor' and occasionally getting to mix with the landed gentry and consequently all her books give a snapshot of late 18th century English, mainly rural 'society' within the parameters of the status quo - she never leaves those boundaries because she didn't understand them and so wouldn't write about them except by inference (the bits about the Army camp at Brighton and Lydia's flight to the less reputable parts of London with Wickham being a good example as they're all referred to in passing conversation (or correspondence) and not explicitly).

Pride and Prejudice is an enormous satirical swipe at the social status quo and Austen's male and female leads represent the two states that can ruin people's happiness. In fact you can argue both attitudes to Darcy and Elizabeth, but in general it's about Darcy having to get over his Pride and Elizabeth overcoming her initial Prejudice against him because of his arrogant superiority. They both learn the error of their ways from each other and so they ultimately get it together because they realise they're 'made for each other'. This despite her actual status as the child of a disastrous, but nevertheless more or less functional (and certainly fruitful with 5 surviving daughters) marriage and his unfortunate snobbishness over his exalted lord of the manor status that enables him to pursue Elizabeth despite the whole shame of her youngest sister's unhindered and mostly unpunished escapades which are of scandalous proportions - the whole point of which is to show that they really don't matter and shouldn't taint everyone else and ruin their future prospects forever. This is from a 19th C perspective not a 21st one of course - Darcy renders Lydia and Wickham's scandalous behaviour 'respectable' rather than overturning the whole premise of public decency and dragging the Bennet family down so far in the process that the other 4 girls are incapable of having a decent life despite having done nothing wrong. He also recognises his own hand in the disaster in alienating Wickham so thoroughly that his malice spreads out to infect other people, rather than sinking below the Darcy family's awareness, into obscurity and hopefully away altogether in a military campaign somewhere far, far away in the time of Napoleon and Wellington... :shock:

Darcy's triumph (and it is, make no doubt) is in forsaking the ridiculous model of Lady Catherine with her 'proper' marital solution for him to her dull and insipid daughter, knowing it will be a loveless and unchallenging match for him and instead goes for this 'charming creature' who comes from a barely respectable family, is in some ways almost ungovernable or wild in terms of social conformity and who takes every opportunity to attack what he thinks is his inalienable right to respect and superiority and knocks such huge holes in them that he's forced to see them as largely unimportant and to learn true humility and 'right-doing' for its own sake rather than appearances - his own prejudice in thinking he's morally and socially better than everyone else because of his wealth and position. In his case he finds out she's literally worth 'falling' for because she makes him happy and a better person and she sees (eventually and far more painfully) that he's got more to him than the big house and pots of money when he comes to the rescue of the youngest sister and his own dissolute 'give it all to me now' foster brother Wickham when they completely go off the rails and scandalise polite society. Neither Elizabeth nor Darcy pay more than lip service to what is the norm in their society is the bottom line. They work within it, yes but they reject what is superfluous or just plain silly - i.e. rich people should only marry other rich people OR that a socially disastrous marriage is a recipe for more disaster (despite the Bennet's inadequacies they're mostly functional and well brought up even though both parents have serious flaws).

Terry's taken all that and perhaps gone for the 'cheap shot' in taking down the social snobbery in a much more overt manner that appeals to our 21st century preconceptions, but in fact Jane Austen already did that in a more socially acceptable and gentle manner that really sits quite startlingly in her own epoch. So actually, what he's doing is updating the P&P theme and placing it in a more modern context and re-doing in effect... :P

I often wondered just how successful Jane Austen would have been if she'd only had a typewriter - maybe she'd have out-Terry'd Terry if she'd been born in the mid to late 1900s... :lol:

Now - when I finally get around to reading Snuff next year it'll be from the perspective of it being Jane Austen fanfic... :twisted:
Last edited by Jan Van Quirm on Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10468
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby raisindot » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:59 pm

MAJOR SPOILER ALERTS---LOTS OF SPOILERS AHEAD.


Okay, folks there are going to be LOTS of spoilers in here, so if you haven't finished it, avoid this post at all cost. Hell, avoid it anyway, particularly if you're a person who can brook no criticism of DW novels.


And before you start throwing stones, please keep in mind that, as a published author, PTerry knows that any book he publishes is subject to criticism, even harsh criticism. As much sympathy as I have for his current physical condition, I don't think that this reality should in any way inhibit someone from judging the work itself or discussing whether this condition affected the way the book turned out. After all, I did buy the book. As a consumer, I have a right to comment on both the product and its producer. And Pterry will never read this nor will he give a snot about my opinion nor will it cause him to retire. May he sell a million copies of Snuff!

So, when I say that, while an entertaining read, and much better than UA, Snuff is perhaps the most problematic of later-stage DW novels, and certainly the most problematic Watch novel, I can't separate the problems with the book with what I see as Pterry's declining literary powers, a situation exacerbated by the apparent absence of a strong editor.

And while I (now) realize (from your previous comments) that Snuff is, in some parts, a parody of Austen and other long-winded English country novels, I don't see this use of parody as an explanation of the many literary problems that occur throughout the book, since many of these same flaws were manifested in both UA and in I Shall Wear Midnight.


Okay, let's start at the beginning. Vetinari has been replaced by a pod person. He's laughing? He's getting angry at crossword puzzles? He's continuing his long self-analysis sessions with Drumknot and hes not drunk this time? Where is the completely in control master manipulator of the earlier books?

And, one of the worst continuinty errors of the book, how did he magically move from looking out of a window one minute, to looking up from his papers a paragraph later?

Now let's talk about Vimes. You can hardly recognize him here. He's become SuperVimes, with special superpowers and nearly invincible. (More on the completely incomprehensible return of the Summoning Dark later.)

Unlike the Vimes of previous novels, the Vimes of Snuff has no flaws whatsoever. He is 100% self-assured in everything he does, and has no problem using his position of wealth to achieve his ends. There is not a single moment in the book where he seems either vulnerable, at risk, or shows even a modicum of self-doubt. He is ceaselessly manipulative, afraid of absolutely nothing (including his own inner beast), and knows that, by now, no one on Earth--not even Vetinari--can remove his authority. Essentially, he is invincible, and this totally removes any real drama from the book. Never do you feel that he faces any of the real moral or psychological dilemmas or physical dangers he faced in previous books. His moral outrage over the the plight of the goblins might drive his actions, but, overall, this whole crime is just a fun way to spend his vacation.

Now, let's get onto the dialogue. One of the great things about the great DW novels was PTerry's economical use of dialogue. Characters rarely spoke in long sentences--they were short, punchy, simple and funny.

Pterry's dialogue approach is no longer about interaction; it's about replacing exposition with speechifying. Here, nearly every character speaks in huge, long, flowery run-on paragraphs that are barely understandable half the time. Some may argue that this is done purposely because he's spoofing 19th century English novels. I don't give him this bye because this speechifying also plagued UA and ISWM. Here it's just taken to the umpeenth degree. How many times does either Willikens or Feeney make some long-winded, tortured speech filled with language that no human being (particularly a provincial would-be cop living with his mum) followed by "Vimes looked at him with incredulity." These characters don't talk to each other, they monologue each other.

Now let's get to the scatalogical bits. I never thought I'd hear Lady Sybil use the word "bitch," or the word s**t used in the exposition rather than in dialogue. Not that I care about bad language or references to bodily excretions, but Pterry's endless bathroom humor through the novel stops being funny after the first go (haha!). How many times do we need to hear about someone wetting his pants or birds and cattle loosening their bowels in fear? It was funny the one time Pterry used this joke at the beginning of Making Money. Here he uses it over and over again.

Does all this emphasizes on poo and pee supposed to tie in with the goblins' merciless collection of their own excretions? I don't know. Here, it's just an endless amount of disgusting. Young Sam collecting one poo is funny; young Sam collecting poo in every scene is tedious.

Now let's talk about the huge amount of overwriting here. We have nearly a page and a half devoted to a completely unfunny and unnecessary discussion of who was using an illegal crossbow, the type of thing that would have occupied a footnote in a previous novel. This type of overwriting occurs again and again here.

Now let's talk about the Summoning Dark. This is the most perplexing thing in the book. In Thud, the SD left him after it failed to unleash Vimes' inner Beast. Apparently, it never left, because here it has developed a symbiotic relationship with Vimes that gives him superpowers, such as being able to translate goblin, see in the dark, and "interview" darkness itself to find out how crimes are committed. It's a terrible narrative device that seems to be used to shortcut plotting problems and one that simply makes no sense at all.

Now let's talk about the way the rest of the Watch is used. It takes until page 132 to get the first real scene of other Watch members, and the limp plot device to bring them all together with Vimes is the silly business with Fred and the unggue pot. The Watch characters are used terribly and bear little resemblance to their former characters. A key example? Cheery's huge, long speech explaining why Fred Colon is being a total jerk about the unggue. What pod person replaced her? One of Cheery's most endearing qualities is how close she keeps everything and her extremely economical use of dialogue, usually in the form of very short, pithy, carefully chosen sentences. It's just as bad with the other characters. Carrot is a complete nonentity here. Nobby serves one function--to become a love interest for a goblin girl. The only Watch person of any interest at all is Wee Mad Arthur, who gets to make a key plot discovery and indulge his feegle side.

Finally, what Snuff seems to be is an endless recycling of themes Vimes covered far more effectively in other books. The goblins are an updated version of the golems from Feet of Clay--sapient beings treated as trash and slaves by humans until Vimes (with Sybil's help) reveals to the world their truth worth and frees them. The river parts are an above-ground version of Vimes' trips through the underground caverns of Koom Valley in Snuff. The scene where Stratford tries to kill young Sam is little more than a totally undramatic retread of the battle between Vimes and Carcer in Night Watch. The whole issue of self-serving aristocrats exploiting and intimidating the powerless was covered in The Fifth Elephant. Even the final demise of Stratford resembles the final battle between Vimes and Wolgang. Nearly every major theme here is recycles from a previous Watch book and done with far less narrative effectiveness.

So what does this say for Snuff? Here's where we get to the hard bit.

I'll say it right out: Pterry's literary skills are declining. He's still a better writer than 95% of the fiction writers out there, but, benchmarked against his best work, UA and Snuff are far below peaks. Now, in fairness, very few writers can maintain the level of quality Pterry did through nearly 40 books. Most writers peak in their 30's, and their latter works are lousy. If you don't agree, just read some of the later works of Faulker and Twain.

Now, whether Pterry's skills would have declined without the onset of Alzheimer's is a topic of debate, the answer for which we will never know. However, I do believe that his illness is affecting the way he writes and is contributing to the literary problems of these more recent works. Snuff, like UA before it, and ISWM to some extent, reads like a book that is dictated, rather than written. Anyone who writes knows that there is a huge difference between dictating and putting pen to paper. With dictating, you're not editing your thoughts; it's a more stream of consciousness approach. When dictating, you think in terms of thoughts and ideas rather than in terms of sentences and paragraph construction. It leads to overwriting, unnatural language, and the replacement of charaqcter interaction with long-winded speeches--all things that happened here and in his previous two books.

Snuff, like UA before it, desperately needed a high assertive editor to work closely with Pterry to trim back some of its many excesses. Why this is less of an issue in ISWM is an interesting topic of debate. My guess is that there was a far more assertive editorial hand overseeing ISWM because it is a YA book. Who knows?

In any case, a true editor would not have let the continuity error on the first few pages occur. A true editor would not let a discussion of a crossbow occupy nearly two pages. A true editor wouldn't have let country bumpkins like Feeney go from a provincial bumpkin to a street smart copper who speaks like Jane Austen aristocrats.

Is Snuff a "bad" book? No. For me, it's far better than UA and nearly all of his early books. It's an enjoyable read, often very funny in parts, and the issues it raises about the powerful vs. the powerless are compelling. Pterry still has the ability to create compelling characters, although I'm still on the fence on Willikins; he's far too verbose and self-revealing for my taste.

These observations aside, I still think it's a miracle that Pterry is still able to produce books at all, and I will continue to read any DW books he publishes. At the same time, I also hope that he engages a strong-willed editor (and perhaps collaborator) to help him shape the construction of his future books.
raisindot
Member
 
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:28 pm
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby DaveC » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:08 pm

On a lighter note here's some of the stuff I loved had me laughing:
League of Gentlemen's Gentlemen :D
Adamantium reference. :)
Miss Beadle = Harry Potter Beadle the Bard reference?
'...until the last twitterer had tweeted' :D
WEE MAD ARTHUR!
'You're fired' Harry King being Alan Sugar
Horrids on Broadway :)
'Breaking Wind' :)
Gordon Bonnet. :)


Just a couple of queries now. 'Black-Eyed Susan'
- 'speedy as her namesake
- 'sometimes bounces like her namesake.

The Susan???

Know the significance of the boat named the 'Roberta E Biscuit'?
Adventures of a Film Geek - My Blog

Check out my short film!

"Dude, this thing claims I have mail. Dude, now I'm reading it."
This Is...
User avatar
DaveC
Member
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:35 am
Location: Portishead, UK

Postby Tonyblack » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:25 pm

A black-eyed susan is actually a flower - the state flower of Maryland I think. But there was also a song called Little Black Eyed Susie:

PRETTY LITTLE BLACK EYED SUSIE
(Kathleen Twomey / Fred Wise / Benjamin Weisman)

Guy Mitchell


I love the sea, I love the navy
Love my biscuits soaked in gravy
But pretty little black eyed Susie
But pretty little black eyed Susie
Cross my heart I love ya best of all

I love the hills, I love the prairie
I love Jane, and I love Mary
But pretty little black eyed Susie
But pretty little black eyed Susie
Cross my heart I love ya best of all

I'm as happy as a king
Got the world upon a string
Can't ask for more
I'm right at heaven's door

Ooooh! I used to do a lot of teasin'
Changed my gals with ev'ry season
But pretty little black eyed Susie
But pretty little black eyed Susie
Pretty little black eyed Susie I love you

(Orchestral Interlude)

I love my pipe, I love tomaters
I love candied sweet pertaters
But pretty little black eyed Susie
But pretty little black eyed Susie
Cross my heart I love ya best of all

Oh! I love the trees, I love the flowers
Love to walk through April showers
But pretty little black eyed Susie
But pretty little black eyed Susie
Cross my heart I love ya best of all

Used to say I'd never wed
Those were foolish words I said
`cos now I see
That you were meant for me

Ooooh! I used to be a guy who gambled
I had wand'rin' shoes that rambled
But pretty little black eyed Susie
But pretty little black eyed Susie
Cross my heart my rambl'in' days are through
Pretty little black eyed Susie I love you
My pretty little black eyed Susie I love you


The Robert E Biscuit probably refers to the Mississippi paddle steamer Roberta E Lee.

Image
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 28668
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Postby meerkat » Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:09 pm

Have read it and loved it! I loved the way Vimes could not go on holiday too!
There was mild sex in it too! I mean if Sybil got in the bath surely the water should have run over the edge?:lol:

There seemed to be a lot more darkness in this book too (the poor female Goblin getting cut open), which made a pleasant change as some of Terry's books can be lighthearted in the extreme.

I thought the way the Quirmians only spoke Quirmian so they could talk behind Vimes's back was a hoot! Very honest to admit it! :lol:

There is a pub in Zennor that is just like the one in Vimes's village. :lol:

I read the short story in the gold copy during a Waterstones visit. I'm glad I didn't get the gold cover. Didn't think the story was worth it!

Oh, but I LIKE this book. 5 gold stars for this oneImage! Much better than UA.
Just a meerkat from The Effing Forest
User avatar
meerkat
Member
 
Posts: 13475
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 6:32 pm
Location: Wilberfoss East Riding Yorkshire

Aw no....SPOILERS!!!!!

Postby CJDobs » Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:05 pm

I'm proper miffed......


Only three times in my Pratchett reading have I felt disappointed by his books:

1. Monstrous Regiment (although on re-reading it I enjoyed it a lot more)
2. Nation (ok I guess but couldn't re-read it)
3. Snuff :cry:

I shall Wear Midnight was an amazing book, one of - if not THE best - Pratchett book I've read......so it's not that he's producing work I don't relate to anymore....but Snuff..... :cry: :cry: :cry:

It started well...Little Sam is a real treat and contains all of the best Pratchettisms.....and ho ho ho at the Jane Austen stuff.... we're in familiar territory with all the future annotations and visual descriptions of genuinely interesting characters.....

But then about half way in (when the er, plot took over) I got this odd feeling....what was it? Oh yes, I was bored....and hadn't laughed out loud once..... :cry: :cry:

This is hard for me, I've spent most of my life reading Terry Pratchett and I can get very defensive when I read negative reviews of anything by him, but Snuff left me cold and I actually had to struggle on to finish it.

It's not the darkness of the tale that bothered me, Terry has delved into difficult topics before and it's normally another big win for him as I find his authorial voice and humanitarianism heart warming......

It was Vimes........He's suspect number one in the big Snuff crime...

Pages and pages (and pages) of Vimes going on about the law and how he knows the law and how he is the law and what should happen with the law......law law law ...yawn....The old Vimes had a bit of this in him, but the latest tale sees him self aggrandising at every opportunity and explaining just about everything in his speech - as if I'm too thick to follow the plot. Pretty sure Vimes thought more than he spoke in the past......Night Watch was a triumph of Vimery, but this was far from Night Watch standards...or Thud....

Suspect number Two: Stinky.

What a waste of a character. Can't say anything else as very little to say about him....just....poor....and that copper fella Feeney as well, pretty sure his name will leave my memory banks in no time.....

Suspect Number Three: Plot........gagh, My attraction to Pratchett has always been character development over plot so maybe the total lack of decent character development and humerous conversation left me looking for a plot. That bit on the boat, Jesus that was dull...and when it was resolved (or so I thought) the goblins got packed off on another boat (for a few more pointless pages). thankfully the second boat episode was short and to the point....but er, not sure what the point of it was (surely Jefferson could have been found on the first boat instead...). Maybe I missed something....I know I struggled through those parts big time...

Police procedural? yeh it was like reading a police procedural...and they don't strike me as particularly well written or interesting! It wasn't a murder myster either...there was no mystery, I was told on every page what was happening and why...in great procedural detail

I think that's all I can manage to kick right now, far too sad to write more. Sad because Terry is my reading weapon of choice and always will be....but I've never felt so left down by a discworld book (featuring one of it's major players) as this....Just wanna cry :cry: :cry:

p.s I am biased as I've always preferred Witches to Guards but that never stopped me loving a good Guards tale....remeber Jingo?? ball bouncingly funny! but alas, no Patrician in a pedal powered (well Nobby and Fred powered) submarine could save this one :? :roll:

Edit: Just read this review on the London Evening Standard....he says it a lot better!

"Snuff is a Vimes novel. Reviewerly protocol demands that I not give away any of its contents in detail, so I'll just say that it features the countryside, Jane Austen, slavery, river boats, snot, tobacco and a lot of fisticuffs. It also features a Vimes who, for the first time, feels as if he has acquired more indestructibility, more elaborated superlative Vimes-ish-ness, than can be kept in harmoniously plausible balance with his setting.

The incidental pleasures are as magnificent as ever, and there is no sign at all of the threatened arrival of Mr Pratchett's private version of the Chicxulub impactor. On the contrary, the species of his imagination continue to multiply. But it might be time to give Commander Vimes a genuine holiday."
Last edited by CJDobs on Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If you put butter and salt on it, it tastes like salty butter. "
User avatar
CJDobs
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:29 pm

Postby Tonyblack » Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:07 pm

meerkat wrote:Have read it and loved it! I loved the way Vimes could not go on holiday too!
There was mild sex in it too! I mean if Sybil got in the bath surely the water should have run over the edge?:lol:

There seemed to be a lot more darkness in this book too (the poor female Goblin getting cut open), which made a pleasant change as some of Terry's books can be lighthearted in the extreme.

I thought the way the Quirmians only spoke Quirmian so they could talk behind Vimes's back was a hoot! Very honest to admit it! :lol:

There is a pub in Zennor that is just like the one in Vimes's village. :lol:

I read the short story in the gold copy during a Waterstones visit. I'm glad I didn't get the gold cover. Didn't think the story was worth it!

Oh, but I LIKE this book. 5 gold stars for this oneImage! Much better than UA.

Especially as the short story is legally available online HERE. :wink:

I did wonder about the state of the bathwater, considering were Vimes had been, in that scene with Sybil. I hope he changed it a few times first. :lol:
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 28668
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

PreviousNext

Return to Discworld novels

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests