SPOILERS Disturbing Trend in UA and Snuff: **Major Spoilers**

[stripy_tie]

Why should he invent a new sport?, Pratchett is at heart a satirist, he likes taking apart concepts, traditions, ideas, institutions, people e.t.c so that he can show people how they work and what they're made of and then he puts them back together again in wonderful new ways.

It's in every last one of his books, he'll either be exploring a concept or making fun of something and most of the time it's both.

In UA it's football, he's a writer for christs sake this is what he does, he doesn't have to like what he's exploring just to understand it and find something about it interesting.

I'm with high eight, I won't debate with you to just have every piece of proof and logical reasoning I produce to back up my arguments simply ignored, it's intellectually insulting.

I'm sorry you don't want to be a part of this community.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm with high eight, I won't debate with you to just have every piece of proof and logical reasoning I produce to back up my arguments simply ignored, it's intellectually insulting.

I'm sorry you don't want to be a part of this community.

Yeah, cause I hate ALL of the books with a burning passion and am just here to say how bad all of them are...
It's ONE book, folks. One book that I dislike because it helds non of the elements I value and love about Discworld and Sir Terry's writing in general.
But tell me, please, does disliking one book out of so many really mean one doesn't want to be part of the community?

EDIT:
I am sorry I have to repeat myself, but the impression I constantly got was that people don't cared about why I dislike the book, but solely for that I dared to dislike it.
And H8, you asked for an answer, I gave you one.
I am not ignoring you people's reasoning, but I keep getting the vibe that you ignore mine, just because they aren't full of praise.
I would really love to close this case and bury the hatchet as I do love Sir Terry's writing and Discworld in general (ust not UA (along with a negative impression of Snuff, which I read by now, if not completely))) but when I feel people take me for a fool because they don't like my opinion that is pretty hard.

 

[alicenanjing]

I don't know much about football, but it does seem to me that the type of game is not so important in this book. What is important is that there is something that can act like a more or less bloodless substitute for war, that can polarize loyalties and turn individual people into members of one of several rival groups, and that can generate the existential, quasi-religious experience of the Shove. It doesn't even need to be a game - being a member of some activist group, like militant ecologists for instance, or anti-war or whatever, offers much the same elements. It just calls for more brains and education, and so can't develop into the same mass movement.

 

[Tonyblack]

I don't know much about football, but it does seem to me that the type of game is not so important in this book. What is important is that there is something that can act like a more or less bloodless substitute for war, that can polarize loyalties and turn individual people into members of one of several rival groups, and that can generate the existential, quasi-religious experience of the Shove. It doesn't even need to be a game - being a member of some activist group, like militant ecologists for instance, or anti-war or whatever, offers much the same elements. It just calls for more brains and education, and so can't develop into the same mass movement.

Exactly!

I don't like football (or any other sport), but to me, it's not about the game, it's about what it generates.

It's not a history of football as played on Earth, it's a game that bears some resemblances to football, played on a fictitious world with fictitious characters.

The important part of the story is the way people claim the colours of the team and use them to justify hatred of other groups wearing different colours. It's as you pointed out, a substitute for war.

 

[alicenanjing]

Well, that was not my idea, it's actually Vetinari that makes the association, somewhere in the book - in the first half, I think. Thanks for the compliment.

 

[DaveC]

Many defend the book by saying 'it is not about football' to which I can only say, if it were truly just for how fans can be, why not pick a different sport,

Like what? Baseball? Totally unknown outside the USA and Japan. American football? Somewhat despised outside the USA (in Britain at least) and I doubt if Terry knows much about either. The only other option would be cricket and that wouldn't go down very well outside the cricket-playing countries, would it?

Weirdly, I have at least 20 friends, not all firends with each other who obsessively follow the American Football season! :think: Maybe it's an increasing boredom with the state of football over here :

H8, please go to the fifa page and read the rules.
If what was used in the book would have been anywhere near the fifa rules, even if we leave out the stuff the orc (of course him, who else could ever have any new idea) comes up with after the match, then
-Andy would have been sent off the field after he tackled Macarona (he admitted doing so, if a player actually does that it doesn't matter whether or not the referee saw it). (Why was tackling allowed in the first play in the book? Well, it goes with the rest of the world's perception of England not having yet gotten it into their heads they aren't playing rugby)
-If Andy, with his big boots would have been allowed in the game to begin with.
-There would have been the kick-off (term?) from the keeper after a goal, not having the team who scored get the ball.
-One of the goals would have clearly been off-side (the one where it's said that Macarona was the only one near the other team's goal, aside from the keeper)
-There would have been a clear definition of what a ball has to look like and not that very-plot-convenient-thingy.

In short: If the rules would have been anywhere near the Fifa rules, there would have been no game.

Shall we list the ways that film-making in Moving Pictures is not like film-making in real life? :shifty:

I don't blame you for not liking the book, it's my second least favourite after Making Money, but I let go of that and it happily sits there in chronology with the rest of the books on the shelf. Everyone has their off days (books). Take Speilberg and Hook.... :shifty: Nuff said...

 

[Anonymous]

Shall we list the ways that film-making in Moving Pictures is not like film-making in real life? :shifty:

Point taken and I'm aware. H8 said, though, that the rules that are in the book are pretty much the fifa rules. Yet, none of those applies. Not even 'pretty much' So, isn't it basically this? As in,we have a game that isn't really football but we call it football for some reason? (ranging from 'to make people have something familiar' to 'to cash in on the world/european cups' )

 

[pip]

Shall we list the ways that film-making in Moving Pictures is not like film-making in real life? :shifty:

Point taken and I'm aware. H8 said, though, that the rules that are in the book are pretty much the fifa rules. Yet, none of those applies. Not even 'pretty much' So, isn't it basically this? As in,we have a game that isn't really football but we call it football for some reason? (ranging from 'to make people have something familiar' to 'to cash in on the world/european cups' )

any game involving a ball and feet comes to be called football . The name and game forms long predate the FA and FIFA rules . The mob idea fits into the old town vs town old style of mass football. Using the name doesn't make it the game we all know now. More important than the game in the book is the mentality and the attempt to tame it .

 

[Anonymous]

Shall we list the ways that film-making in Moving Pictures is not like film-making in real life? :shifty:

Point taken and I'm aware. H8 said, though, that the rules that are in the book are pretty much the fifa rules. Yet, none of those applies. Not even 'pretty much' So, isn't it basically this? As in,we have a game that isn't really football but we call it football for some reason? (ranging from 'to make people have something familiar' to 'to cash in on the world/european cups' )

any game involving a ball and feet comes to be called football . The name and game forms long predate the FA and FIFA rules . The mob idea fits into the old town vs town old style of mass football. Using the name doesn't make it the game we all know now. More important than the game in the book is the mentality and the attempt to tame it .

A mentality that could have been applied to, as said, virtually everything.
(BTW: Recently watched a documentary about the medieval football in florence. It was amazing)
The whole 'tame it' bit brings up a new problem, though. Before UA football or whatever you wanted to call it was remotely tame. See the compendium fo details.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't even folklore still rolling with what the compendium says about the game?

 

[Dotsie]

A mentality that could have been applied to, as said, virtually everything.

Well, why shouldn't the book be about football? A British audience would immediately understand the loyalties concept without it being spelled out, and Terry is a British writer, and I should think that the majority of his readership is British too.

And Maibe, we all accept that you don't like this book, but what annoys everyone is that YOU KEEP GOING ON ABOUT IT. And that is really annoying.

 

[Who's Wee Dug]

I'm that fed up with the debacle I have blocked all posts

 

[Tonyblack]

I know what you mean! :x

 

[raisindot]

Point taken and I'm aware. H8 said, though, that the rules that are in the book are pretty much the fifa rules. Yet, none of those applies. Not even 'pretty much' So, isn't it basically this? As in,we have a game that isn't really football but we call it football for some reason? (ranging from 'to make people have something familiar' to 'to cash in on the world/european cups' )

LilMaibe, not sure what it's so important to you how close the game of 'futball' in UA is to the "real thing" on Roundworld. As others have said, it's satire. Now, if you really want to read a book, set on Roundworld, that does satirize football and messes up with the rules in ways Pterry doesn't even nearly approach in UA, read Robert Rankin's "Knees Up Mother Earth," one of his best books.

 

[Anonymous]

Point taken and I'm aware. H8 said, though, that the rules that are in the book are pretty much the fifa rules. Yet, none of those applies. Not even 'pretty much' So, isn't it basically this? As in,we have a game that isn't really football but we call it football for some reason? (ranging from 'to make people have something familiar' to 'to cash in on the world/european cups' )

LilMaibe, not sure what it's so important to you how close the game of 'futball' in UA is to the "real thing" on Roundworld. As others have said, it's satire. Now, if you really want to read a book, set on Roundworld, that does satirize football and messes up with the rules in ways Pterry doesn't even nearly approach in UA, read Robert Rankin's "Knees Up Mother Earth," one of his best books.

Oh, it's not important. I was just wondering. I'm aware it's mostly meant as a parody/something people can relate to, but there still is this sour taste of the why. Sorry to repeat myself again, but I dislike the book for not feeling like Discworld to me, as there are many little things so...the opposite of what defined Discworld to me. Many little things that amount to something big that makes me squeazy.

 

[alicenanjing]

Oh, but in fact they don't even play football in UA, do they, they play foot-the-ball!! A most ancient and honourable game that isn't like football at all, perish the thought!
But on the other hand: the goblin deputy from Snuff, who or what is he? I know he has some connection with the Jolly Goblin from the picture book, but what is it? What is his connection with unggue? When Carrot and Angua visit Harry King's goblin employee to learn about unggue, the goblin granny tells them something like "If unggue does not come himself, he send!" when talking about how, in times of dire need, unggue is the only thing a goblin has, the only resource. Is Stinky, in some way, unggue made flesh? Does anyone have any thoughts about that?

 

[Anonymous]

If I may add a further unsettling trend from both books:

YMMV, but I had the creeping feeling that there was some serious mankind bashing going on in both books.
As in: If you are an average human you are certainly cruel, evil, dumb and worthless.
Those that succeed in both books have some outstanding abilities. Even Vimes is suddenly given a sort of superpower he never needed before and quite frankly didn't really need here either. Yet it was there and put him apart from the average person.
In UA you had the best cook in the city/world, the most beautiful woman in the world, etc. Even the wizards are portrayed as fools not on par with the perfect and outstanding folks as magic is quite oridinary looking at their numbers.
And of course Vetinari's bit about how only humans could be so evil. Or the bit which more or less portraits orcs as victims of the vicious humans.
What happened to the average being that could succeed through wits and hard work?

 

[swreader]

If I may add a further unsettling trend from both books:

YMMV, but I had the creeping feeling that there was some serious mankind bashing going on in both books.
As in: If you are an average human you are certainly cruel, evil, dumb and worthless.
Those that succeed in both books have some outstanding abilities. Even Vimes is suddenly given a sort of superpower he never needed before and quite frankly didn't really need here either. Yet it was there and put him apart from the average person.
In UA you had the best cook in the city/world, the most beautiful woman in the world, etc. Even the wizards are portrayed as fools not on par with the perfect and outstanding folks as magic is quite oridinary looking at their numbers.
And of course Vetinari's bit about how only humans could be so evil. Or the bit which more or less portraits orcs as victims of the vicious humans.
What happened to the average being that could succeed through wits and hard work?

This is the last time I'm going to bother to refute your incorrect and self-pitying posts. But aside from the fact that you claim only the last two books (UA & Snuff) are "flawed", I wonder if you've actually read ANY of Pratchett's books. At the end of Guards! Guards! Vetinari offers an expanded version of his theory of human nature--which he says will perhaps allow Vimes to be less upset with people. He says, in part:
"There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." ... " They accept evil not because they say yes[/i, but because they don't say no."

Neither Vetinari's view of human nature (actually including all of disc world) has changed substantially since that first Watch book. I don't know what you've been reading, but obviously you haven't understood what he's been so brilliantly writing about for 39 books.

 

[Anonymous]

I never claimed his other books were perfect through and through.
But there's a difference between a papercut and a missing arm.
And how is that self-pitying?

EDIT: Frankly now, someone please explain to me the logic behind some of you people's reaction and behaviour towards me.
I say I don't like the book for reading near nothing like Discworld to me due to the increased amount of longwinded dialogue, monologueing, endless explaining of jokes and concepts, pointless padding, discontinuety within the story, established characters being not themself, heavy and widespread contradiction of established things, hammering home of morals that don't even go with what the characters actually do and more
and all I hear from you is that I'm a bad person for not liking the book and that I just don't get it and am therefore stupid and should shut up till I finally see how awesome the book is 'in reality'.
What?
(Granted, that was a bit self-pitying, but for heaven's sake, wouldn't you get more and more aggressive if people would try to force an opinion on you?)

 

[Catch-up]

.... wouldn't you get more and more aggressive if people would try to force an opinion on you?)

So you understand everyone's responses now? Just kidding, honest! In my defense it was just too tempting.

 

[Anonymous]

.... wouldn't you get more and more aggressive if people would try to force an opinion on you?)

So you understand everyone's responses now? Just kidding, honest! In my defense it was just too tempting.

I know. And I never tried to force my opinion on others. If I gave that impression I apologise.
I just tried to say why I don't like the book, but constantly felt greeted with hatred from others just for not liking it, ignoring my reasons.