SPOILERS I Shall Wear Midnight *Spoilers*

[Anonymous]

Hello there.

The answer to the question about them wizards and their tendency to ensure chaos rather than help might lie in Pratchett's essay 'why Gandalf never married'. If I remember it correctly Pratchett back then pointed out how 'normally' it's always the male magic-users that save the day while the women always come second or third place if they aren't the bad guys.

Need to read the article again.
As for the Mary Sue bit. Generally I'm one of the first to point and yell that, though with Tiffany...might be because the book is still for younger readers. But still.... Haven't been able to read it yet myself (try finding the english origina where I live ) but haven't heard that many a good things...

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Thanks !

Hm, I've never read this article ... But I recently read the book called "Brida" by a Paul Coelho, and he writes there of two "witch traditions" or so ... of men rather being the ones who preserve knowledge, and women doing the practical thins ... That's how I have it in my memory.

From that perspective, the Discworld mirrors that. There's only few exceptions of the rule.

 

[raisindot]

I like the fact that in the DW the witches are far more effective in solving the 'big problems' than wizards.

I'm trying to think of one DW novel where any of the wizard faculty at UU actually solved the major plot threat. Rincewind is usually the one inadvertendly saves everything and that's always by accident.

Compare to the witches books, where the witches themselves defeat the villains through their "non-wizard" magic. The best example is Lords and Ladies, where Ridcully is completely impotent against stopping the Elf Queen's intrusions, which are resolved mainly by Granny's magic and Magrat's fists.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Hm, yes, you do have a point, imho.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Can someone please explain the word "shambles" to me ?

I've read the book in English language, and I believe I know what it is ... But it just isn't there in my English-language ditionaries ...

It's description often reminds me of a "dreamcatcher".

 

[Dotsie]

If something is a shambles, it's a complete mess, which is probably a good description of anything made just from bits of rubbish in your pocket. But the item described by Terry is as far as I know, made up by him.

I imagine it as a less sophistcated version of a dreamcatcher - like a cat's cradle.

 

[Who's Wee Dug]

And it is also a street in York England.
for more info click the link.
www.britainexpress.com/cities/york/shambles.htmThe Shambles in York is a meandering, narrow medieval street, one of the most memorable attractions in this historic city.

 

[Tonyblack]

Yes, as Dotsie says and as this online definition concurs, it's a mess.

a. A scene or condition of complete disorder or ruin: "The economy was in a shambles" (W. Bruce Lincoln).
b. Great clutter or jumble; a total mess: made dinner and left the kitchen a shambles.

As far as I know, Terry has made up the idea of the dreamcatcher type thing for these books - he's not writing about anything that actually existed.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Thanks.

Yes, I already knew about "shambles" meaning "a mess" - and that street, too.

But I was rather referring to the word of this ... "device".

The description also reminded me of the so-called "string figures" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_figure

 

[Tonyblack]

Thanks.

Yes, I already knew about "shambles" meaning "a mess" - and that street, too.

But I was rather referring to the word of this ... "device".

The description also reminded me of the so-called "string figures" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_figure

Yes, a cat's cradle with added bits in it seems to be a good way to describe one.

It's quite interesting that two of the best witches that we know of - Tiffany and Granny Weatherwax are both not very good at using a shambles. Granny, it seems, doesn't even bother with them.

 

[Mary Skater]

Sorry for reviving an old thread, but I wasn't on the forum when the book was first discussed. I've read the previous posts, but I don't think anybody mentioned one bit that really bothered me. When Mr Petty hanged himself, what gave Tiffany the right to cut him down and revive him? He'd made his decision, he wanted to die. Why should she thwart him like that?

Given Terry's much-publicised views on people having the right to choose the time and manner of their death (something I agree with completely) I think what Tiffany did was pretty damned close to being a crime.

Mary

 

[Anonymous]

I haven't read ISWM yet, but it sounds as if Tiff broke an unwritten witche's law:
Do what's right, not what's good

 

[DaveC]

I read it as Thee stopping him from taking the easy way out and facing up to what he had done. :

 

[Anonymous]

Correct me if I#m wrong (as said, haven't read it yet) but from what I know he never has to face up to what he has done, but all the story provides is a 'happy ending' as he is now behaving like a picture-book husband.

 

[swreader]

I strongly recommend, LilMaibe, that you stop commenting on works you have not yet read. And have you read the rest of the Tiffany series yet? You really must read all of them in order before you can begin to understand what Terry is saying in I Shall Wear Midnight. This will save you from making the rather stupid misstatements you seem to be prone to.

Tiffany forces Mr. Petty to face the truth of what he has done when she lets him feel his daughter's pain. And she sends him off not because she thinks he particularly deserves to live, but because she knows the rough music is coming. She does not want the good people of the village to commit a murder.

When she returns after taking Amber to Jenny, she finds that he has returned after the rough music left, placed a bouquet of nettles around the dead baby, and then tried to hang himself. It is this sign of repentance that causes her to ask Rob to cut him down.

Tiffany acts as a witch should--doing what is necessary and right. That is not the same thing as doing what other people may think is good.

 

[Anonymous]

SW, as much as I agree to the sentiment of not fully judging something before one read/saw/heard it (as said, I'm only talking about my impressions from a large number of reviews that had it is point) I must say I read enough of the Tiffany books to know that they just don't interest me.

 

[swreader]

SW, as much as I agree to the sentiment of not fully judging something before one read/saw/heard it (as said, I'm only talking about my impressions from a large number of reviews that had it is point) I must say I read enough of the Tiffany books to know that they just don't interest me.

How many of the Tiffany books have you read, and how many times? Do you simply not like the witch books, or are you dismissing this as "children's literature"? As a would-be writer you really should read all of them carefully, especially I Shall Wear Midnight, which is probably the best novel, stylistically and perhaps in it's philosophical vision, that Pratchett has written.

 

[Anonymous]

read Wee free men and hat full of sky twice and started Wintersmith.

WFM somehow struck me as retelling a mash-up of Wyrd Sisters and Lords and Ladies, and HFS was just... It was there, but that was it to it

I normally like the witch books, but tiff was just... meh to me

 

[DreadfulKata]

I mostly really liked ISWM, there's a camp of DW books that while I roundly enjoy, aren't up there for me because I feel (fairly or no) that they could have done with another edit or two. This is in that camp. Like, all the ideas and characters are great, but they just don't connect up in the way they should to make a truly great story.

I liked everything in ISWM, and there was an awful lot thrown into the pot. But if I compare it to, say, Going Postal, I would find it wanting. GP had loads and loads of stuff thrown into the mix and through Pratchett's (generally non-explosive) alchemy it emerged as a single, powerful story with great momentum and a clear theme/message/point.

ISWM teetered around a bit, never seeming quite sure where its narrative drive was. Some plot developments seemed to undermine other unintentionally (the fact that Letitia had summoned the Cunning Man undermined the idea of him as a product of always-present prejudice for example).

In some ways that fit the story well: the book's about Tiffany at a time when things are no longer simple of have obvious solutions. Solving one problem leads to a whole set of new ones.

I also loved the (related) point about one choosing what to interpret as symbols and omens. It seemed to conclude Tiffany's story of self-determination very nicely.



I wondered if the few problems I had with the novel were more because I had it as audio rather than reading it? It's the only Stephen-Briggs-read audio Pratchett I've ever had (when I was a kid I had one or two Tony Robinson ones, and I loved them). I feel like he gave Tiffany a rather priggish tone which made it difficult to engage fully with her character in this one.

Did anyone else have the audio, and what did you think of Stephen's Tiffany?

 

[raptornx01]

All of my pratchett experience comes from the unabridged audiobooks. (I own most of the books themselves, but generally I listen to them when at work). I never had a problem with how he did tiffany. She did seem to have a forcefulness at times, but never came off as arrogant.