Terry Pratchett’s Discworld gets an unlikely visitor – a content warning
- Thread starter Who's Wee Dug
- Start date
Er, what? 
What kind of content warning would even be necessary for the Discworld books?
Yes, fine: barbarian heroines are described in TLF as typically wearing almost next to nothing, but Herrena -- the barbarian heroine actually in the book -- is definitely, and quite sensibly, wearing soft leather armour and boots. So ... what is the problem, precisely? And why is this warning on the audiobooks, but not the print books?
Methinks Penguin Random House doth overthink too much ... =P
What kind of content warning would even be necessary for the Discworld books?Yes, fine: barbarian heroines are described in TLF as typically wearing almost next to nothing, but Herrena -- the barbarian heroine actually in the book -- is definitely, and quite sensibly, wearing soft leather armour and boots. So ... what is the problem, precisely? And why is this warning on the audiobooks, but not the print books?
Methinks Penguin Random House doth overthink too much ... =P
Someone said the warning has been there since 2013?
Maybe the audiobook purchasers are more likely to complain?
Maybe the audiobook purchasers are more likely to complain?
Likes:
RathDarkblade
Er, what? What kind of content warning would even be necessary for the Discworld books?
Yes, fine: barbarian heroines are described in TLF as typically wearing almost next to nothing, but Herrena -- the barbarian heroine actually in the book -- is definitely, and quite sensibly, wearing soft leather armour and boots. So ... what is the problem, precisely? And why is this warning on the audiobooks, but not the print books?
Methinks Penguin Random House doth overthink too much ... =P
What kind of content warning would even be necessary for the Discworld books?Yes, fine: barbarian heroines are described in TLF as typically wearing almost next to nothing, but Herrena -- the barbarian heroine actually in the book -- is definitely, and quite sensibly, wearing soft leather armour and boots. So ... what is the problem, precisely? And why is this warning on the audiobooks, but not the print books?
Methinks Penguin Random House doth overthink too much ... =P
Um, complain about what? *shrug* There's an audio warning, fine. Is that really a reason to complain? I ... wha ... sorry, I think my brain just broke. Surely, there must be less ridiculous (and more serious) things to complain about.
Surely, there must be less ridiculous (and more serious) things to complain about.
The use of the word "Oriental" is one that springs to mind off the top of my head. It's considered a racist term in the USA, I believe, and has pretty much fallen out of use here in the UK. I know there are a few people who were uncomfortable with the stereotyping of Asian culture in the book.
https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2023-03-22/-Oriental-Is-it-racist--1imahiJ8u0U/index.html
Although I have yet to meet any Australians who have taken offence to Terry's portrayal of XXXX and it's inhabitants, the portrayals themselves do stereotype both the fauna and flora of Australia, as well as some cultural aspects and misconceptions of the continent, it's also possible that those opinions as to whether it's offensive might also change in, say, twenty years time.
There are other examples, but Mark Oshiro (of Mark Reads) did point them out as a person also employed by American publishers as a 'sensitivity reader'. He was actually a very interesting chap to talk to about this sort of thing, being both non-white and gay, and he gave me a few insights that I missed.
I also think that a possible problem comes from different nationalities being offended by different terms and expressions. What might offend an American, for example, would be commonplace and normal to a Brit. We saw a lot of that during watching Mark Reads, as well; the word 'Gypsy' being one of my more memorable looks of shock on his face. It's still an acceptable word in the UK when used in the correct context, although I tend to err on the side of caution and not use it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2009/sep/24/gypsy-racist-ben-miller
https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2023-03-22/-Oriental-Is-it-racist--1imahiJ8u0U/index.html
Although I have yet to meet any Australians who have taken offence to Terry's portrayal of XXXX and it's inhabitants, the portrayals themselves do stereotype both the fauna and flora of Australia, as well as some cultural aspects and misconceptions of the continent, it's also possible that those opinions as to whether it's offensive might also change in, say, twenty years time.
There are other examples, but Mark Oshiro (of Mark Reads) did point them out as a person also employed by American publishers as a 'sensitivity reader'. He was actually a very interesting chap to talk to about this sort of thing, being both non-white and gay, and he gave me a few insights that I missed.
I also think that a possible problem comes from different nationalities being offended by different terms and expressions. What might offend an American, for example, would be commonplace and normal to a Brit. We saw a lot of that during watching Mark Reads, as well; the word 'Gypsy' being one of my more memorable looks of shock on his face. It's still an acceptable word in the UK when used in the correct context, although I tend to err on the side of caution and not use it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2009/sep/24/gypsy-racist-ben-miller
Last edited:
Ah -- the Discworld avoids the whole "Orient" thing by re-casting it as the Aurient (with the extra joke being that Au is the chemical symbol for gold, and the Counterweight Continent has loads of gold).
Moving on past that, Interesting Times is interesting in and of itself. Yes, both Chinese and Japanese culture is presented in the book, but I'd argue that the culture itself is portrayed positively (or, at least, in a neutral way). Pterry skewers the European misconceptions about Chinese and Japanese culture (e.g. the Evil Vizier in Lord Hong, the overly polite tea ceremonies, etc.).
As the second link you posted argues, using the word "Gypsy" (or "Oriental", or whatever) is not racist, in and of itself. Context is important. Pterry isn't portraying the citizens of the Counterweight Continent in a negative light (e.g. dirty, lazy, barbaric, physically weak, oversexed etc.) as the colonialists used to do. In fact, many of them are hard working, strong, and civilised - just in a different way to people from Ankh-Morpork.
===============
Personally, I thought The Last Continent was one of funniest books Pterry wrote. I'm not at all offended by it. Yes, there stereotypes and misconceptions, but there is no malice or spite in any way, nor any attempt to portray the people of XXXX (or Australia) in a negative light -- on the contrary.
Yes, words have power, and it's important to use them in the correct way. I fully understand that, agree with it and support it.
The problem is that languages change over time, and what was innocent five years ago might acquire a "hidden" or malicious meaning next year.
The solution to this is, was and always will be to look at context. Is the word used correctly? Yes. Is the author trying to cause offense? I would say no. So what's the problem? I'd say the publishers are looking for problems where none exist. *shrug*
Moving on past that, Interesting Times is interesting in and of itself. Yes, both Chinese and Japanese culture is presented in the book, but I'd argue that the culture itself is portrayed positively (or, at least, in a neutral way). Pterry skewers the European misconceptions about Chinese and Japanese culture (e.g. the Evil Vizier in Lord Hong, the overly polite tea ceremonies, etc.).
As the second link you posted argues, using the word "Gypsy" (or "Oriental", or whatever) is not racist, in and of itself. Context is important. Pterry isn't portraying the citizens of the Counterweight Continent in a negative light (e.g. dirty, lazy, barbaric, physically weak, oversexed etc.) as the colonialists used to do. In fact, many of them are hard working, strong, and civilised - just in a different way to people from Ankh-Morpork.
===============
Personally, I thought The Last Continent was one of funniest books Pterry wrote. I'm not at all offended by it. Yes, there stereotypes and misconceptions, but there is no malice or spite in any way, nor any attempt to portray the people of XXXX (or Australia) in a negative light -- on the contrary.
Yes, words have power, and it's important to use them in the correct way. I fully understand that, agree with it and support it.
The problem is that languages change over time, and what was innocent five years ago might acquire a "hidden" or malicious meaning next year.
The solution to this is, was and always will be to look at context. Is the word used correctly? Yes. Is the author trying to cause offense? I would say no. So what's the problem? I'd say the publishers are looking for problems where none exist. *shrug*
I'd say it was the Telegraph trying to create problems where there are none. I don't blame the publishers for trying to protect themselves from what might happen in the future (and let's not forget this was also done with the estate's blessing). The Torygraph, however, often jumps in trying to stir its readers up against anything it perceives as 'woke'.
Ah, fair enough. So it's all a storm in a teacup (or, to put it in writer's terms, an ink blotch in an empty page). Thanks, Penners! I don't know the UK papers as well as I'd like, except that The Guardian is very left-wing (and used to be prone to amusing spelling mistakes - not sure if it still is), and The Times is well-regarded, and The Financial Times is for b(w)ankers.
This whole discussion reminds me of something else I'd like to ask. I have read, and enjoyed, plenty of books written by people who'd lived in different eras; most recently, these included Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, and Ian Fleming, all giants in their respective fields. The trouble seems to be that, from time to time, they used words which were acceptable in their own time periods, but are considered unacceptable in ours (like 'colored' or 'negro' to refer to black people, 'fairy' to refer to homosexual people, and so on).
More to the point, these are not used in any malicious or pejorative way. Rather, it was the way people talked in the 30s, 40s and 50s, when the books were written. Of course it'd be unacceptable now, but again, context is key. However, I've heard news stories of so-called 'woke' people trying to ban the books (and even authors) on that basis.
My question is: why? This is a very dangerous slippery slope. If we do this, what's to stop us banning books like Oliver Twist (and plays like The Jew of Malta or The Merchant of Venice), on the grounds of anti-Semitism? Even Mein Kampf, to me, should not be banned - because banning a book like that will only make people wish to read it anyway, just to see what all the fuss is about. (This is exactly what happened with Lady Chatterley's Lover, or Nabokov's Lolita). With problematic books like Mein Kampf, I think it is best to read, analyse and teach it to people who wish to know about it, just to show what a confused, deranged, and ultimate fifth-rate thinker Hitler was. Once people understand that, they would naturally spurn its ideas. (If they don't, they weren't worth talking to in the first place).
But I'm not comparing Mein Kampf to masterpieces like The Big Sleep or The Maltese Falcon. The latter two have interesting characters, strong plots, evocative settings, and masterful uses of language and dialogue (the few 'unacceptable' words notwithstanding). I enjoyed them, and more than that - as a budding writer myself, I learned a few lessons about painting scenes with words, creating strong dialogue, and crafting unusual and/or memorable metaphors. Surely these are lessons worth preserving?
I don't know the UK papers as well as I'd like, except that The Guardian is very left-wing (and used to be prone to amusing spelling mistakes - not sure if it still is), and The Times is well-regarded, and The Financial Times is for b(w)ankers.This whole discussion reminds me of something else I'd like to ask. I have read, and enjoyed, plenty of books written by people who'd lived in different eras; most recently, these included Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, and Ian Fleming, all giants in their respective fields. The trouble seems to be that, from time to time, they used words which were acceptable in their own time periods, but are considered unacceptable in ours (like 'colored' or 'negro' to refer to black people, 'fairy' to refer to homosexual people, and so on).
More to the point, these are not used in any malicious or pejorative way. Rather, it was the way people talked in the 30s, 40s and 50s, when the books were written. Of course it'd be unacceptable now, but again, context is key. However, I've heard news stories of so-called 'woke' people trying to ban the books (and even authors) on that basis.
My question is: why? This is a very dangerous slippery slope. If we do this, what's to stop us banning books like Oliver Twist (and plays like The Jew of Malta or The Merchant of Venice), on the grounds of anti-Semitism? Even Mein Kampf, to me, should not be banned - because banning a book like that will only make people wish to read it anyway, just to see what all the fuss is about. (This is exactly what happened with Lady Chatterley's Lover, or Nabokov's Lolita). With problematic books like Mein Kampf, I think it is best to read, analyse and teach it to people who wish to know about it, just to show what a confused, deranged, and ultimate fifth-rate thinker Hitler was. Once people understand that, they would naturally spurn its ideas. (If they don't, they weren't worth talking to in the first place).
But I'm not comparing Mein Kampf to masterpieces like The Big Sleep or The Maltese Falcon. The latter two have interesting characters, strong plots, evocative settings, and masterful uses of language and dialogue (the few 'unacceptable' words notwithstanding). I enjoyed them, and more than that - as a budding writer myself, I learned a few lessons about painting scenes with words, creating strong dialogue, and crafting unusual and/or memorable metaphors. Surely these are lessons worth preserving?
While the warnings are probably ridiculous, it is true that Pterry resorted to certain cliches, particularly about women, that went far into the series.
Scantily clad barbarian warriors aside, he had a tendency toward indulging in dumb beautiful bimbo cliches. Christina in Maskerade, Juliet in Unseen Academicals and Tawny in Thud! are typical examples. I think he examined this practice narratively in I Shall Wear Midnight when he initially has Tiffany express the same "dumb blond" attitude about Letitia, until she is later surprised (and a bit shamed) to discover that Letitia is far more than she seems.
But Pterry could be particularly cruel in describing women's shapes. Over and over in the first few witches books he describes Magrat's flat chest and frizzy hair. Or he'll go the opposite way in describing Lady Sybil's "heaving bosom." His treatment of Agnes in Maskerade, with the endless fat jokes, is particularly cruel, and with Perdita falls into the "Inside every fat girl is a thin girl trying to get out" stereotype.
In the books there are much deeper descriptions of the looks of main female characters then there are of most male protagonists. We never get a full description of Vimes, Wm. De Worde or Moist, but we get much exposition of Lady Sybil's largeness, Adorabelle's severe wardrobe and hairstyle, and Sacarica's "out of date" classical features.
And Interesting Times in particular has several problematic rape jokes.
Again, these are so minor compared to the really cruel stuff you read in many mainstream novels, that only the truly woke would be offended by them.
Scantily clad barbarian warriors aside, he had a tendency toward indulging in dumb beautiful bimbo cliches. Christina in Maskerade, Juliet in Unseen Academicals and Tawny in Thud! are typical examples. I think he examined this practice narratively in I Shall Wear Midnight when he initially has Tiffany express the same "dumb blond" attitude about Letitia, until she is later surprised (and a bit shamed) to discover that Letitia is far more than she seems.
But Pterry could be particularly cruel in describing women's shapes. Over and over in the first few witches books he describes Magrat's flat chest and frizzy hair. Or he'll go the opposite way in describing Lady Sybil's "heaving bosom." His treatment of Agnes in Maskerade, with the endless fat jokes, is particularly cruel, and with Perdita falls into the "Inside every fat girl is a thin girl trying to get out" stereotype.
In the books there are much deeper descriptions of the looks of main female characters then there are of most male protagonists. We never get a full description of Vimes, Wm. De Worde or Moist, but we get much exposition of Lady Sybil's largeness, Adorabelle's severe wardrobe and hairstyle, and Sacarica's "out of date" classical features.
And Interesting Times in particular has several problematic rape jokes.
Again, these are so minor compared to the really cruel stuff you read in many mainstream novels, that only the truly woke would be offended by them.
Likes:
RathDarkblade and Penfold
Hmm -- I don't know, Raisindot. Christine is a fairly straight "beautiful bimbo" stereotype, but Juliet and Tawneee (not a misspelling) subvert the stereotypes. I agree that STP plays up the "blonde bimbo" angle for Juliet and Tawneee, but that's only so he can then knock the stereotype on the head and surprise us when both Juliet and Tawneee turn out to be not as stupid as we thought.
I don't see anything especially cruel about Pterry's treatment of Magrat, Sybil, or Agnes. It's nothing you wouldn't see in any schoolyard (especially those of private schools or girls' schools), often perpetuated by the girls themselves.
When it comes to bullying in a myriad small ways, teenagers are far more cruel than any adults can ever dream of being.
I don't think that STP ever intended any of the above descriptions (Magrat's flat chest, Lady Sybil's "bosom", the Agnes fat jokes) to come across as "the author bullying his creations". Yes, both Magrat and Agnes suffer throughout the books they're in, but that's because of their own insecurities and/or other characters bullying them -- not because STP is doing so. (Lady Sybil, I suspect, is not the type to care about bullies; she's too strong for that).
The point I'm trying to make is that both Magrat and Agnes eventually do something about their own insecurities. They learn how to deal with body image and move on. I think that's a very good lesson for young people (male and female) to learn.
- True; we get a few pointers about Vimes's appearance, but for the most part, he is frustratingly vague;
- Wm. De Worde appears only in two books (The Truth and Monstrous Regiment), but he's lived most of his life in terror of his father, who is better described (being the antagonist); and
- The point about Moist is that he's especially nondescript.
Then again, I'd rather have 'frustratingly vague' than flowery descriptions of manhoods etc. We do know the sartorial arrangements of Wm. De Worde, Moist and especially Vimes. (BTW, that's not how you spell Sacharissa's name).
Indeed. I always found STP to be very sensitive to such matters.
May I add one final thing: many many men and women, especially in their late teens and early 20s (and sometimes later), go through a phase where they are dissatisfied with their appearance. Some grow out of it, some don't.
I think Terry's emphasis on some of his female characters' bodily imperfections (Magrat's flat chest and frizzy hair, etc.) is not because he's cruel, or even trying to be cruel. He's showing us how Magrat experiences 'body issues', how Agnes is secretly ashamed of her extra weight and wants to be rid of it, etc. As these characters grow older and more mature, they realise that such concerns are beneath them -- that what really matters isn't your appearance, but finding your courage (in Magrat's case) or standing up for yourself (in Agnes's case) -- and, as a result, their characters grow and become more interesting and better refined.
As I mentioned before, this is a good lesson for everyone to learn, and not everyone does. So, good on STP for making the effort.
I don't see anything especially cruel about Pterry's treatment of Magrat, Sybil, or Agnes. It's nothing you wouldn't see in any schoolyard (especially those of private schools or girls' schools), often perpetuated by the girls themselves.
When it comes to bullying in a myriad small ways, teenagers are far more cruel than any adults can ever dream of being.
I don't think that STP ever intended any of the above descriptions (Magrat's flat chest, Lady Sybil's "bosom", the Agnes fat jokes) to come across as "the author bullying his creations". Yes, both Magrat and Agnes suffer throughout the books they're in, but that's because of their own insecurities and/or other characters bullying them -- not because STP is doing so. (Lady Sybil, I suspect, is not the type to care about bullies; she's too strong for that).
The point I'm trying to make is that both Magrat and Agnes eventually do something about their own insecurities. They learn how to deal with body image and move on. I think that's a very good lesson for young people (male and female) to learn.
- True; we get a few pointers about Vimes's appearance, but for the most part, he is frustratingly vague;
- Wm. De Worde appears only in two books (The Truth and Monstrous Regiment), but he's lived most of his life in terror of his father, who is better described (being the antagonist); and
- The point about Moist is that he's especially nondescript.
Then again, I'd rather have 'frustratingly vague' than flowery descriptions of manhoods etc. We do know the sartorial arrangements of Wm. De Worde, Moist and especially Vimes. (BTW, that's not how you spell Sacharissa's name).
Indeed. I always found STP to be very sensitive to such matters.
May I add one final thing: many many men and women, especially in their late teens and early 20s (and sometimes later), go through a phase where they are dissatisfied with their appearance. Some grow out of it, some don't.
I think Terry's emphasis on some of his female characters' bodily imperfections (Magrat's flat chest and frizzy hair, etc.) is not because he's cruel, or even trying to be cruel. He's showing us how Magrat experiences 'body issues', how Agnes is secretly ashamed of her extra weight and wants to be rid of it, etc. As these characters grow older and more mature, they realise that such concerns are beneath them -- that what really matters isn't your appearance, but finding your courage (in Magrat's case) or standing up for yourself (in Agnes's case) -- and, as a result, their characters grow and become more interesting and better refined.
As I mentioned before, this is a good lesson for everyone to learn, and not everyone does. So, good on STP for making the effort.
Likes:
Mixa and =Tamar
Rath, I think we'll agree to disagree. In Maskerade, Agnes suffers because her weight and appearance make her too "unstageworthy." In Carpe Jugulum it is Pterry who is constantly, as narrator, making fat jokes--there are relatively few occasions where Agnes herself has internal thoughts about her weight. This isn't narrative bullying, it's simply unking exposition.
Likewise, with Magrat, she herself never laments not having a chest or that her hair has no control. It's Pterry who, as narrator, makes these comments. Magrat is perfectly fine with her appearance and doesn't have to adjust it any way to attract Verence (one of the few male characters whose physical features Pterry does describe, in a very perjorative way).
Let's add Glenda to the list. She's one of Pterry's best female characters, but over and over he goes out of his way to describe her physical unattractiveness, as if to set up the situation that the only kind of person who could love her is an orc.
I also disagree with your assertion that Juliet and Tawnee become multi-layered characters. Juliet is basically little more than Trevor's love interest. What does she add of real value in UA? What kind of character development does Tawnee go through? Little or none in either case.
I wouldn't call Pterry's characterizations of certain women "bullying" in any way. But her certainly did have a narrative obsession with the physical features of certain women that he didn't have with most of his male characters, except when they were used for laugh-generating purposes.
Likewise, with Magrat, she herself never laments not having a chest or that her hair has no control. It's Pterry who, as narrator, makes these comments. Magrat is perfectly fine with her appearance and doesn't have to adjust it any way to attract Verence (one of the few male characters whose physical features Pterry does describe, in a very perjorative way).
Let's add Glenda to the list. She's one of Pterry's best female characters, but over and over he goes out of his way to describe her physical unattractiveness, as if to set up the situation that the only kind of person who could love her is an orc.
I also disagree with your assertion that Juliet and Tawnee become multi-layered characters. Juliet is basically little more than Trevor's love interest. What does she add of real value in UA? What kind of character development does Tawnee go through? Little or none in either case.
I wouldn't call Pterry's characterizations of certain women "bullying" in any way. But her certainly did have a narrative obsession with the physical features of certain women that he didn't have with most of his male characters, except when they were used for laugh-generating purposes.
I never perceived Glenda as being described as unattractive, just as ordinary.
My perception has generally been that Terry described the characters in order to be inclusive. If they were not described, the average reader would paste in a standard hollywood-image type. The point I see being made in most cases is that these are normal looking people who find relationships. That they need not be perfect doll-forms. And in the case of Tawneee, those who do happen to have those idealized forms do not find it an unalloyed blessing. Juliet does get an offer of employment in the famously unreliable modeling industry, but it's a job and she is shown being sensible. She is a role model. So is Glenda. The book is full of good examples of humans (and non-humans) who are ordinary, normal beings, flawed but working it out.
My perception has generally been that Terry described the characters in order to be inclusive. If they were not described, the average reader would paste in a standard hollywood-image type. The point I see being made in most cases is that these are normal looking people who find relationships. That they need not be perfect doll-forms. And in the case of Tawneee, those who do happen to have those idealized forms do not find it an unalloyed blessing. Juliet does get an offer of employment in the famously unreliable modeling industry, but it's a job and she is shown being sensible. She is a role model. So is Glenda. The book is full of good examples of humans (and non-humans) who are ordinary, normal beings, flawed but working it out.
Likes:
Mixa
I couldn't agree more with you, @RathDarkblade @=Tamar. I don't think I've ever read a body description from Terry Pratchett that isn't sarcastic. And as for women descriptions, I always read them as a way of showing non-normative bodies, and critisicm to the many authors (specially male ones) that tend to objectify them. I still remember this paragraph from "The light fantastic" when he describes Herrena:
Mx
Mx
Likes:
Penfold