Terry Pratchett is the master of the perfect word and sentence that is enough to make it hard to see any of the weak spots. I wish I could be half as talented in word smithing
I always viewed the "thesis statement" of the book was Preordained destiny vs Free will. Carrot is destined to be king. He chooses to be a cop. Sybil was raised as a lady. Chose to breed dragons. Vimes came from a line of rebel anarchists. Chooses to defend the status quo, because its what's best for the city. The Patrician champions controlling free will because its more predictable than destiny. Because people with free will will choose what will benefit them most. The right carrot (hah) will control the right person. Destiny on other hand takes control away from the Patrician through illogical... logic. A dragon = a heroic king will come = will free them from tyranny. That's my take. Plus there must be a joke to be made about free will and free (ruggedly handsome) Will, somewhere.
@Emily Moran i think youre right. Guards! Guards! was my first Pratchett book, so I might have attached that meaning to it outside of the other books in the Vimes series, but it is a recurring theme in them. Men At Arms plays with how tradition isn't the same as legacy, Feet of Clay (which I only vaguely remember) had something to do with morality and religion are strange/ strained bedfellows and do not coexist as mutually exclusive. It's all variations. Good call. Thank you.
57:40 - Having a Deus ex Machina beat the dragon doesn't undermine the absurd "million to one chance" joke, because in Discworld Nobby et al. are RIGHT! In Discworld "narrative imperative" is an actual force. It's just that it was Errol who had the million-to-one-chance, not the guards.
I can't remember where I heard this quote, but here it goes. "Critics always say, 'X is more relevant now than ever'. No, it is *exactly* as relevant as it was back then, because nothing ever fucking changes"
The main thesis of this book is that the idea of royalty in particular is dangerous because it makes people starry-eyed about handing over control to another person - and even if that person is competent, who's to say their kid (who will inherit the power, bc that's how monarchy works) will be competent. It is stated by Vimes, and so convincingly that the "true king" never claims the throne in this or any other Discworld book!
It's telling that Carrot may very well be the one true king, but because of this he recognizes that a King is the last thing Anhk-Morpork actually needs.
Great discussion! The emotions you two displayed when talking about several parts of the book are so familiar to me. There's something so wonderful about the Discworld and how Terry Pratchett writes. Regarding the comment about people just being different shades of bad the patrician made to Vimes at the end: That's the patrician's view and you're right that it doesn't fit to how Vimes acts throughout the book. That's why Vimes is so upset by it but doesn't know how to refute him because the rest of the book seems to prove his point (and does to some extent) with the way the people were so quick to follow a dragon. But then the scene where the guards get their reward comes and that disproves the patrician's point which is why he is so confused by them not asking for so much more like they could and Vimes laughs so hard. The guards defy the dragon immediately without having to be told to do so because it's obvious to them that it's the right thing to do and their duty. They don't expect any reward for it and even when offered don't think that they deserve anything grand for what they've done. And that coming from the people previously considered useless and failures. This is not the only moment like this, there are multiple instances disproving the patrician's claim (like Lady Sybil insisting they don't kill the dragon) but it's the most blatant one. In general I think it's difficult to pick one single thesis statement and say that this is what one of Sir Terry's books is about. He often picks one topic (here a decrepit police force that suddenly finds itself faced with a dragon taking over its city) that he centers a book around but his commentary goes beyond that and deals with human nature and all its facets in general. Guards! Guards! talks about the nature of evil, systems of government, destiny vs choice and the best and worst of the ordinary person. It's less "I'm writing an entire book to say this one thing" and more "I'm talking about this topic and this is all that goes into that". Maybe that's why Will felt it was not coherent because he expected everything to lead to a single conclusion when that's not how Discworld books are structured. Regarding the "million to one chance" joke I disagree with it not being established enough in the text that the characters believe in the optimism of storytelling. So many characters in the book act upon the logic of storytelling; the brethren's whole plan to summoning a dragon relies on the assumption that a proper king would just show up because that's how it works in a story, the palace guards don't attack Vimes because he looks like a lonely hero against whom they have no chance according to story logic, even Vimes thinks that the others have no chance against the dragon because they're not proper heroes who you would need to defeat a dragon in stories. Only the more cynical characters know that "this is not how it works" (like Wonse). A lot of meta-humour comes from the fact that on Discworld the former are actually more right than the latter because Narrativium (the element that ensures stories run properly) is a legit thing so story rules actually apply. As for Discworld books William might like more: Night Watch and Monstrous Regiment are about as dark as Terry Pratchett gets with the general tone. But I'd love to see you talk about any and all of the books, they're all fantastic!
Tery is haha haha haha and then he kicks you in the sternum and you need to sit down and stare at the wall for a while until you stop feeling like you need to climb the walls and cry your eyes out.
Yo the cult wasnt just pointless broad comedy! The whole point is that people filled with resentful entitlement become fuel for power hungry people to manipulate! This is what happens when you refuse to engage with a work of fiction.
I'm so sad I missed this livestream. Pratchett is one of my favorite authors, but I was driving through the aftermath of a nasty snowstorm to get home from Minnesota, so I was pretty distracted. :)
Pleas read more books from Terry Pratchett 1. They are great (even if he sometimes botches the end) 2. Other then the books you normally talk about, I have actually read them
I love both grim dark and Terry Pratchett's work (except for the last few novels). But I can see why someone might find them, especially the early books, a bit too whimsical. To which extent, in your opinion, does the humor facilitate the serious undertones/observations/messages as well?
Whenever someone describes Pratchett's works as 'broad humour' I know they have missed a shit load of historical, philosophy and literature references, puns, puns within puns, all the fun language play. They are like cryptic crossword puzzles in novel form.
Will, I'm not sure I follow why you say that the points are incoherent. Should it have been more on the nose (I tend to dislike that personally), or more combined of any particular one point of view (which would seem narrow-minded to me)? Like I said, I think I'm missing your point. Are you perhaps reading it more formulaistically (i.e. if this type of statement, then...)?
I do get William's POV here. I love discworld, BUT I do not have a high threshold of the absurd. I can only handle Sir Pratchett because I was introduced to the books as a young teen and they have a certain amount of memory attached to them. I think if I read my first one now, cold... I probably would not read the rest of them. I do enjoy the Hogfather every christmas though (along with a rewatch of Die Hard - yes its a christmas movie). I am curious as to your opinions on the TV series The Watch that was inspired by Vimes and his gaurds. I liked it, I thought it was an interesting take on the unverse but definetely not for everyone.
I feel like a ton of books with political commentary are very one sided. They don't like to explore the evils of both sides or the necessities of both sides. GRRM is probably the only one who explores reason for both sides and irrational for both sides. While most authors like to try to make their "artists point" while never exploring how other people opposing their political biases truly think.
Hi, hello, I'm a huge fan (gotta catch up on your latest vids) and i was wondering if sometime in the future if you haven't ard, if you guys would make a discord server to chat? I also am writing a book (am soon to publish in a few months) and would love to get into contact with you guys personally to ask if you could kindly review it. I love your hot takes on different novels and I hope you guys can see this comment!!!
Itsabook series that can ne read put of order,but still a series. But very enjoyable out of context Like men at arms deal woth the claim to kingship. Its a series, and there are more guard books. I really love that he is definitly humanist, but also very cynical Yeah he would definitly have a crush on susan 😊 And death is the best. And its really good on all the , like chistopher lee, is death. Yesmake him watch it Christopher lee dammit. Also she is no nonsense yet , really nice and also very resourvwful and dealing with her own oww. How can will not like the cult. Honestly real life cults are varyibg between very absurd ,but also kinda is like a real cult. There are really crappy , laughable yet bad cults. I like that he makes cults not grandious or super planned out. And confused with another club, so not special either. He gets more coherent if will is concerned. Also start of a series really. Oh and the patrician i think gets more fleshed out in the lipwick series part. I mean there we see his machinations at work from view from a lovable conman, that is forced to 😂 and so fun seeng the carrot and stick aproach first hand. And how he operates. And how capitalism is bad. Would recommand that books and the one with death.
Terry Pratchett is the master of the perfect word and sentence that is enough to make it hard to see any of the weak spots. I wish I could be half as talented in word smithing
I always viewed the "thesis statement" of the book was Preordained destiny vs Free will.
Carrot is destined to be king. He chooses to be a cop.
Sybil was raised as a lady. Chose to breed dragons.
Vimes came from a line of rebel anarchists. Chooses to defend the status quo, because its what's best for the city.
The Patrician champions controlling free will because its more predictable than destiny. Because people with free will will choose what will benefit them most. The right carrot (hah) will control the right person.
Destiny on other hand takes control away from the Patrician through illogical... logic. A dragon = a heroic king will come = will free them from tyranny.
That's my take. Plus there must be a joke to be made about free will and free (ruggedly handsome) Will, somewhere.
I'd say that's more of a Pratchett running theme that specifically the thesis of THIS book. It shows up really prominently in 'Good Omens' too!
@Emily Moran i think youre right. Guards! Guards! was my first Pratchett book, so I might have attached that meaning to it outside of the other books in the Vimes series, but it is a recurring theme in them. Men At Arms plays with how tradition isn't the same as legacy, Feet of Clay (which I only vaguely remember) had something to do with morality and religion are strange/ strained bedfellows and do not coexist as mutually exclusive.
It's all variations. Good call. Thank you.
@@adrianpillai6645yup and he leaned ingo this even narder in Thud.
57:40 - Having a Deus ex Machina beat the dragon doesn't undermine the absurd "million to one chance" joke, because in Discworld Nobby et al. are RIGHT! In Discworld "narrative imperative" is an actual force. It's just that it was Errol who had the million-to-one-chance, not the guards.
I can't remember where I heard this quote, but here it goes.
"Critics always say, 'X is more relevant now than ever'. No, it is *exactly* as relevant as it was back then, because nothing ever fucking changes"
The main thesis of this book is that the idea of royalty in particular is dangerous because it makes people starry-eyed about handing over control to another person - and even if that person is competent, who's to say their kid (who will inherit the power, bc that's how monarchy works) will be competent.
It is stated by Vimes, and so convincingly that the "true king" never claims the throne in this or any other Discworld book!
It's telling that Carrot may very well be the one true king, but because of this he recognizes that a King is the last thing Anhk-Morpork actually needs.
Please do more Pratchett!😊
If it's darkness you want Will then you'll have to read through a few more in the series to get to "night watch"
My eye twitched when William said the word "whimsy". 😂
I can't speak for anyone else, and I know I am very late to the party....but I hope that the future holds more Terry Pratchett for you all.
Glad to see you enjoyed it! The follow up Men at Arms is one of my favorite Pratchett books
Men at Arms is my favorite Pratchett book, bar none. That ending with Angua *chefs kiss*
Mine too
That was the novel that made me realise I was a fan, rather than just someone who reads discworld.
I think Guards! Guards! is a lot broader in its humour than the later books. Pratchett was still working out his tone.
25:50 - Haha. Wait til you see who Carrot ends up dating! (Hint: USUALLY human-shaped, but...)
William may like Lords and Ladies, which is probably the most non-absurd and serious fantasy Pratchett book
In the end Terry was the the most grimdark of all.
Every time I see that u guys uploaded, I get so excited.
Like it genuinely makes my day
Great discussion! The emotions you two displayed when talking about several parts of the book are so familiar to me. There's something so wonderful about the Discworld and how Terry Pratchett writes.
Regarding the comment about people just being different shades of bad the patrician made to Vimes at the end: That's the patrician's view and you're right that it doesn't fit to how Vimes acts throughout the book. That's why Vimes is so upset by it but doesn't know how to refute him because the rest of the book seems to prove his point (and does to some extent) with the way the people were so quick to follow a dragon. But then the scene where the guards get their reward comes and that disproves the patrician's point which is why he is so confused by them not asking for so much more like they could and Vimes laughs so hard. The guards defy the dragon immediately without having to be told to do so because it's obvious to them that it's the right thing to do and their duty. They don't expect any reward for it and even when offered don't think that they deserve anything grand for what they've done. And that coming from the people previously considered useless and failures. This is not the only moment like this, there are multiple instances disproving the patrician's claim (like Lady Sybil insisting they don't kill the dragon) but it's the most blatant one.
In general I think it's difficult to pick one single thesis statement and say that this is what one of Sir Terry's books is about. He often picks one topic (here a decrepit police force that suddenly finds itself faced with a dragon taking over its city) that he centers a book around but his commentary goes beyond that and deals with human nature and all its facets in general. Guards! Guards! talks about the nature of evil, systems of government, destiny vs choice and the best and worst of the ordinary person. It's less "I'm writing an entire book to say this one thing" and more "I'm talking about this topic and this is all that goes into that". Maybe that's why Will felt it was not coherent because he expected everything to lead to a single conclusion when that's not how Discworld books are structured.
Regarding the "million to one chance" joke I disagree with it not being established enough in the text that the characters believe in the optimism of storytelling. So many characters in the book act upon the logic of storytelling; the brethren's whole plan to summoning a dragon relies on the assumption that a proper king would just show up because that's how it works in a story, the palace guards don't attack Vimes because he looks like a lonely hero against whom they have no chance according to story logic, even Vimes thinks that the others have no chance against the dragon because they're not proper heroes who you would need to defeat a dragon in stories. Only the more cynical characters know that "this is not how it works" (like Wonse). A lot of meta-humour comes from the fact that on Discworld the former are actually more right than the latter because Narrativium (the element that ensures stories run properly) is a legit thing so story rules actually apply.
As for Discworld books William might like more: Night Watch and Monstrous Regiment are about as dark as Terry Pratchett gets with the general tone. But I'd love to see you talk about any and all of the books, they're all fantastic!
Monthly book movie watch party.
I'd sign up to the Patreon for that :D
One thing in Pratchett books is there are footnotes everywhere with extra jokes. How do the audiobooks handle that?
Tery is haha haha haha and then he kicks you in the sternum and you need to sit down and stare at the wall for a while until you stop feeling like you need to climb the walls and cry your eyes out.
Yo the cult wasnt just pointless broad comedy! The whole point is that people filled with resentful entitlement become fuel for power hungry people to manipulate! This is what happens when you refuse to engage with a work of fiction.
My little heart rejoices 🎉
I'm so sad I missed this livestream. Pratchett is one of my favorite authors, but I was driving through the aftermath of a nasty snowstorm to get home from Minnesota, so I was pretty distracted. :)
Pleas read more books from Terry Pratchett
1. They are great (even if he sometimes botches the end)
2. Other then the books you normally talk about, I have actually read them
Seconded. Please? 🥺🥺🥺
Amazing!! I literally just read this book myself - eager to see what you think!!
one day after i found this channel you guys post a video on terry Pratchett? it's a sign from the gods
Ahhhhhh, a book I've read, nice :)
I'm so tempted to stay discworld but ....43 books Ans I can't help but want to read it in publication order
It reads fast.
@@marocat4749 it's less the size and more the money cause 8 bucks per book that's still 350 bucks
1:28:10 It is the most movie ever made. The greatest 3 hours of your life you will ever live.
All Pratchett is brilliant! Read the Witch books!!!!!
I love both grim dark and Terry Pratchett's work (except for the last few novels). But I can see why someone might find them, especially the early books, a bit too whimsical. To which extent, in your opinion, does the humor facilitate the serious undertones/observations/messages as well?
RATS AND MICE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES
Whenever someone describes Pratchett's works as 'broad humour' I know they have missed a shit load of historical, philosophy and literature references, puns, puns within puns, all the fun language play. They are like cryptic crossword puzzles in novel form.
I mean yes force will to watch hogfather, susan is so , well will probably lovesher and christopher lee,is death.
Plus one for hogfather
Will, I'm not sure I follow why you say that the points are incoherent. Should it have been more on the nose (I tend to dislike that personally), or more combined of any particular one point of view (which would seem narrow-minded to me)? Like I said, I think I'm missing your point.
Are you perhaps reading it more formulaistically (i.e. if this type of statement, then...)?
I do get William's POV here. I love discworld, BUT I do not have a high threshold of the absurd. I can only handle Sir Pratchett because I was introduced to the books as a young teen and they have a certain amount of memory attached to them. I think if I read my first one now, cold... I probably would not read the rest of them. I do enjoy the Hogfather every christmas though (along with a rewatch of Die Hard - yes its a christmas movie).
I am curious as to your opinions on the TV series The Watch that was inspired by Vimes and his gaurds. I liked it, I thought it was an interesting take on the unverse but definetely not for everyone.
I feel like a ton of books with political commentary are very one sided. They don't like to explore the evils of both sides or the necessities of both sides. GRRM is probably the only one who explores reason for both sides and irrational for both sides. While most authors like to try to make their "artists point" while never exploring how other people opposing their political biases truly think.
Pratchett does a good job at this imo, his characters have very diverse viewpoints
Hi, hello, I'm a huge fan (gotta catch up on your latest vids) and i was wondering if sometime in the future if you haven't ard, if you guys would make a discord server to chat? I also am writing a book (am soon to publish in a few months) and would love to get into contact with you guys personally to ask if you could kindly review it. I love your hot takes on different novels and I hope you guys can see this comment!!!
Itsabook series that can ne read put of order,but still a series. But very enjoyable out of context
Like men at arms deal woth the claim to kingship. Its a series, and there are more guard books.
I really love that he is definitly humanist, but also very cynical
Yeah he would definitly have a crush on susan 😊
And death is the best. And its really good on all the , like chistopher lee, is death. Yesmake him watch it
Christopher lee dammit.
Also she is no nonsense yet , really nice and also very resourvwful and dealing with her own oww.
How can will not like the cult. Honestly real life cults are varyibg between very absurd ,but also kinda is like a real cult. There are really crappy , laughable yet bad cults. I like that he makes cults not grandious or super planned out.
And confused with another club, so not special either.
He gets more coherent if will is concerned. Also start of a series really.
Oh and the patrician i think gets more fleshed out in the lipwick series part.
I mean there we see his machinations at work from view from a lovable conman, that is forced to 😂 and so fun seeng the carrot and stick aproach first hand. And how he operates. And how capitalism is bad.
Would recommand that books and the one with death.
Capitalism bad? I guess that would depend on your definition of it.