oyceter | Pratchett, Terry

I skipped the other Watch books between Feet of Clay (partially read) and this one, largely because the Watch kind of annoys me. Don't get me wrong; I love Vimes. But Carrot doesn't interest me much, and Pratchett seems to use the Watch books to get in messages about sexism and racism that are well-meaning but do not take power differentials and institutional oppression into account.

Night Watch is more about rebellions, revolutions, and Les Miserables, only with time travel, cynicism, and a central tragedy that may or may not reoccur. And that tragedy is all the more effective because the men who die are not idealistic students. But mostly, it's got Vimes being Vimes, and I especially loved all the scenes in which he's trying to do the right thing by his younger self.

Also, getting glimpses of a younger, non-Patrician Vetinari is priceless.

I'm not entirely sure what to think about this; I like it a lot, and it affected me emotionally. But on the other hand, I'm not entirely sure if I agree with what Pratchett is saying, as is the case with some of his other books. In the end, his overarching humanism wins me over, even as I can't help but feel that there are some missing pieces of the puzzle.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm curious, what parts of Night Watch's message did you take issue with? I utterly loved the book when I read it, and there are still passages I'd quote in terms of how much I love it, but it's been a long while and I've since gained a (in my opinion) better understanding of some of the issues involved than I used to have.

Ack, this is the problem with being hugely behind on comments! Now my memory is all fuzzy.

It's partly some of Pratchett's commentary on democracy in the Witches books and some of the other Watch books; something about how people don't really want choice, they want someone to dictate stuff (a la Verence's general failure to get "progressive" ideas off the ground and Vetinari's long-lived-ness). And how Vetinari is somehow better than the dictator they're overthrowing, which, yes, maybe in Discworld, but in the real world, I am not so sure about that.

And there are just some bits about the futility of revolution, and I am not sure if it is Vimes or Pratchett. I am not altogether convinced of the effectiveness of revolution all the time, but on the other hand, I am fairly firmly convinced that our general world order needs to be fixed quite a bit. Discworld is much less hairy than the real world (especially since Pratchett tends to ignore institutional injustice, which is probably why I have such a HUGE argument with his general acceptance of Vetinari's rule over Ankh-Morpork), but that is why I keep reading... the rules work in Discworld, but I don't think they work very well outside of it.

Like the bit about the problems of criminalising things that people don't belive are wrong that libertoonians read as a pro-NRA polemic and gave him a Prometheus award for?

Going Postal is much more amusing when you know it was written by someone who'd just been feted by vulgar libertarians.

Like the bit about the problems of criminalising things that people don't belive are wrong that libertoonians read as a pro-NRA polemic and gave him a Prometheus award for?

I should reply to comments faster! I have now completely forgotten what this might refer to.

But as I was working out in prior comments, I think a lot of my problems with the books is that Pratchett doesn't much buy into institutional oppression (overturn the bad Patrician, and stuff is mostly fixed and life goes on as usual), whereas I very much do. And as such, I don't have his benign tolerance of people's foibles or of rulers like Vetinari; it works fine in Discworld, but in the real world, I think things like people's foibles and etc. often help keep social injustice in place.

When I first read Night Watch I disliked the implicit message of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss", the idea that revolutionaries are either naive or self-serving. I've become more sympathetic now that I've reread it recently. I still prefer the Granny/Tiffany and the Moist books.
I liked Jingo because of the character of 71-hour Ahmed. I know I am going to hell for wanting to slash Ahmed and Vimes (ducks under the desk).

Want to read the slash! Want!

I... do think a lot of revolutionaries are naive and/or self-serving. But I also think tarring all of them with the same brush is also naive and/or self-serving, which is part of why I was annoyed.

But yeah, I love the Granny/Tiffany books and the Moist books best. And the latter Death books, when the pacing gets ironed out.

I need to go back and re-read Night Watch, now that I've most of the Watch books; 'twas Night Watch, after all, that made me a Watch fan. (It might have been the first Pratchett I read, too -- I don't remember non-Patrician Vetinari at all.)

:: In the end, his overarching humanism wins me over, even as I can't help but feel that there are some missing pieces of the puzzle. ::

I've got about the same assessment. It doesn't grate that badly for me in the Watch books, because it's typically the pieces that Vimes wouldn't get. And he's almost the narrator, after all. A good deal of the time I can mentally edit past it: add it in, and keep moving.

But there are places in Pratchett when I can't edit past it. I ended up ditching Nation after forty pages or so, because Pratchett's usual thesis of "all societies are comprised of fairly simple people doing quaint and stupid things" doesn't read nearly as well when the only society portrayed so far is one that's stereotypically portrayed as simple, quaint, and stupid. (I know you gave the book better marks than that in your review, and I very much believe that he eventually got around to treating British culture the same way, but I wasn't in the mood to push through that much of the one to get to the compare/contrast.)

And the alcoholic Indian spirit guide in Reaper Man made me freakin' insane. No actual book throwing on my part, but copious ranting and teeth-gnashing whenever he made an appearance.

There's stuff Pratchett consistently does that I absolutely adore, but there are times that he just falls so painfully short... Ergh. Why can't he just make it easy for me to feel a single internally-consistent thing about him, hm? Is that too much to ask of my authors?

It doesn't grate that badly for me in the Watch books, because it's typically the pieces that Vimes wouldn't get. And he's almost the narrator, after all.

I find his limited perspective is a real help, though there are still some dodgy bits if you start thinking about it too hard.

Yeeeaaah. Generally I try not to think that hard because I am still reading Pratchett as a comfort read, but sometimes I feel like throwing something.

No, I think you are very right about Nation. I can just get past it because Mau is so awesome, but I wish Pratchett thought more about institutional injustice and etc., because you can SO tell from his books that he doesn't. Like, the attitude of "people are well and good if you just let them do their thing" is all well and good... until you get to things like ingrained racism and classism and sexism, and then I do not think all is well and good.

Aiiiieee! I do not remember alcoholic Indian spirit guide! I hope I wiped it from my memory in anger!

But yeah... I can't read so many of the Ankh-Morpork books at all because all his attempts at "multi-culturalism" fall so flat on my scale. I just. It does not work that way!

Pratchett, Terry - Night Watch

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject