Welcome to BookForumz.com!
FAQFAQ    SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

[R] _Nation_ Review

 
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4
   Book Forums (Home) -> Pratchett RSS
Next:  JESUSCHRISTSPERFECTENGLISHTRANSLATIONOFSCRIPTURES..  
Author Message
leo1

External


Since: May 17, 2004
Posts: 24



(Msg. 1) Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:25 pm
Post subject: [R] _Nation_ Review
Archived from groups: alt>books>pratchett (more info?)

[ Argh. Meant to crosspost this to abp, but forgot. ]

Warning: This post contains serious SPOILERS for _Nation_.

;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
^L


I have been browsing the online reviews and readers' comments for
_Nation_, and have found myself amused and bemused.

Most reviews are positive to ecstatic, but so many of them seem
to regard this book as a major departure for Terry, cautioning
that long-time fans may not find it to their liking because it is
(a) a YA novel, (b) not set on the Discworld, and (c) not
thigh-slappingly funny.

I don't get that. These warnings seem to be addressing a
hypothetical set of Pratchett fans stuck in 1992, still wondering
why Terry stopped writing 100-gags-per-page Rincewind romps.

The rest of us (and really not just the reviewers) have, I
like to think, by now managed to come to grips with the fact that
for the past two decades or so Terry has steadily been moving
towards the more thoughtful end of the literary spectrum, where
funny becomes witty, and the 'serious' themes (which have of
course almost always been present) take a more central role, even
(especially?) in the YA books.

_Nation_ fits perfectly well into that progression. There are
some novelties in the execution, and the seriousness factor is
notched up a little bit higher than what we're used to, but I
don't think there's anything here that should come as a big shock
or surprise to even the more casual fans of Terry's work. But
that does *not* mean _Nation_ isn't Terry's best book in years,
because I most certainly think it is.

If there is one issue I personally have with Terry's more recent
efforts, it is that they tend to get too preachy for my tastes.
Perhaps 'too explanatory' is a better phrase. It is difficult to
describe, but over the years I have found myself increasingly
more impatient and turned off by Terry's growing focus on his
characters' internal monologues and ruminations. We spend so much
time inside the heads of Vimes, Tiffany, Polly -- even Moist von
Lipwig, that overexposure sets in. I feel it upsets the narrative
balance -- too much 'tell', not enough 'show', and in general
just a lack of focus on an actual *story*.

With _Nation_, we get a tale that is so well-written and
well-balanced that I did not experience any of the above
problems, even though the book is actually quite didactic. I
don't pretend to know Terry's mind, but it certainly *feels* as
if he has tried to use _Nation_ as a definitive exploration /
thesis of his thoughts on religion, culture, science and what it
means to be human. Yet neither Mau nor Daphne feel like puppets
or avatars to me, and the philosophy bits ring true within the
context of the story. Put in another way: I may be getting
lectured at again, but it is done in such an expert way that I
hardly notice, and certainly don't mind.

There are many things in _Nation_ that I particularly enjoyed,
but perhaps nothing better than the opening chapter. It already
gets off to great start with Captain Samson and the Gentlemen of
Last Resort. To my mind, that section *is* a more radical
departure for Terry, of a kind I dearly hope we'll see more
often. We are dropped head-first into the action: unknown world,
unknown characters, none of the familiar Discworld land- and
storymarks, the first person we meet doesn't know what's going on
either, and his confusion and panic are pleasantly infectious.

Then, just as you think you are getting your bearings in time and
space, you suddenly realise: no wait, things are wrong, this has
to be an alternate timeline, wow, cool -- but before you get the
chance to fully think that through, the action heats up even
further, with the switch to captain Roberts and the shipwreck
scene, then things go relatively quiet for a few pages with Mau
on Boys' Island, and *then* the Wave happens and Mau escapes and
the Nation gets wiped out -- and at this point we are still only
on page 26! More has actually *happened* here in one chapter than
in the last three Discworld books put together. Well, okay, that
may be exaggerating a tad, but it certainly has been a long time
since reading Terry Pratchett has left me feeling so excited.

The good stuff does not end there, although the pace does slow
down considerably, and the mode of storytelling moves into far
more familiar and predictable territory. There are some great set
pieces (pig milking!), intriguing characters (that I wish we
could have gotten to know better), and many wonderful lines.
Don't let anybody tell you _Nation_ is not a funny book, because
in many places it's downright hilarious -- just perhaps not in a
Twoflower-sets-fire-to-Ankh-Morpork kind of way.

There of course always remain some things to complain about. As
usual for Terry, the villains are mustache-twirlingly,
one-dimensionally eeeevil (even the Priest is not that much
better), which makes them rather uninteresting and the sections
dealing with e.g. Daphne's guilt and subsequent 'trial' not
nearly as intriguing or powerful as they could have been. Killing
people *this* obviously irredeemable is fairly easy to accept,
but it is not very fair with Terry so firmly stacking the deck
against them. Terry rarely designs his heroes to be perfectly
good -- he makes them human, instead. What if he had allowed his
bad guys to be human, too?

I also thought the final chapter was a teensy bit self-indulgent.
Referencing Sagan and Feynman and Einstein and Darwin etc, must
have been great fun to do, but in the final analysis a temptation
that I think should have been resisted, if only because it spoils
the illusion of an alternate reality. But okay, that's a very
minor quibble, and the rest of the chapter is actually quite
touching and fitting. Never mind.

Finally, with respect to the thinking Terry encourages us to do
in his afterword: I still like implicit better than explicit,
and, despite the fact that it manages to do so without annoying
me, _Nation_ does tend to spell things out a lot. As far as I'm
concerned, an unpretentious story like _Truckers_ does a vastly
better job at actually making me think about the relationship
between man and religion than anything I found in _Nation_. But
as an example of engrossing storytelling done by a master of his
craft at the peak of his powers I think that even Terry is going
to find _Nation_ a very tough act to follow.
--
Leo Breebaart

 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Emma Anne

External


Since: Aug 03, 2005
Posts: 139



(Msg. 2) Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:18 pm
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Leo Breebaart wrote:

> [ Argh. Meant to crosspost this to abp, but forgot. ]

Excellent review. Thanks.

 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Jaimie Vandenbergh

External


Since: Sep 12, 2006
Posts: 40



(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:25 am
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:18:33 -0600, emma_anne.RemoveThis@mac.com (Emma Anne)
wrote:

>Leo Breebaart wrote:
>
>> [ Argh. Meant to crosspost this to abp, but forgot. ]
>
>Excellent review. Thanks.

Agreed, although I wouldn't say Nation had much of a YA feel to it.

It is a very encapsulated book though, which I think is why there
hasn't been a lot of discussion - apart from the single possibly-loose
thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the underground chamber,
everything is wrapped up neatly. Including the things that didn't wrap
up nearly in a story-book manner!

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Raymond Daley

External


Since: Jul 13, 2003
Posts: 88



(Msg. 4) Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:25 am
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Jaimie Vandenbergh" wrote in message
> It is a very encapsulated book though, apart from the single
> possibly-loose
> thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the underground chamber,
> everything is wrapped up neatly.

I disagree completely, sorry. Not much is "wrapped up neatly" at all.
I find the book vague and rambling at times, After having read it 3 times I
still don't get who the voices talking to Mau are. Are they paranormal? Is
he going mad? Imagining them?
The rocks in the sea are explained incredibly badly and I still don't really
understand what they are and why their there. I still say the succession
story was very badly disjointed, written in a "blink and you'll miss"
explanation as I had to go back and read really carefully to actually find
where he'd explained how the father suddenly became King.

It's juts my opinion but TP books have gotten consistently worse and much
harder to read since The Truth. The only small mercy I'm thankful for is
Terry hasn't succumbed to the Robert Rankin effect and hasn't started
constantly re-using running in-jokes that were never funny ever.
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Jaimie Vandenbergh

External


Since: Sep 12, 2006
Posts: 40



(Msg. 5) Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:25 am
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:44:27 -0000, "Raymond Daley"
wrote:

>"Jaimie Vandenbergh" wrote in message
>> It is a very encapsulated book though, apart from the single
>> possibly-loose
>> thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the underground chamber,
>> everything is wrapped up neatly.
>
>I disagree completely, sorry. Not much is "wrapped up neatly" at all.
>I find the book vague and rambling at times, After having read it 3 times I
>still don't get who the voices talking to Mau are. Are they paranormal? Is
>he going mad? Imagining them?

I think we can accept that these things happen in Nation's universe,
see the shared "near death" rescue sequence and the conversations with
Calahi. And Daphne gets spoken to by the Women, doesn't she? I can't
find that bit at the moment.

>The rocks in the sea are explained incredibly badly and I still don't really
>understand what they are and why their there.

They're just lumps of the previous civilisation's everlasting ceramic
building blocks.

>I still say the succession
>story was very badly disjointed, written in a "blink and you'll miss"
>explanation as I had to go back and read really carefully to actually find
>where he'd explained how the father suddenly became King.

"Everyone else died" - explained once at the start, and once when the
Gentlemen pick up Daphne's father towards the end.

>It's juts my opinion but TP books have gotten consistently worse and much
>harder to read since The Truth.

Worse I'd bicker about, what with Thief of Time and Night Watch being
after The Truth. I really liked Going Postal too. Monstrous Regiment
was workmanlike, but Thud and Making Money weren't so hot - Thud
rambled and didn't make much sense towards the end, and MM has various
flaws with the characters, much discussed here.

Harder to read, though? I don't get that at all.

>The only small mercy I'm thankful for is
>Terry hasn't succumbed to the Robert Rankin effect and hasn't started
>constantly re-using running in-jokes that were never funny ever.

Yes, thankfully he ignored fan pressure and stopped writing Rincewind
books!

Cheers - Jaimie
--
L33t 5p3@|< 1s f0R R3t4rds
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
leo1

External


Since: May 17, 2004
Posts: 24



(Msg. 6) Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:25 pm
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Jaimie Vandenbergh writes:

> It is a very encapsulated book though, which I think is why
> there hasn't been a lot of discussion - apart from the single
> possibly-loose thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the
> underground chamber, everything is wrapped up neatly.

That hasn't stopped anybody here before!

I have to admit I'm rather surprised at how extremely little
discussion or even just plain praise _Nation_ has generated in
abp/afp.

There hasn't even been an annotation thread, where usually every
new books leads to at least a couple of those. But this time it's
all just been vewwy vewwy quiet.

--
Leo Breebaart
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Jaimie Vandenbergh

External


Since: Sep 12, 2006
Posts: 40



(Msg. 7) Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:25 pm
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On 5 Nov 2008 22:10:38 GMT, Leo Breebaart wrote:

>Jaimie Vandenbergh writes:
>
>> It is a very encapsulated book though, which I think is why
>> there hasn't been a lot of discussion - apart from the single
>> possibly-loose thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the
>> underground chamber, everything is wrapped up neatly.
>
>That hasn't stopped anybody here before!

Heh! It has been a bit dead here wrt new book releases for a while,
there was a fair bit of bitching over Making Money but before that...
too much "Hey, look, another decent PTerry book, how nice". I guess
we're all too used to that these days.

>I have to admit I'm rather surprised at how extremely little
>discussion or even just plain praise _Nation_ has generated in
>abp/afp.
>
>There hasn't even been an annotation thread, where usually every
>new books leads to at least a couple of those. But this time it's
>all just been vewwy vewwy quiet.

I don't tend to read critically (by which I mean with an eye to
writing about it), so I only tend to follow up - in this case, to
thank you for pretty much writing what I would have if I had. IYSWIM.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Unix was written to play Spacewar and cheat at Scrabble, but Linux was
created merely to prove that it booted. - AdB, ASR
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
leo1

External


Since: May 17, 2004
Posts: 24



(Msg. 8) Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:25 pm
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Raymond Daley" writes:

> "Jaimie Vandenbergh" wrote in message

> > It is a very encapsulated book though, apart from the single
> > possibly-loose thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the
> > underground chamber, everything is wrapped up neatly.
>
> I disagree completely, sorry. Not much is "wrapped up neatly"
> at all. I find the book vague and rambling at times [...]

Yes, but we've already established that this is because you
appear to have the reading comprehension skills of a gnat.

Look, I really don't mind if you dislike _Nation_ -- everybody
fawned over _Jingo_ and that's one that *I* hated, and I don't
care that much for Tiffany Aching either -- but it just really
ticks me off that you are so arrogant you won't even consider the
possibility that your problems with this book are not solely
Terry's fault or obvious symptoms of his decline. (And even if
they were, there's no need for you to be such a wingo about it.)

Jaimie thinks the book leaves few if any loose ends. I think so
too. Other people I've spoken to and read comments from had no
problem understanding what happens in the book. Try to allow for
the possibility that in this case you're maybe just wired
differently from most people, or that perhaps you lack a certain
framework for reading certain types of story, but stop acting
like you've been somehow cheated out of your God-given right to a
story you can understand.


> After having read it 3 times I still don't get who the voices
> talking to Mau are. Are they paranormal? Is he going mad?
> Imagining them?

This conviction that you *need* an answer to these questions is
precisely what I think you should try to let go off.

A large part of _Nation_ is about the nature of belief, about
whether or not God, the Gods, *any* Gods are "real" or not, about
what "real" means in this context anyway, and about whether we as
humans are even capable of not having gods -- whether they exist
or not (and if this makes no sense it's because I'm not as good a
writer as Terry -- *me* you can freely criticise for that).

I do not think it is too farfetched to say that at least one of
the reasons Terry had for writing this book in the first place is
wanting to pose these questions, sketch a number of different
answers, possibly give us some implicit insight in how *he* feels
about it (I'd bet money that the old scientist in the last
chapter is pretty much the Man in the Hat himself), but for the
most part *just make us think about these things for ourselves*.
As he explicitly says in the afterword: "_Thinking_ -- This book
contains some. Whether you try it at home is up to you."

So, the mild ambiguity about whether or not Mau "really" hears
his ancestors and talks to Locaha, or whether he has just gone a
bit mad, or perhaps a bit of both, is *not* the same as leaving
loose ends or not wrapping things up tightly. It's a *deliberate*
decision by the author not to commit too firmly one way or the
other, and an invitation for us to draw our own conclusions if we
want to. Or not.

(There are places in the text that can be used as 'proof' either
way, or both, depending on how trustworthy you think the narrator
is. Mrs Gurgle actually eating the dream fish, for instance,
would certainly seem to indicate that at least the Death domain
is "real" as in: not just in Mau's mind. But how trustworthy *is*
the narrator, when we learn in the last chapter that he's not a
conventional omnipresent narrator at all, but actually another
character telling the whole saga to the two kids...?)


> The rocks in the sea are explained incredibly badly and I still
> don't really understand what they are and why their there.

They are not described incredibly badly, it is just not spelled
out as explicitly as you need it to be.


> I still say the succession story was very badly disjointed,
> written in a "blink and you'll miss" explanation as I had to go
> back and read really carefully to actually find where he'd
> explained how the father suddenly became King.

And some of us actually *liked* that bit of "blink and you'll
miss it" writing a lot. No, deliberately confusing people is not
a good thing in itself, but he's not doing that. The explanation
is *there* -- and if you had just read the book sentence by
sentence instead of skimming over it, you would have caught it,
like the rest of us did. It's not rocket science.

A novel is a two way street, and Terry asking the readers to
bring a little bit of effort to the party (even if it is only the
effort of paying attention) is something that certainly has
increased *my* reading pleasure considerably.

(Diana Wynn Jones is an example of an author who is also very
good at that sort of thing. Her stories seem deceptively
straightforward and easy, but she leaves a lot of things unsaid,
or rather: unrepeated -- but if you had only paid attention to
that one throwaway scene in the second chapter...)


> It's juts my opinion but TP books have gotten consistently
> worse and much harder to read since The Truth.

And are you now going to pipe up and restate that opinion every
time someone says something remotely positive about Terry's later
books? I really wish you wouldn't.

--
Leo Breebaart
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Raymond Daley

External


Since: Jul 13, 2003
Posts: 88



(Msg. 9) Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:25 pm
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Leo Breebaart" wrote in message

> Yes, but we've already established that this is because you
> appear to have the reading comprehension skills of a gnat.

So your going to personally insult me JUST because I don't like the book?
How old are you, 12? I suppose you think having an Lspace email account
makes your view more valid than mine?
Well it doesn't..

> Look, I really don't mind if you dislike _Nation

Clearly you do, you just took the trouble to insult me.

> Jaimie thinks the book leaves few if any loose ends.

And I respect that opinion but disagree with it completely. Am I not allowed
that or did I completely waste 6 years of my life fighting for freedom in my
country?

>> The rocks in the sea are explained incredibly badly and I still
>> don't really understand what they are and why their there.
> They are not described incredibly badly, it is just not spelled
> out as explicitly as you need it to be.

In my opinion after 3 reads (1 quick and 2 very thorough) I still think they
are explained badly. Again, just my opinion. Please feel free to not agree
with it, that's your right. Perhaps in some future re-read the penny might
drop and I might get it. I always live in hope of getting more from books
when I read them again.
Maybe my brain just hasn't been able to understand whats being explained to
it. Not everything I read makes sense to me right away. The latter half of
Robert Sheckley's Mind Swap makes no sense to me but it hasn't stopped me
reading it more than 30 times. I live in hope of getting it one day.

> And some of us actually *liked* that bit of "blink and you'll
> miss it" writing a lot. No, deliberately confusing people is not
> a good thing in itself, but he's not doing that. The explanation
> is *there* -- and if you had just read the book sentence by
> sentence instead of skimming over it, you would have caught it,
> like the rest of us did.

Again, I disagree, I'll admit I had to go back and really read it very
thoroughly after asking the 1st time where that happened. It just smacks of
"and with one leap we were free", no effort to explain a situation any
further because the author wanted to get on with the rest of the book. It
actually almost felt like Terry regretted setting the situation up and
wanted to get out of it with as little effort as possible.

>> It's juts my opinion but TP books have gotten consistently
>> worse and much harder to read since The Truth.
> And are you now going to pipe up and restate that opinion every
> time someone says something remotely positive about Terry's later
> books? I really wish you wouldn't.
Why? Its my opinion. My opinion of the book clearly isn't going to change
yours.
Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. Get over it.
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Jaimie Vandenbergh

External


Since: Sep 12, 2006
Posts: 40



(Msg. 10) Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:25 pm
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 00:51:55 -0000, "Raymond Daley"
wrote:

>The latter half of
>Robert Sheckley's Mind Swap makes no sense to me but it hasn't stopped me
>reading it more than 30 times. I live in hope of getting it one day.

I wouldn't hold your breath - it really doesn't make any sense! I
think that was the book that led me to give up on Sheckley.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Time's fun when you're having flies" - Kermit the Frog
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Patrician

External


Since: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 40



(Msg. 11) Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:25 am
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Leo Breebaart" wrote in message

> "Raymond Daley" writes:
>
>> "Jaimie Vandenbergh" wrote in message
>
>> > It is a very encapsulated book though, apart from the single
>> > possibly-loose thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the
>> > underground chamber, everything is wrapped up neatly.
>>
>> I disagree completely, sorry. Not much is "wrapped up neatly"
>> at all. I find the book vague and rambling at times [...]
>
> Yes, but we've already established that this is because you
> appear to have the reading comprehension skills of a gnat.
>
> Look, I really don't mind if you dislike _Nation_ -- everybody
> fawned over _Jingo_ and that's one that *I* hated, and I don't
> care that much for Tiffany Aching either -- but it just really
> ticks me off that you are so arrogant you won't even consider the
> possibility that your problems with this book are not solely
> Terry's fault or obvious symptoms of his decline. (And even if
> they were, there's no need for you to be such a wingo about it.)
>
> Jaimie thinks the book leaves few if any loose ends. I think so
> too. Other people I've spoken to and read comments from had no
> problem understanding what happens in the book. Try to allow for
> the possibility that in this case you're maybe just wired
> differently from most people, or that perhaps you lack a certain
> framework for reading certain types of story, but stop acting
> like you've been somehow cheated out of your God-given right to a
> story you can understand.
>
>
>> After having read it 3 times I still don't get who the voices
>> talking to Mau are. Are they paranormal? Is he going mad?
>> Imagining them?
>
> This conviction that you *need* an answer to these questions is
> precisely what I think you should try to let go off.
>
> A large part of _Nation_ is about the nature of belief, about
> whether or not God, the Gods, *any* Gods are "real" or not, about
> what "real" means in this context anyway, and about whether we as
> humans are even capable of not having gods -- whether they exist
> or not (and if this makes no sense it's because I'm not as good a
> writer as Terry -- *me* you can freely criticise for that).
>
> I do not think it is too farfetched to say that at least one of
> the reasons Terry had for writing this book in the first place is
> wanting to pose these questions, sketch a number of different
> answers, possibly give us some implicit insight in how *he* feels
> about it (I'd bet money that the old scientist in the last
> chapter is pretty much the Man in the Hat himself), but for the
> most part *just make us think about these things for ourselves*.
> As he explicitly says in the afterword: "_Thinking_ -- This book
> contains some. Whether you try it at home is up to you."
>
> So, the mild ambiguity about whether or not Mau "really" hears
> his ancestors and talks to Locaha, or whether he has just gone a
> bit mad, or perhaps a bit of both, is *not* the same as leaving
> loose ends or not wrapping things up tightly. It's a *deliberate*
> decision by the author not to commit too firmly one way or the
> other, and an invitation for us to draw our own conclusions if we
> want to. Or not.
>
> (There are places in the text that can be used as 'proof' either
> way, or both, depending on how trustworthy you think the narrator
> is. Mrs Gurgle actually eating the dream fish, for instance,
> would certainly seem to indicate that at least the Death domain
> is "real" as in: not just in Mau's mind. But how trustworthy *is*
> the narrator, when we learn in the last chapter that he's not a
> conventional omnipresent narrator at all, but actually another
> character telling the whole saga to the two kids...?)
>
>
>> The rocks in the sea are explained incredibly badly and I still
>> don't really understand what they are and why their there.
>
> They are not described incredibly badly, it is just not spelled
> out as explicitly as you need it to be.
>
>
>> I still say the succession story was very badly disjointed,
>> written in a "blink and you'll miss" explanation as I had to go
>> back and read really carefully to actually find where he'd
>> explained how the father suddenly became King.
>
> And some of us actually *liked* that bit of "blink and you'll
> miss it" writing a lot. No, deliberately confusing people is not
> a good thing in itself, but he's not doing that. The explanation
> is *there* -- and if you had just read the book sentence by
> sentence instead of skimming over it, you would have caught it,
> like the rest of us did. It's not rocket science.
>
> A novel is a two way street, and Terry asking the readers to
> bring a little bit of effort to the party (even if it is only the
> effort of paying attention) is something that certainly has
> increased *my* reading pleasure considerably.
>
> (Diana Wynn Jones is an example of an author who is also very
> good at that sort of thing. Her stories seem deceptively
> straightforward and easy, but she leaves a lot of things unsaid,
> or rather: unrepeated -- but if you had only paid attention to
> that one throwaway scene in the second chapter...)
>
>
>> It's juts my opinion but TP books have gotten consistently
>> worse and much harder to read since The Truth.
>
> And are you now going to pipe up and restate that opinion every
> time someone says something remotely positive about Terry's later
> books? I really wish you wouldn't.
>
> --
> Leo Breebaart

Do you have to be so abrasive Leo? Jamie stated his opinion. Because
his is different to yours is he is not allowed one?

And as for you last paragraph Jamie I fully concur. I gave up reading
Nation after page 26; Very boring, difficult to read, and completely
lacking in humour.

Trev
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Patrician

External


Since: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 40



(Msg. 12) Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:25 am
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Leo Breebaart" wrote in message

> Jaimie Vandenbergh writes:
>
>> It is a very encapsulated book though, which I think is why
>> there hasn't been a lot of discussion - apart from the single
>> possibly-loose thread of the "hey, look at that" down in the
>> underground chamber, everything is wrapped up neatly.
>
> That hasn't stopped anybody here before!
>
> I have to admit I'm rather surprised at how extremely little
> discussion or even just plain praise _Nation_ has generated in
> abp/afp.
>


Because it's not very well liked perhaps?

Trev
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Elliott Grasett

External


Since: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 15



(Msg. 13) Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:11 am
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

<snip>

>> I find the book vague and rambling at times, After having read it 3 times I
>> still don't get who the voices talking to Mau are. Are they paranormal? Is
>> he going mad? Imagining them?
>

Mau's voices make quite good sense to to those who have read Julian
Jaynes's
/The/Origin/of/Consciousness/in/the/Breakdown/of/the/Bicameral/Mind/.

--
Cheers,
Elliott
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
unet1

External


Since: Aug 23, 2004
Posts: 20



(Msg. 14) Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:25 pm
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Patrician wrote:

<snip the unnecessay>

>
> Do you have to be so abrasive Leo? Jamie stated his opinion.
> Because his is different to yours is he is not allowed one?
>

I think you'll find that if you bother looking, Leo was replying to
Raymond Daley.

Oh, and try snipping the post you're replying to next time, please.


--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Raymond Daley

External


Since: Jul 13, 2003
Posts: 88



(Msg. 15) Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:26 pm
Post subject: Re: [R] _Nation_ Review [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Jaimie Vandenbergh" wrote in message

> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 00:51:55 -0000, "Raymond Daley"
> wrote:
>>The latter half of
>>Robert Sheckley's Mind Swap makes no sense to me but it hasn't stopped me
>>reading it more than 30 times. I live in hope of getting it one day.
> I wouldn't hold your breath - it really doesn't make any sense! I
> think that was the book that led me to give up on Sheckley.

I don't know, I still enjoy reading it. As mad as it is Wink
 >> Stay informed about: [R] _Nation_ Review 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
Related Topics:
[R] _Wintersmith_ Review - This post contains fairly major SPOILERS for _Wintersmith_. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; I know that many people adore the Tiffany Aching series, but I can only wish I shared their enthusiasm. I liked _The Wee Free Men_ just fine (though I preferred..

[R] Review: The Science of Discworld - I know, it's been a while since I posted anything... at times AFP seems to get into a rut of conversations I have nothing intelligent to say about and I tend to drift away. R E Q U E S T E D S P O I L E R S P A C E /The Science of Discworld/ is an..

[ANNOUNCE][F] Reminder: Cambridge Meet, Saturday 22nd Nove.. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- There is still to be a Cambridge Meet to be held from 7pm in the Panton Arms on Saturday 22nd Novembr (this Saturday). <text pasted from my post to afp:> The meet is at 7pm in the Panton arms, and there is so...

What was in SFX Files from 1995? - I came across this one: SFX FILES Short Stories and exclusive extracts from the all-time Science Fiction & Fantasy greats KEVIN J. ANDERSON - DAVID GEMMELL - GARRY KILWORTH - GEORGE LUCAS & CHRIS CLAREMONT - ANNE McCAFFREY - TERRY PRATCHETT - ROB...

[R] Monstrous Regiment - Thalacephalos - Since reading Monstrous Regiment I've been plagued by a question regarding the name of Lieutenant Blouse's horse; 'Thalacephalos.. (named after)...the legendary stallion of General Tacticus'. This is a reference to Bucephalos, the legendary stallion of....
   Book Forums (Home) -> Pratchett All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada)
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 1 of 4

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]