Discussion Literature / UnseenAcademicals

Killing Nutt (if temporarily), engineering all the cheating in the game (including poisoning the Librarian), and basically getting in the way of everyone good's plans is "little to nothing"?

And it's been a while, but I'm pretty sure he threatens Trev's life on more than one occasion.

Andy didn't kill Nutt. Juliet's brother did. Funny thing is, the only source we have for that that what Andy does is oh do evil cheating is from trevor. (honestly, the book makes a pretty excellent source to write a masterthesis for literature or psychology about)

I think because he is so much of a woobie and he doesn't flaunt his perfection. I don't know Thrall so I cannot compare to that.

As said, YMMV. Yes, he doesn't flaunt his abilities, but you have to agree the text does that for him. There is quite a number of scenes with no impact on the story whatsoever in which we are informed of yet another of his outstanding abilities. And the woobie bit... It does at least border on trying-to-invoke-pity-in-the-reader-to-make-the-character-totally-sympathetic (The first thing we learn about him, after all, comes down to 'he had a horrible childhood')

You make a fair point. I read the info on Mary Sue characteristics and see he does seem to match up. I think some of the reasons for those scenes is to show just that he isn't normal, even by Discworld standards. But I believe one crucial aspect of any Sue is the character never develops. Nutt goes from a meek young man searching for his own path and worth to a person with self confidence who is no longer afraid of his heritage.

His superior abilities can be accepted by the fact he is a super soldier with vast abilities. But he is still fallible, such as doubting in his own worth and the level his true companions feel for him.

I think if he was such a Sue, he would have been the one to win the game. But he didn't. He didn't even come up with the final game plan to switch the ball with a new "ball."

But he then got what some have listed under CMOA, when he gives his very pretentious speech. Granted, having a character from a 'despised' group say 'Yes, I am what I am, so effing deal with it' can be something to deserves standing ovations, but here? He just demonstrated that no one would stand a chance against him. And worse...he had someone at his mercy and ...talked... I don't know if it was Vimes or Granny who said it, but there's a wonderful quote about that in an older book. But again, YMMV. I think what bugs me most about him is that you can remove him entirely from the story without and actual impact on it.

"If you are staring down the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end pray the one holding the arrow is an evil man. They like to gloat and show power over you. A good man would kill you without a word."

Vimes in respect to Carrot.

I think the difference is Nutt had no intention of killing Andy. Andy was beneath him, good or evil. He knew talking would do worse to break him than simply killing him. Of course, Pepe didn't have this level of idealism but it still stands Talking the monster to death is a Pratchett staple.

As for no change? Let's see, Trev would never had developed as a good man, overcoming his grief and insecurities. Glenda would have continued pulling Jules down, never letting her become her own woman. Jules would have been stuck in the kitchens as a result.

Oh, and personal disagreements aside, I am enjoying this discussion.

So do I. I'll promise I shall not go to insult anyone (I am learning). It continues to be a YMMV: The thing with Juliet and Glenda was more due to Madame Sharn and Pepe (note: I don't like him much. He's a bloody hypocrite to me and I can't stand hypocrites). Trevor's change was, in the end brought by by Juliet's love. (The speech Nutt is giving to him also has a rather sour taste if you ask me, as he compare's Trev's father to people who cared for their clan/family while Dave Likely struck me as someone who gave a flying fudge about his wife and son unless things had somehow to do with football). And the central question that remains for me: Was there actually any need to have the orc that over skilled? The message his plot delivers can (not must)/could as well be read as: You can only overcome lack of self-esteem and the feel of worhtlessness if you succeed and near everthing you try and out-do others who tried the same things. I keep on wondering if it wouldn't have just done the trick if he'd be a character who thinks he needs to be perfect to achieve worth but who bungles just as others do, except for one or maybe two fields, instead of a character who thinks the above and actually does manage to succeed at near everything. Though, if you ask me, the morals the story delivers are good, but the plotthreads supposed to support these moral lessons strike me as things that contradict them. (Worst bit? The whole crabbucket. It is about self-esteem, not letting others talk you down, don't let others make decisions for you, don't give in to peerpressure, and so forth. But what do we have? Trevore gives in to peer pressure, Juliet and Glenda do so as well (in their case: Juliet becomes a model because a magazine and Pepe tell her it's what she's ought to do and for Glenda it's Pepe convincing her that worrying about Juliet's wellfare and not having her do what she thinks good for herself (or better what the magazine and Pepe tell her is good for her) is a bad thing to do) It's a weird, weird book.

I think you're misunderstanding the crab bucket analogy. It's not really "don't give into peer pressure," it's "don't let people hold you back just because they don't think they can get out of this rut."

It's not "don't let others run your life" so much as "don't let yourself fall into the same dreary, go-nowhere life your forebears had."

Mr Death, as I said it before, it's all YMMV. 'Giving in to peer pressure', at leats to me, means that you let people that think they can't get out of this rut hold you back if you try to escape. Or better: To me peer pressure means you let others tell you what you have to do, follow what they think is good, right and suitable for you.

I agree, it is a YMMV. So, the question becomes if an incident cited in the C Mo A page is 70% for and 30% against it being a true "Awesome" should it be left up there? I have no comment there.

Actually, the "crab bucket" is more like Tall Poppy Syndrome, it's even referred to on the page. And it is

You are right, Trev was helped by Jules but without Nutt, he would never have approached her about his feelings and desire to court her.

Jules may have tried to become a model but Glenda would have felt she was going to far beyond her place, not believing in her friend's capabilities, and kept her in her station.

And Glenda would not have realized just how damaging she was if Nutt hadn't helped the story along as he did. His actions showed her Trev wasn't just a violent hooligan but a good man. It helped her see she was doing Jules harm and believe in herself. It was that belief that got her to get her way into serving the dinner and go stare down Vetinari (twice) and the vampire Lady.

I don't think something is "peer pressure" if that path is what will make you happy. And what Nutt helped each of his friends find is the path that would make them happy in the long run.

Also, peer pressure, quite simply, isn't always bad. Basic manners and being socially acceptable are, in fact, based on peer pressure.

Agreed in basics with both. But I stand my point: It's a weird book, especially by Discworld standards and Sir Terry's skills. (I am aware of his Alzheimer's, though the specific kind should not cause that many oddities to pop up). And, a question no one has been able to answer me (People usually went and attacked me for doubting anything from Sir Terry could be anything but absolutely perfect. I did mention it's a weird fandom too?): Why was it 'absolutely necessary' that the orc is as skilled and outstanding as he is described? I keep seeing people claim that all his abilities (all of them) were all needed for the story to work. I can't agree with that. But why keep people on claiming that?

Him being outstanding at everything serves to eliminate the various reasons that people in-universe would dislike the character—he's friendly, strong, erudite, clever, well-meaning, etc., meaning that, absent those bad qualities, the only "reason" left to dislike him is because he's an orc.

And again, YMMV: To me, he is too perfect. And succeeds too easy. Not to mention that there is quite a few scenes in which we are informed about an ability of his that, for the story and the character is pointless. All it does is adding another skill to the list. Yes, due to his leatherworking skills they get a 'new ball', but what was it about the language skills and the photographic memory? Or the bit about his medical skills? (I heard people claim it's a shout-out to Doctor Who, but I reserve judgement). And on the topic of language skills: If one of you has a copy on hand, could you check something for me? There is a scene after they came back from the ballett and at one point Ridcully asks him 'just how many languages he speaks'. I have the feeling there are a few lines missing as I somehow can't see any logical connection to the scene before there.

I still keep coming back to the first fact about his being: he is a super-soldier. By that definition, he is going to be more capable and smarter than most other normal soldiers. The only difference between him and other Orcs is he was given a chance to learn something more than fighting. His Super-soldier genes allowed him to take in battle situations quickly and efficiently, because if you aren't quick on the battlefield you are dead. He absorbed things because of those genes.

I think what he was being made into was a messiah for the orcs, like Mr. Shine for Trolls, who is more advanced than other trolls. With all these skills drilled into him, he could take his kind out of being barbarians, hated and feared, and give them a chance for the freedom and power he has touched upon.

Oh, and for the languages, the answer "Three dead, twelve living."

Think me dumb or ignorant, but I still don't see the point in giving him all these skills. (Left alone why add orcs to the racelist of the Disc at all). Oh, and no worries, I know what the answer to the question was. I just keep on wondering why it was asked. The answer is in my book, it just feels out of place. As if one, if not a few lines leading up to it are missing. I mean Nutt says something that to Ridcully 'sounds' uberwaldean, they exchange a few more words, the Archchancellor drops a german/uberwaldean phrase and then, after an answer to that, asks the question above. I read the entire scene several times and went back to see if there was any scene where someone told him about the orc speaking any other language than uberwaldean or morporkian, but nothing. I feel such line is somehow missing. Is it a misprint in the paperback or is there really no such line? As like it is it would be as if Ridcully thinks the orc to be an omniglot after having him say something that 'sounds uberwaldean' and understand a very basic uberwaldean phrase. I mean, you wouldn't think someone from, for example, France be a linguistical genius if this french frenchman from france would speak a few words in french, now would you?

Maybe the orcs are a call back to the fact the series was a parody of High Fantasy genre.

In regards to the "sounds Ubervaldian" it wasn't a word or phrase in that language but a philosophical statement. It "sounded" like something that would come from that area in terms of philosophy.

The exchange is as follow: Ridicully' You'd think it was some kind of battle being planned.' 'It is a battle,' said Nutt. 'I mean, not with the opposing team, as such, but it is a battle between every man and himself.' 'That sounds very Uberwaldian,' said Ridcully.

And to draw parallels, such a statement is similar to what some philosophers believe about human nature. Don't know exact names off the top of my head but it meant that not anything he said in another language.

Ridicully only asked about the languages because Nutt was being forwith about other information. And there is a chance he might have to fight and take care of Nutt if he breaks a law. Best to know as much as you can about certain enemies rather than lay in ignorance.

As said, I have the dialogue here. I just wonder WHY the author (this being one of the parts that feel, to me, as if not thought up by Sir Terry) felt it necessary to put the bit in if there really isn't a line missing. Because if there isn't it's quite a prime example of what's usually going on in bad fanfiction with full-blooded god mode, black hole sues. But again, YMMV. (I still say the book might have been better if the character in question would not have been as over skilled. Go read 'Lord of the Clans' if you find the time. I am NOT saying Sir Terry stole from there, hell no, but it's an interesting comparsion)

I haven't read the novel yet, but in that context, it's one of many times in the series that Pratchett uses one of his fictional cultures as a substitute for a real life one- Nutt's statement sounds vaguely like something Nietzsche might say (or generally, sort of a stereotypical German philosopher comment). Since Uberwald sometimes substitutes for Germany in the novels (other times it's Russia), hence Ridicully's comment.

Now as for Nutt speaking a whole bunch of languages, being a super-soldier, etc., yeah, from everything about the character (including the sudden appearance of his species), he seems really Sueish, but that exchange doesn't really deal with those skills.

The thing just are these: -Ridcully KNOWS very well he's from Uberwald. -To that point Ridcully knew he spoke uberwaldean (native language) and morporkian (as general common language). with a hell load of big words, but that just on a sidenote. -At that point Ridcully never heard him speak any other language or heard from any other person that he did so. So, unless my copy IS missing a line, Ridcully got amazed by someone's linguistic skills after hearing said person allude to their native language. And we, the reader, already got informed about his language skills before, namely when he talks to a dwarf in better and very specific dwarvish than the dwarf himself speaks. All in all the question strucks me more as unnecessary showing-off-how-skilled-the-character-is. Unless, of course, there actually is some cue there.

First, it is not said the fact Nutt was ubervaldian was the reason he asked about the languages. And he was not amazed by it. He was worried of what Nutt was and how powerful he was. The exchange is as follow: 'Three dead and twelve living, sir,' said Nutt. 'Really. Really,' said Ridcully, as though filing this away and trying not to think How many of them were alive before you murdered them? 'Well done. Thank you, Mister Nutt, and you too, ladies. We will bring them in shortly.'

Just before this, Nutt said he was going to something flashy that wasn't magic, so he was trying to get more information from him.

Take note at this point in the book, we assume Nutt to be a goblin but there are hints he is something else. And the note of "how many were alive before you murdered them" is such a note that Nutt might be something evil hiding as a good thing. We never really got a description of him at all, so we don't know what exactly he is and this hint of the languages wasn't fluff but a red herring that Nutt was something more malevolent than let on.

Ridcully knows he's an orc. So does the former Dean. And I stay with my impression: The bit with the languages was a pointless dropping of information about what outstanding skills the character has. Everyone their own.

I think for one it's a mistake to assume the only things Ridcully hears are what we see him hear on the page. I see no reason he couldn't have heard of Nutt talking to the Dwarves in their language, or something else, prompting him to ask how many languages he knows.

Then the question is: When. Ridcully hasn't been at the workshop and we learn that he leaves 'his guest' to his own. As said. It's a weird book. On a sidenote: I couldn't find the publishing date nor name of the book the orc is basically a big shout out to. Anyone know more?

He doesn't have to be spending time with Nutt to hear about what he's up to. It could be as simple as someone, maybe Modo the dwarf groundskeeper, saying, "I heard Nutt speaking Dwarfish perfectly."

Still, as there is no such thing in the text, not even a hint, it does seem rather out of place, don't you agree?

Nope. Given there were comments Ridicully was informed by Vetinari about who and what Nutt is, he would be wise to assume the boy knew several languages. It isn't that much of a leap to make.

Your opinion. I'll stay with mine if you don't mind, as to me 9 out of 10 scenes where we get informed about one of his abilities are pointless to me. This is one of them. And, now be honest: What exactly is the line good for? What was the whole trip to to workshop good for? I know I am sounding stubborn right now, but dear gods, this book reads like a really, really bad fanfiction written by someone who has no idea of what makes a good story and was told about Discworld, one minute before sitting down to type it, from someone who just knew Discworld from hear-say. (Except that one line from Rincewind. That was awesome)

I don't see much trouble as this seems like a "character-introduction-book" which is filled with anecdotes and tidbits which may not be relevant here but are in further books. His ability to speak several languages would help him communicate with more isolated groups in Ubervald. His knowledge at the workshop shows his consideration to detail as well as something is following him to protect others from him. We also saw in the workshop he knows tthe details of other cultures in the world and not just how humans think.

If you truly find it horrible, then consider it the consequence of a great mind slowly dying and not everything is up to par as it once was.

So, I should be happy and consume? Even if Sir Terry would write Twilight? Just grin and consume as neither his health nor what he stood for in termns of writing do matter as long as he produces for us to consume?

But frankly: It might be my upbringing, it might be years of trying to learn how to write a decent book myself (Something Sir Terry greatly helped me with by providing good examples of how you can write aside from cliches and stereotypes and the same old rubbish, through his book) but when I see this book I just can't see Discworld. I can see a bad fanfiction, as mentioned above, and the introduction of a character that would usually be rightfully filed under 'sue' (again as mentioned above). A character with which you can go nowhere, as he is just too perfect and infallible already. And to make things worse: Everytime I ask about something in the book, something that struck me as a plothole and/or unanswered question, people will treat me like an idiot and claim that the answer is right there in the text. No, it is not, in none of the cases. It's always those people looking for excuses for the book. And that actually sickens me. The book is bad on its own, but the behaviour of some people (not all) is what completely ruins it. But I digress.

EDIT: Any idea how old Nutt is? He was seven when Oats came and saved him, and Oats himself isn't that old (don't remember any quote from CJ, but in his twenties). Now, UA is set only around 3 years after Carpe Jugulum, so...fuzzy timeline and History Monks business aside, he can't be older than 20 himself, likely younger.

Nothing Terry Pratchett has ever written should ever be compared with that mindless, utter shit Stephanie Meyer puts out. That ridiculous hyperbole shows how utterly skewed your viewpoint is on this.

We get it. You hate the book. Just write a goddamn review and get over it already. Stop bringing this utter tosh back up again and again so you can shoehorn in any negative trope you suddenly think of to bash the book. That's not what any of these pages are for.

We've given you answers. Good ones, too. You've ignored or dismissed them because they don't fit into your view that it's a crap book and Nutt shouldn't have ever been made. You're not interested in a discussion, you're interested in saying over and over again how much you don't like the book.

Just cut it out, I'm tired of seeing to this crap. I'm done here.

I actually didn't compare his writings to Twilight (and hell, I never would), but I have seen people do. In the context of just that, namely that people who don't like the books shut up and rejoice that Sir Terry is still writing, and that he writes is important, not what he writes (their words, not mine) And I apologise for upsetting you. And I apologise for giving the impression I am not willing to have a discussion. On the contrary. I just don't have a way with words (and I tend to not list all my thoughts about a topic at once. Perhaps the impression comes from that)

Apology accepted. There is also the limitation of this medium of communication as we cannot see how our words affect you directly. Words, though a powerful thing, are quite limited in this medium.

I do agree that one should not just accept it if Terry Pratchett gave up on quality for money. I just do not feel this story is on that level.

If I may say this, to me it is. I just can't go and say 'oh, it still is Pratchett, so it certainly is better than the best of most other authors'. I've been able to say that about Making Money. That one felt like a rehash of Going Postal (which was awesome) with a pretty rushed ending. But UA has nothing that means Pratchett or Discworld to me. On the contrary :(

EDIT: What I have to say I find a bit sad about the orc: He could have worked so neat in his own story after goblins and orcs would have gotten a bit more established on the Disc. Or if the potentional 'modern major general' would have gotten played out. Seems a bit like a missed oppurtunity.

Please consider that Nutt is not a "real" person - he's an experiment by Lady Margolotta. He's repeating her instructions like a mantra and tries to follow them, but finds that they are contradictive IF he wants to behave like a real person and not like an experimental super-orc.

This is actually why we have all these "hypercapability" moments you dislike so much. To me, they do not read like "Wow! Lookee how awesome my super-orc is!" They are very, very sad, because they show that the poor guy is given tons of data and knowledge, but no real kindness or affection or company. They talk of giving him a "chance", but the chance is only of accumulating data - and he's good with that, so Margolotta and Vetinari assume it's all gravy. He only gets a real chance at being a person from Glenda and Trev.

Personally I've seen this book not as "You must be ultra-perfectly-aaauuuusooom to overcome people's prejudice", it is "tons of skills and data and education don't make you a person, don't make you happy and sometimes don't even make you respected. But that's all right, because they won't get IN THE WAY of making you these things if you want to."

Okay, let's reword what I initially wrote here: Granted, your argumentation is thought through, but I ask you this: Does he go through a significant change after, let's say, he became the coach? He may adapt some 'gutterspeak', yes. But that's basically it. And even there there's the slight sour taste of 'that's how lower beings speak'.

Then there's not one moment throughout the entire story where he genuinely fails. Where someone else has to do his work because he didn't succeed. That makes the difference to me. I have seen a lot of 'bookwise' characters so far. Most of them older than Nutt. But rarely anyone as 'skilled' and admired as him.

Think what you want. To me it's not a good character. And it is sickening to see how people grub for excuses. Folks, even Pratchett can fail from time to time. And frankly, with the number of things in the particular book, there is even the chance he wrote it bad on purpose.

"(...) Does he go through a significant change after, let's say, he became the coach? (...)"

No, and I agree that it would read better if he did. No comeback here, I just agree.

"(...) there's not one moment throughout the entire story where he genuinely fails. (...)"

That's true, but to me it's not that detrimental to the character (not as the previous argument is, which would certainly ease and underline the development.) He is just so obsessed by perfection, which he sees as his only hope, that he literally CANNOT fail. Because failure, at that point, would destroy him far better than any hooligan with a club. If you read a story about someone climbing a huge, perilous mountain, I don't think you'd complain that they didn't fall off and die. His obsession with hoarding this elusive "worth" is just too strong to show him failing and then NOT describe a complete breaking, tantrum-ridden, character-erasing BSOD. Which is clearly not the purpose here.

Thirdly, I don't think you are right in talking about "grubbing for excuses." Some of your points are valid, some are valid too but - perhaps - not as important as you make them out to be, and some are not. But inviting someone to look at things in a different light is not "grubbing for excuses." Pratchett failed on other occasions, like everyone else, and personally I don't have a problem admitting that. Nor do I need your incentive to do so, or your permission to think what I want. I am just offering a different perspective and whatever you do with it is your thing, but I would ask you to refrain from hurtful language in a polite discussion.

Lil, you really need to learn to accept that people like this book even if you do not. We're not "grubbing for excuses," we're talking about a book we genuinely enjoyed. Not everyone who has a different opinion on the book from you is some kind of denial-addled sycophant who can't see Pratchett doing any wrong.

Discuss the book, offer your opinions. But for the love of A'tuin, stop acting like there's something wrong with us for liking the book. It's really getting annoying how you've spent, at least the last several months doing little besides trying to shoehorn the book into negative tropes, or vice versa, and accusing anyone who disagrees with you with being a deluded sycophant.

Like I said before: If you hate the book, just write a godsdamn review and be done with it.

Also, it would be immensely helpful to stop this arguing in circles. Almost the entire discussion page is about this argument. It's no longer just about the entry (which can stay under the rules of YMMV as long as it fits the objective parts of the definition of the given trope), but more about the story and thus more appropriate for a forum thread - isn't there one in the Media fora bout Discworld?

I have to apologise again. I tend to get...enthusiastic when I encounter something that just strikes me as -this can't be right-. I think my problem with the book is that it just won't read like Discworld to me. Nutt would have worked perfectly fine in his own book, but here he feels shoehorned in and actually wasted. Likewise there are bits and parts that don't read like Pratchett to me at all. I know about his Alzheimer's and I know he dictates his books now, but that doesn't really explain some things which are just off. To me at least. And I am stubborn. I want to understand.

I wonder how we'd all react if we didn't know about the illness... That's something we'll never know and yet it's very interesting.

I agree there are too many threads in this book. The way I see it there is really enough material here for three separate tomes:

1. There are witches in Ankh-Morpork, we hear. So, they help Glenda and Juliet get over the crab bucket stuff and changes in dwarf society. The "Kitchen Theme" would work well with witches - they're allergic to front doors, after all.

2. Ridcully and the UU staff grapple with the idea of football, aided by Trev and the freshly "emancipated" kitchen staff.

3. Mr Nutt is introduced, along with his species, as an experiment by Margolotta and Vetinari. This book would focus more on the Patrician - he's earned it, after so many years...

I think this could actually be very cool. Oh, who am I kidding. It takes ME a year to produce a cheap 30-pages story...

I think the first two might have worked perfectly well for this book. Maybe number 3 wouldn't even had needed Vetinari at all and stray almost entirely from Ankh-Morpork (aside from mentions). It has been a while since a book where the pearl of cities was little more than a sidenote instead of something necessary for the stories good/right end. (Counting the main novels here, not Tiffany as such, though even there AM 'invaded') It would have been nice to have the orc in his own book and get to know a bit more about Überwald as such in the progress.