SPOILERS Maskerade Discussion *Spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
Thoughts in no particular order I'm afraid:
I enjoy Nanny being manipulative which she is in all the books to some extent but especially here, it adds a bit of bite to her character, and sets up some good comic scenes.
Probably the book relies too heavily on operatic stereotype characters, every old chestnut seems to be dragged out
The plot is probably a bit weak but there is enough action and comedy to carry it
I enjoy Nanny being manipulative which she is in all the books to some extent but especially here, it adds a bit of bite to her character, and sets up some good comic scenes.
Probably the book relies too heavily on operatic stereotype characters, every old chestnut seems to be dragged out
The plot is probably a bit weak but there is enough action and comedy to carry it
Greebo has star quality for sure - but then most cats do 
I quite like Perdita (I think the X gets dropped - like the Dream - very quickly once Agnes has dropped her non-Witch ambitions) and by the time we get to Carpe Jugulam she and Agnes have acclimatised to each other to the point where they're both looking out for each other. Perdita started out as Agnes' nasty thin persona that Agnes wished she could be all the time, but gradually they've grown closer together with Agnes capable of making Perdita-style withering putdowns and Perdita getting very sensible and even concerned for others besides Agnes at times.
The Maskerade Perdita's a bit too edgy when we start but by the end Agnes is learning how to be more assertive from Perdita (although she still has trouble doing that with Nanny and Granny of course...
I quite like Perdita (I think the X gets dropped - like the Dream - very quickly once Agnes has dropped her non-Witch ambitions) and by the time we get to Carpe Jugulam she and Agnes have acclimatised to each other to the point where they're both looking out for each other. Perdita started out as Agnes' nasty thin persona that Agnes wished she could be all the time, but gradually they've grown closer together with Agnes capable of making Perdita-style withering putdowns and Perdita getting very sensible and even concerned for others besides Agnes at times.
The Maskerade Perdita's a bit too edgy when we start but by the end Agnes is learning how to be more assertive from Perdita (although she still has trouble doing that with Nanny and Granny of course...
Very interesting comments so far. When I first saw that the next book to be discussed here would be Maskerade, my heart sank a bit at the prospect of re-reading it, because it's by no means my favourite, although there is much to enjoy.
The parallels with Phantom are obvious even if, like me, you've never seen the musical. Isn't the heroine of that named Christine, incidentally? Plus I liked the way Pterry lampoons the ridiculous nature of operatic plots (go on, somebody explain The Magic Flute, I dare you). I particularly enjoyed scenes in the book where the characters acted operatically in 'normal' life - Salzella taking an age to die was superb and reminded me of the hero in Lucia de Lammermoor, who stabs himself in the heart in Act III and THEN finishes singing his aria! Tony, you're spot on in saying that they all play parts, even Agnes as Perdita.
I'm totally with Tony (again) on the ludicrousness (is there such a word?) of large opera singers playing consumptive waifs. The one that always amazes me is Turandot, where the Princess is supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the world. I don't think I've ever seen the role played by a soprano who wouldn't be better suited to playing Agnes Nitt. What makes it funnier is that the role of Liu, the slave girl who sacrifices herself for love of the Prince so he can win the Princess, is usually played by an up-and-coming soprano, frequently young and pretty. The contrast between the action in the opera and the reality on stage is richly comic.
Granny Weatherwax is a favourite character of mine but, to my mind, she only really becomes interesting in the Tiffany Aching books, where she has a gravitas that I find almost totally missing in Maskerade. There are glimpses of the reason she is so greatly respected in other books (Witches Abroad and Carpe Jugulum spring to mind) but here she is more of a comic character. So I found that disappointing.
The parallels with Phantom are obvious even if, like me, you've never seen the musical. Isn't the heroine of that named Christine, incidentally? Plus I liked the way Pterry lampoons the ridiculous nature of operatic plots (go on, somebody explain The Magic Flute, I dare you). I particularly enjoyed scenes in the book where the characters acted operatically in 'normal' life - Salzella taking an age to die was superb and reminded me of the hero in Lucia de Lammermoor, who stabs himself in the heart in Act III and THEN finishes singing his aria! Tony, you're spot on in saying that they all play parts, even Agnes as Perdita.
I'm totally with Tony (again) on the ludicrousness (is there such a word?) of large opera singers playing consumptive waifs. The one that always amazes me is Turandot, where the Princess is supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the world. I don't think I've ever seen the role played by a soprano who wouldn't be better suited to playing Agnes Nitt. What makes it funnier is that the role of Liu, the slave girl who sacrifices herself for love of the Prince so he can win the Princess, is usually played by an up-and-coming soprano, frequently young and pretty. The contrast between the action in the opera and the reality on stage is richly comic.
Granny Weatherwax is a favourite character of mine but, to my mind, she only really becomes interesting in the Tiffany Aching books, where she has a gravitas that I find almost totally missing in Maskerade. There are glimpses of the reason she is so greatly respected in other books (Witches Abroad and Carpe Jugulum spring to mind) but here she is more of a comic character. So I found that disappointing.
I beg to differ.
Susan Boyle is the black swan that proves that all swans are white.
She has no star quality whatsoever. She is the epitome of someone with no star quality. That was why she made it. Combined with a song that was all about a no-hoper having a dream (and being a Christian helped too). All the no-hopers in the world loved her because she was just like them. It will never happen again, she was a freak. And her album is complete pants and only bought by no-hopers. (Sorry if anyone here has bought the album and likes it. It IS complete pants though!)
Having said all that, her youtube appearence was amazingly good for a feelgood factor, and even I felt moved by it.
Agreed!
Susan Boyle is the black swan that proves that all swans are white.
She has no star quality whatsoever. She is the epitome of someone with no star quality. That was why she made it. Combined with a song that was all about a no-hoper having a dream (and being a Christian helped too). All the no-hopers in the world loved her because she was just like them. It will never happen again, she was a freak. And her album is complete pants and only bought by no-hopers. (Sorry if anyone here has bought the album and likes it. It IS complete pants though!)
Having said all that, her youtube appearence was amazingly good for a feelgood factor, and even I felt moved by it.
Agreed!
It struck me that in Soul Music, Pratchett in some ways satirizes the excesses and madness of "modern music" whether rock & roll or the like. But he also acknowledges that MUSIC is a magical force that can move the emotions in ways that are otherwise inexplicable. I am thinking, for example, not just of the band's concert, but of Buddy's last solo piece that transports all who hear it to a forgotten (if different) place--a home that brings warmth and joy. Then after only one book, he again turns to music, and once more spends much more time parodying it's excesses than examining the nature of "serious" music such as opera.
But opera is essentially Music, with singers who move around and tell a story. But the important thing in opera is the Music. And singers, like athletes, have to have certain types of physical equipment (extraordinary breathing capability, unusually fine vocal cords, etc.). And the people who write operas write MUSIC--not the "play" which provides only a framework on which the music appears. Last night I watched an incredible performance of Bizet's Carmen on Great Performances at the Met featuring a young new soprano, Elīna Garanča. It's not a role that Agnes could have played--especially as Elina emphasizes the sexuality and dancing of the major character in dazzling fashion. But it is the music which drives the production.
Pratchett, in this novel, gives some acknowledgment of the power of music (which is after all only separated from magic by two letters), while he tries to blend a satiric comedy with a mystery. But operas present love, greed, passion and death. In the case of opera, it is the music which elevates them while in other hands it can be the written language (which sings in it's own way) that stirs the emotions.
All of this goes to why it doesn't make a great deal of difference what the soloists of opera look like physically. What really matters is their voices. And the one time that Agnes really gets to sing an aria (to Dr. Underwood and accompanied by Andre), she leaves them both "blown away". That is real star quality. What Christine has is sex appeal and nothing more.
All of which has relatively little to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the book. I think that quite possibly the problem with the novel is that Pratchett tried (as he did in SM) to combine light comedy with an undeveloped exploration of the nature of the criminal and the suffering he causes to others because of his self-absorption. Pratchett will get much , much better at dealing with this kind of blind fanaticism (whether quasi-religious or simply greediness). That is why Thud!, which has some marvellous comic elements, is so much better than this book.
But opera is essentially Music, with singers who move around and tell a story. But the important thing in opera is the Music. And singers, like athletes, have to have certain types of physical equipment (extraordinary breathing capability, unusually fine vocal cords, etc.). And the people who write operas write MUSIC--not the "play" which provides only a framework on which the music appears. Last night I watched an incredible performance of Bizet's Carmen on Great Performances at the Met featuring a young new soprano, Elīna Garanča. It's not a role that Agnes could have played--especially as Elina emphasizes the sexuality and dancing of the major character in dazzling fashion. But it is the music which drives the production.
Pratchett, in this novel, gives some acknowledgment of the power of music (which is after all only separated from magic by two letters), while he tries to blend a satiric comedy with a mystery. But operas present love, greed, passion and death. In the case of opera, it is the music which elevates them while in other hands it can be the written language (which sings in it's own way) that stirs the emotions.
All of this goes to why it doesn't make a great deal of difference what the soloists of opera look like physically. What really matters is their voices. And the one time that Agnes really gets to sing an aria (to Dr. Underwood and accompanied by Andre), she leaves them both "blown away". That is real star quality. What Christine has is sex appeal and nothing more.
All of which has relatively little to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the book. I think that quite possibly the problem with the novel is that Pratchett tried (as he did in SM) to combine light comedy with an undeveloped exploration of the nature of the criminal and the suffering he causes to others because of his self-absorption. Pratchett will get much , much better at dealing with this kind of blind fanaticism (whether quasi-religious or simply greediness). That is why Thud!, which has some marvellous comic elements, is so much better than this book.
Talking about the actual crimes committed here. The basic crime starts as simply embezzlement, but rapidly becomes a series of gruesome murders. Andre seems to have been installed by the Watch to investigate, but he doesn't seem to have done much. One wonders what Sam Vimes thought about all of this.
The crime plot somewhat falls apart the more you think of it. Although clearly Salzella thinks he has committed the perfect crime and planted enough clues so that suspicion would fall on Walter. What Salzella doesn’t seem to have taken into account is the fact that he’s become obsessed with being the Ghost. I don’t think he’d ever have been able to stop and escape with the money.
The crime plot somewhat falls apart the more you think of it. Although clearly Salzella thinks he has committed the perfect crime and planted enough clues so that suspicion would fall on Walter. What Salzella doesn’t seem to have taken into account is the fact that he’s become obsessed with being the Ghost. I don’t think he’d ever have been able to stop and escape with the money.
This is definitely one of my least favorite DW books, and for me, a huge step backward in the "Witches" series from the mastery of "Lords and Ladies."
But, anyway, I am re-reading it as we speak, and two questions come to mind.
1. How did Granny Weatherwax know Mrs. Palm? Did she stay at her house in "Equal Rites" or do we assume she did (I remember very little about that book). If this bit was in "ER" then PTerry sets up a very nice little joke that both Granny and we, the reader, play on Nanny Ogg for knowing, for once, more than she does.
2. When Granny is playing poker with Death for the life of the baby, is it right to assume that Death 'knows' that his "four ones' really beat Granny's four queens, but he feigns losing out of respect for Granny's audacity? (There's a hint that Death winks knowingly.)
J-I-B
But, anyway, I am re-reading it as we speak, and two questions come to mind.
1. How did Granny Weatherwax know Mrs. Palm? Did she stay at her house in "Equal Rites" or do we assume she did (I remember very little about that book). If this bit was in "ER" then PTerry sets up a very nice little joke that both Granny and we, the reader, play on Nanny Ogg for knowing, for once, more than she does.
2. When Granny is playing poker with Death for the life of the baby, is it right to assume that Death 'knows' that his "four ones' really beat Granny's four queens, but he feigns losing out of respect for Granny's audacity? (There's a hint that Death winks knowingly.)
J-I-B
Yes, Granny stayed with Mrs Palm in ER. In that book, Granny was offered a chair in the university (and even an apartment). Unlikely as it may seem, maybe she visited A-M more often than we realise.
I have always assumed that Death did indeed know that his hand was better thsn Granny's. Perhaps this says a lot more about Death's fascination with humans and possibly his admiration of Granny's act in bargaining for the child's life.
I have always assumed that Death did indeed know that his hand was better thsn Granny's. Perhaps this says a lot more about Death's fascination with humans and possibly his admiration of Granny's act in bargaining for the child's life.
Jan Van Quirm said:
Or maybe they were playing aces as low *shrugs* Death just didn't want to take the kid and that was the excuse he needed
J-I-B
Let's be honest here - it is highly unlikely that Granny or anyone else could break Death's arm or any other part of him. Likewise it is highly unlikely that Death would have a back problem. He's an anthropomorphic personification - not a living being.
Terry is using this scene for comic value rather than suggesting that Granny could be any real threat to Death.
I'm sure from reading the passage that Death is deliberately allowing Granny to get her way. He's come for a life and takes the cow's life rather than the child's. This is due to Granny's intervention. He may have really won the game, but he bends the rules because he admires the way Granny has stood up to him.
Terry is using this scene for comic value rather than suggesting that Granny could be any real threat to Death.
I'm sure from reading the passage that Death is deliberately allowing Granny to get her way. He's come for a life and takes the cow's life rather than the child's. This is due to Granny's intervention. He may have really won the game, but he bends the rules because he admires the way Granny has stood up to him.
Tonyblack said:
Yes, Granny stayed with Mrs Palm in ER. In that book, Granny was offered a chair in the university (and even an apartment). Unlikely as it may seem, maybe she visited A-M more often than we realise.
I have always assumed that Death did indeed know that his hand was better thsn Granny's. Perhaps this says a lot more about Death's fascination with humans and possibly his admiration of Granny's act in bargaining for the child's life.
I have always assumed that Death did indeed know that his hand was better thsn Granny's. Perhaps this says a lot more about Death's fascination with humans and possibly his admiration of Granny's act in bargaining for the child's life.
I have a great deal of trouble with the whole "trip by coach" part of this novel, and especially the scene with Death. It serves no real purpose, although it makes it quite clear that Granny isn't intimidated by DEATH. Just why she makes the challenge puzzles me as much as it puzzles DEATH. It's almost as if she's at a place of deep depression and doesn't much care whether she lives or dies. When DEATH asks her about this, her response (are we talking or playing cards) is a deliberate refusal to answer the question. DEATH obviously thinks that Granny will cheat at the card game (hence the switching of cards). But it seems to me that in Witches Abroad, Nanny says about Granny's defeat of the cheating gamblers something to the effect of she never cheats herself--she uses headology to make them defeat themselves. If one assumes that's the case here, then as the cards were dealt, she had the winning hand as Aces beat Queens. And perhaps DEATH realizes that in a sense he has interfered with Luck by switching the hands.
I don't find this scene funny at all, nor can I see any particular function for it in the construction of the novel. If Pratchett put it in to get the joke about Granny's chiropractic "cure" of DEATH's bad shoulder--it a mistake in my book.
The further I get into this, the further I tend to agree with Swreader, not just on the scenes she mentioned, but on the whole use of Granny and Nanny in the book.
It's almost as if PTerry felt that a DW book wouldn't sell if the story was just about Agnes. He needed to make it a true "witches" book, which required featuring Granny and Nanny or the fans would balk.
In the other novels, the coven all have something to fight against, so their interactions and squabbles seem more 'natural.' Here, there is no real 'mystical enemy' for Granny and Nanny to battle against (unless you count a skinflint publisher as one), so they (and Death) seem to be used more for comic relief than anything else. In a sense, the two older witches take the narrative B-story roles--kind of like being the Fred and Nobby of the witches' world.
J-I-B
It's almost as if PTerry felt that a DW book wouldn't sell if the story was just about Agnes. He needed to make it a true "witches" book, which required featuring Granny and Nanny or the fans would balk.
In the other novels, the coven all have something to fight against, so their interactions and squabbles seem more 'natural.' Here, there is no real 'mystical enemy' for Granny and Nanny to battle against (unless you count a skinflint publisher as one), so they (and Death) seem to be used more for comic relief than anything else. In a sense, the two older witches take the narrative B-story roles--kind of like being the Fred and Nobby of the witches' world.
J-I-B
