Talk:Night Watch (Discworld)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discworld, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DiscworldWikipedia:WikiProject DiscworldTemplate:WikiProject DiscworldDiscworld articles

Novels: Fantasy Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force.

Ned Coates

I removed this paragraph added by MartinRe because I don't think that the Coates character is important enough to appear in a synopsis and because I don't see what's so surprising (or important) about his "From how far back?" comment. (The image in my mind here is 'Fierce warrior from ancient, barbarian times' which has been used for Vimes-in-action in previous books.) 85.182.9.134 12:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. The image in my mind when I read Coates's comment originally was a "you too?", but I may be reading too much into it. I think Coates has an interesting part in the book: he's the only one who knew the real Keel; he was a key revolutionary; he is unfraid of Carcer, argueing with him about harming young Vimes; When he resigns, Vimes/Keel talks to him about "revolutions always come around again" (circle of time reference?). Coates also dies in the battle just like Keel/Vimes. He's also very sure ("Yes. I can.") he can imagine what it would be like if Carcer was allowed to stay in this time. (understanding or foreknowledge?) I've have wondered whether Coates is a mirror of Vimes/Keel, only his task was to make sure the revolution took place correctly. All in all, probably a little too tenuous to have in the article, but I still feel there's more to Coates than meets the eye. MartinRe 15:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition by a vandal

The following piecew is removed, since it was added by an anon with many vandalism edits, hence this addition requires independent verification.

Young Vimes believes Vimes to be the real Keel, allowing Vimes to teach Young Vimes the lessons for which Vimes idolised Keel. Essentially this means that Vimes taught and idolised himself, not Keel.

The novel climaxes in the Revolution, hinted at since the start of the book. Vimes baracades a few streets to keep people safe from the rebels, but the baracades are pushed forward gradually during the night to encompass the surrounding streets, until Vimes is under control of more of Ankh-Morpork than the rebels.

mikka (t) 19:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The info is correct, so I placed it back. Djadek 17:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Lu Tze specifically tells Vimes in the book that Keel DID teach Vimes. The actual explanation is spread over several pages in my edition, but suffice it to say that Vimes is in a parallel universe of sorts. Hence, Vimes did not teach himself, but another incarnation of himself in this parallel universe. Watercleave (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Seconded Asdir (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parody of Les Mis

I see from the history that this was cut in the middle of a large and beneficial edit, but why is the book no longer regarded as a parody of Les Miserables? While the modified version ("A great deal of the plot is inspired by civil uprisings like the Paris Commune of 1871 and comparable ones, as depicted in Les Miserables, for example") is correct, the book has very strong ties to Les Mis in particular (see LSpace's comments) - while many are coincidental, the references to loaves of bread and the inverted definitions of justice imply a much stronger link. I'm not going to put it back in myself, but if this convinces anyone else then they can. Tyrhinis 10:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That entire section (along with most of this article in fact) is original research and should be sourced or expunged but I don't have the time or the energy to do either at the moment but just something to bring up. Cat-five - talk 02:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover the novel is rather somber in tone, especially for a Pratchett novel. Pratchess knows how to write parody, and this isn't an attempt to do so. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buh?

"It is stated that the event which caused Vimes and Carcer to be sent into the past was a major temporal shattering, the implication being the cause of Vimes going through time is that he was caught in the explosion at the same instant the glass clock struck and time froze in Thief of Time." That's a bit original, eh? Vitriol 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only a bit... they talk about a lightning bolt hitting a clock shop in Cunning Artificers and stopping all the clocks in the shop at once, which would tie in very strongly, and Lu-Tze's dialogue when he's explaining the situation to Vimes suggests that, if it's not happening as part of the fallout from TOT, then the Men in Saffron have managed to have another serious event pretty damn fast considering their previous record of competence. The fight that LZ and Lobsang find on the way to Jeremy's shop (where LZ warns him not to touch the hovering arrow) isn't mentioned, true, but Ankh-Morpork's a big city, I'm sure they can have more than one arrest at once. Tyrhinis 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want, you can cite the Annotated Pratchett File for support for the above statement. --K e rowyn ^{Leave a note} 19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilac

Could the lilac-wearing and the relatively non-bloody revolution be an allusion to the Portugese Carnation Revolution? What do you think? PsychoPiglet 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revolutionaries in the book used the lilacs as a method of identification. As far as I can tell from the article on the Carnation Revolution, the revolutionaries there were celebrating.

In any case, the reference isn't explicit, and it seems to me like it's rather unimportant. Watercleave (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that much of the events and images of Night Watch may owe more to those of the Paris Commune than to the Carnation Revolution.; they constructed makeshift barricades on the streets (without all the attendant humor found in Night Watch); some 147 members of the Commune were summarily shot and their bodies dumped into a pit at Paris' Père Lachaise Cemetery (where there is a memorial to them known as the Communards' Wall), and some 25,000 marchers in 1880 wore "immortal" red roses in their buttonholes while facing police.

While far from an explicit homage to the Paris Commune, I would argue that Night Watch is much closer to it than to the Carnation Revolution. -- Couillaud 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Life on Mars (TV series)

Somebody has remarked on Talk:Life on Mars (TV series) that Sam Tyler and Sam Vimes seem to have remarkably similar experiences. I don't think it's likely that one influenced the other, however, because the basic concept of Life on Mars seems to have been roughed out in the late 1990s, but the program wasn't made until the mid-noughties, whereas Pratchett seems to have conceived and written this 2002 novel in his usual timescale. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second this line of inquiry. LoM was written (originally) in ~1998, but not broadcast 'til 2006. Meantime, NW was published in 2002. Either it's a remarkable example of parallel development, or someone talked to someone. I wonder if Pratchett's been asked about it? Srain (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that Life On Mars has now turned out to be something completely different...Lots42 (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I got the exact same feeling when I heard the Radio Play version of the book. (I wonder if the Radio Play version tried to copy the style of "Life of Mars" as the introduction by Sam Vimes, is nearly identical to the introduction given by Sam Tyler in LoM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.167.5.135 (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Science Fiction

On the strength of what is this classified as Libertarian Science Fiction? I think it's miscategorized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.187.3 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of it winning the Prometheus Award in 2003, presumably. 205.167.180.130 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you may think of some libertarians, the Prometheus has gone to a surprising range of novels by a variety of authors, by no means all Randroids or even Friedmanites. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Night watch discworld.jpg

Image:Night watch discworld.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio Adaption

There's currently a serialised radio adaption on BBC Radio 4 - Does anyone have any info on that that can be added to the article? (Not a big diskworld fan, myself, but I was hooked after the first episode of the Radio play) 81.149.182.210 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What year?

In what year did the Glorious Revolution of the Twenty-Fifth of May take place? Can we tell? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Discworld uses a strange method of named years, and not numeric dates, as far as I can tell. FOr example, most of the books take place in the Century of the Fruitbat. Watercleave (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re write

I'm currently planning to rewrite and source this article, if anyone could provide any sources that'd be great, I'm specifically after stuff on development of the book, rather than reviews. Cheers! Rehevkor ✉ 18:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kidby tribute to Kirby

The last paragraph of the lede section, about the cover illustration of the British edition, included the following sentence:

Kidby pays tribute to the late artist by placing him in the picture, in the position where Rembrandt painted himself.^{[citation needed]}

I have changed it to

Kidby pays tribute to the late artist by placing him in the picture, in the position where Rembrandt is said to have painted himself.

removing the tag and adding a link to Talk:The_Night_Watch#comment_on_trivia_item.

That section discusses the hypothesis of Rembrandt's self-insertion:

First trivia item states: "Rembrandt cleverly included himself in the painting. In the background, slightly above and to the left of the Captain's head, all that is visible of him is an eye, a nose, part of a forehead, and his painter's beret." Agreed that trivia does not belong; though artist's self depiction in famous painting might fit in narrative and not be considered trivia. However, no citation is provided and the curatorial materials at the Rijksmuseum note that *some believe* this figure to be a self portrait, but experts are not in agreement about it.

The entire Trivia section has since been removed, sometime after being renamed "Other Representations". --Thnidu (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Night Watch (Discworld). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wrong assumption

background and publication section has rembrandts picture of a nightwatch which says in its memo: "The book's cover parodies Rembrandt's The Night Watch." this seems to be an erraneous assumption. the cover (picture at the top of the article) is a close remake, could be called a tribute, or reminiscence, or epigonism, whichever suits you but, has nothing satirical or caricaturistical about it, without wich theres no reason to call it a parody. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]