I re-read CJ a while back and I've come to believe that the dialog between these two characters is the finest Pratchett has ever wrote. He manages to cover such deep ideas in just a handfull of stentances. I love the way that Granny seemed to turn whatever Oats said or believed on his head with one simple line. I loved the way the characters interacted with each other. This was definalty the best section of the book and i think one of the best ever. What do you guys think?
I've also just finished this book too. I will have top agree with you Rinso. I found it quite refreshing there at the end when Granny was a bit sad to know that all the words were gone and kept asking if he had a prayer book or something. I git the feeling that she finally understood what he was talking about. I found some of the dialouge a but frusterating, like trying to read a private conversation. For example, when Granny finds out that Oats had heard her talking in her sleep. I wanted more information and it just left it. I would've liked to have Granny or Oats explain what when on just then. Maybe I'm just a bit slow. It usually takes me a couple of reads to get everything in a pTerry book and that was my first time reading that. Great book.
The dialogue between them was some of Terry's best, imo. The view we get of Oats during that whole diificult time was handled so well, too. Oats was a man of faith who really lived the essence of his faith. It wasn't all facade and blind "faith". You could see why the two of them had a growing respect for each other.
... I definitely need to re-read that dialogue again... But one of the points that stuck with me for YEARS after I read it the first time was "There ain't no gray - just white that got grubby". I'm normally a wishy-washy, trying-to-see-everyone's-point-of-view kind of person, and this was a serious blow against my philosophy
Mightily Oats is one of my favourite characters, and this has long been one of my favourite excerpts. I do find Granny frustrating though; her inability to change or recognise the other person's way of thinking is like the most dogmatic of fundamentalists I've come across (which I'm sure she recognised in herself when she said she'd be a holy terror as an Omnian). The moment when Om burns the book as an act of faith is one of my favourite moments in fiction.
What do you mean by burning it as an act of faith? For me, though, the idea was inspired by the book, it was more an act of practicality-he needed something that could burn? What I really liked about that bit was after he’d burned the book and Granny was questioning him about how it must have been hard for him to burn all those words. I liked his calm reaction, did he say something like ‘the good ones don’t burn’? I seen this as both a time when Granny learns that there is more to Oats faith than just words and also the journey, where Oats systematically loses all the pyshical items that represent his faith- the book of words, the coller and hat, the holy Om Pendant. By losing these things he loses the easy focus of his believes (symbols are easier to believe it) it also freed him from the dogma that troubled him, now he was able to find out what he [b:206f8cca93]truly[/b:206f8cca93] believes. And it turns out that he does believe. But I think that only by losing his religion he confirmed his faith. I like that idea
[quote:6e6d6e7a5b="Rincewind"]What do you mean by burning it as an act of faith? For me, though, the idea was inspired by the book, it was more an act of practicality-he needed something that could burn? [/quote:6e6d6e7a5b] You're sort of getting at what I meant in your second paragraph. Oats realises that what his faith is [i:6e6d6e7a5b]about[/i:6e6d6e7a5b] is not the book, but [i:6e6d6e7a5b]doing[/i:6e6d6e7a5b] the things in the book. The book tells you how to live. Burning a book is normally an act of defiance against its contents. But in this case, it is a confirmation and validation of the book's contents. Oats is making the preservation of human life more important than the preservation of religious structure - which is exactly what post-Brutha Omnianism is all about. Or should be. That is the realisation Oats makes, thanks to Granny, and that is what he is confirming through his action. Burning the book is an act of faith because it is a confirmation of what he believes in; he is recognising the book as having the power to save lives at the most practical level. He is seeing that what he believes in is more than just a pile of paper, and that it therefore doesn't matter if the paper burns, because what he believes in will still remain. It is also a confirmation of a more Granny-style belief; do the best you can with what you've got, even to the extent of doing the unthinkable. Burning the book is a statement of belief in all these things. That is why it's an act of faith, rather than a denial of faith. (And, by the way, discussing fictional theology is geeky.)
I agree with Grace fully. This is exactly how I saw that particular bit when I read the book. I must say I liked that part very much.
[quote:b18346b2b8="Buzzfloyd"][quote:b18346b2b8="Rincewind"]What do you mean by burning it as an act of faith? For me, though, the idea was inspired by the book, it was more an act of practicality-he needed something that could burn? [/quote:b18346b2b8] You're sort of getting at what I meant in your second paragraph. Oats realises that what his faith is [i:b18346b2b8]about[/i:b18346b2b8] is not the book, but [i:b18346b2b8]doing[/i:b18346b2b8] the things in the book. The book tells you how to live. Burning a book is normally an act of defiance against its contents. But in this case, it is a confirmation and validation of the book's contents. Oats is making the preservation of human life more important than the preservation of religious structure - which is exactly what post-Brutha Omnianism is all about. Or should be. That is the realisation Oats makes, thanks to Granny, and that is what he is confirming through his action. Burning the book is an act of faith because it is a confirmation of what he believes in; he is recognising the book as having the power to save lives at the most practical level. He is seeing that what he believes in is more than just a pile of paper, and that it therefore doesn't matter if the paper burns, because what he believes in will still remain. It is also a confirmation of a more Granny-style belief; do the best you can with what you've got, even to the extent of doing the unthinkable. Burning the book is a statement of belief in all these things. That is why it's an act of faith, rather than a denial of faith. (And, by the way, discussing fictional theology is geeky.)[/quote:b18346b2b8] Well said! I had to laugh when I saw your remark about "geeky", though! I remember when reading scifi/fantasy was considered "geeky", though I'm not sure the word was in use back then. If you were a girl who read those genres, it was even worse! Seriously, this is actually part of what puts Terry above most other authors, in my opinion. Along with humor, mystery, quick pacing, in-depth charaterizations, Terry's observations about human nature, and all of its bits, are so often right on target. Using his books, people could get into some really good discussions about religion/theology/faith, sociology, psychology, and just about anything else that makes people tick!
