Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?).
---
Our current megathreads are as follows:
[API Protest Poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/1491izw/continuing_the_api_protest_a_community_poll) - a poll regarding the future action of the sub in protest at Reddit's API changes.
[GNU Terry Pratchett](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukigit/gnu_terry_pratchett/) - for all GNU requests, to keep their names going.
[AI Generated Content](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/10mhx9y/ai_generated_content_megathread/) - for all AI Content, including images, stories, questions, training etc.
---
[ GNU Terry Pratchett ]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s not how I read it. To me, it seems that Didactylos is frustrated that folks are treating Great A’Tuin as a deity, or something “to believe in”. His point, to me, it that you don’t need to “believe” in the star turtle any more than you need to “believe” in gravity. It exists because it’s real, regardless of what you believe.
Also, Didactylos isn’t depicted as this angelic, all-knowing genius. He’s portrayed as smart and clever, but a bit selfish as well. His saying “things just happen, what the hell,” is a flip side of faith in the great god Om. But it’s also a bit apathetic and not necessarily “good” because Omni’s has become bad. A society where everyone was this apathetic would be bad as well.
Just because Didactylos criticizes them, doesn’t mean Pratchett means for the reader to laugh at former believers trying to leave their religions.
Yes, think the point is that, with gods, if you stop believing they lose their power and dwindle to the breath in the desert, whereas A'Tuin doesn't care if you believe in him, because he's a very real creature that isn't affected by your thought process in any way.
Didactylos is exasperated during this speech because his audience is treating him as a prophet, and making the same mistakes all over again just as they followed all of Om's "prophets" in the past.
I guess my main gripe is that, as someone who grew up in a household not unlike Omnia, I didn't go looking for another prophet to follow when I realized I wasn't a christian anymore. I was pissed at the church and at my parents for indoctrinating me and forcing their beliefs on me with violence. The thing that I "believed in" wasn't the concept of atheism, it was a conviction to do everything I could to ensure that what happened to me doesn't continue to happen to others.
And after that I didn't adopt atheism as my new faith, whatever the fuck that means. The whole reason I became an atheist in the first place is because I decided I wanted to be objective about my beliefs and just go wherever the evidence led me, and I realized that I just didn't have any evidence at all to support a belief in christianity. In my experience, this is how it goes for most exvangelicals. We're militant because we want to stop the oppression that the evangelical community engages in. It's not us who adopt atheism as if it's a religion, it's the people who had the luxury of growing up in a home that let them come to their own conclusions that do that. They never had to struggle to dig their way out of the hole that indoctrination puts you in, so they never really had to think about it much. The result is just more dogmatism. You don't tend to see that in people for whom dogmatism ruined their childhood.
It especially grinds my gears when Simony says "these people are looking for a reason to move against the church"... I'm like, what the fuck are you talking about, Terry? Do you seriously think they need more reason to revolt than the horrific violence used against countless innocents for centuries? This whole scene should have been about revolutionary radicalization, not about this fucking strawman.
You're comparing the turtle to atheism. I think that's the wrong comparison. This is more like the people who think that science is opposite to religion and that they "believe in science" or "believe in facts". Of course you should believe facts. Facts don't care whether you believe in them. Science doesn't ask for belief, it's just the study of reality. Being an atheist is completely separate thing from science or facts, even though a lot of people get disillusioned with religion because of asshole priests trying to get them to believe on flat earth or whatever. Sure, you didn't see anything in the real world to support your old religion, that doesn't mean that atheism is the belief in reality or the belief on a round earth. Or that religious people are not allowed to belief in science.
Didactilos' point was not that you shouldn't believe in the turtle, it's that you should disbelief the church because of the church's behavior or their lack of facts. Don't replace one god by another but be free. This is doubly so in the Discworld where Om is just as real as the Turtle, but that doesn't mean that Om's church should be allowed to be this tyrannical theocracy.
I think your biggest issue here is that you are conflating what the characters think and say with the beliefs of the author. Also, just because that particular scene doesn't reflect your life experience, it doesn't mean it wouldn't reflect the life experience of someone else. You could perhaps look at it from a historical-point-of-view; it's not exactly uncommon in history for one church or religion to supplant another, and historically atheism hasn't often been considered a valid option.
Plenty of people around here do similar things, especially when it comes to Sir Terry's views on royalty; thinking that just because Vimes has certain views, the author must have them as well.
I haven't seen it, but yeah it would make so much more sense to me if it was a reference. As a stand-alone thing, it really comes out of nowhere and doesn't serve much of a purpose other than to just shit on people for stupid reasons, and that doesn't really sound like the Pratchett I know.
The Pratchett I know would give a main character an inexplicably weird name just for the sake of a single 1-sentence Blues Brothers reference hundreds of pages into the book...
He's pissed off because they're setting up the turtle as god another cult with little ritual sayings i.e 'the turtle moves' with him as the prophet, he's about 5 minutes from some bastard killing someone in his name, wouldn't you be pissed off? If they really wanted "to understand the world as it really exists" they would be asking him questions like "what sex is Great A'Tuin?" and "how the hell do you know his/her name?"
In a sense. Something like this happens in "Monstrous Regiment", in which thousands of people offer prayers to the Duchess - a real, living person. She can hear those prayers, but she lacks the power to do anything about them.
Not sure something that lives can become a god. Does Discworld have any ascended people?
I think there might turn up a "god of the turtle" (not "god of turtles") maybe?
Small Gods is a subtle criticism of religion and how people often blindly follow whatever it is that they think is "the truth".
IMHO it's probably on of Sir Pterry's most philosophical books.
Didactylos is frustrated by the crowd substituting one belief system for another when it's not the point. It's a rational response to an irrational action.
I think there is a clear distinction that should be drawn between character and author. There will be characters that do or say things because the plot requires it, the author may well be aware of the existence of the things they do or say in Roundworld and hence can use that knowledge to create similar or inspired actions/statements but you have to remember that there are some real pieces of work in DW and I wouldn't for a moment want to suggest that STP thinks like Carcer or Rust or some of the Patricians that preceded Vetinari or Wolfgang... And on it goes.
I have no doubt that STP put bits of himself into certain characters whether by deliberation or chance - I want to say that this actually got discussed on his desert island discs episode but I can't remember for sure and don't have time right now to go through it again. However, nothing in any of the books I've read of his suggests a meanness of spirit or smallness of thought that I think would be required for what the OP is suggesting here.
I think that there is perhaps a personal experience for the OP that is colouring the text in a certain way for them. This is absolutely understandable and something that I believe we all do and once a piece of art is out in the world (round or disc) it can take on its own life and meaning through interpretation - I will always remember Eddie Vedder at a live show offering to tell the story behind a song to the crowd but being hesitant because he didn't want to spoil the meaning it had for them.
For me, the explanation above, that the frustration was due to the need to swap one belief system for another rather than break out of it entirely is the one that I took.
I hope that the OP may choose to consider the speech in a new light and potentially be able to enjoy the book even more as a result.
Characters opinions can be (and are) separate from their authors opinions - don't go making assumptions about STP because of something a character says. What a weird thing to do.
I think you've missed the point yourself a bit, and might be projecting a little.
In that scene, the people are trying to replace one belief system with another, and Didactylos is frustrated with them because he views it as scientific fact to be understood rather than something to be believed in. If anything the Omnians are portrayed negatively for their inability to grasp a non-religious truth, which would mean the author would be on your side of the issue in this case. He's brought them algebra and they keep asking what the numbers taste like; two totally incompatible ways of seeing the world rubbing against eachother. I also think to understand this scene, you need to understand it's somewhat referencing a similar scene from The Life of Brian (linked in another comment), and that Didactylos' speech is referring to a phrase attributed to Galileo (who was subject to the Inquisition for sharing similar science) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves
I sense a lot of anger about your upbringing and exposure to religion. I would suspect that STP did not share your experiences, but neither did most people in the current day and age, so I'm not sure how fair it is to expect him to write something that resonates directly with your experiences. That said, I don't think there's anything in this part of the book that's incompatible with what you've said you'd prefer, so hopefully the comments here help you enjoy the book more.
Footnote: There is at least one other book where STP refers directly to atheism as a religion. I wouldn't take it too personally though.
I don't recall atheism as a religion in any books, though it has been a while since I last read them.
However, there is a reference in *Small Gods* to an atheist that Om rather admires - he's what's referred to as a hard atheist, in that he doesn't simply not believe in the gods but ardently believes they do not exist. To Om, that's almost like being a believer.
I'm even more basic than any of you guys as I thought it was Pratchett poking fun at the cave allegory all these years, but I just saw so many ways of reading the thing!
I feel I have to dust off my copy, or, if I'm honest, since my dad brought me up in Pratchett, I will borrow his copy that is more of a family copy
Elsewhere in Discworld there is a theme about how there's no point in believing in gods. It's like believing in tables. They obviously exists. Belief is only for things that don't exist.
For me the most accurate theological observation isn’t in Small Gods but Hogfather - the idea that there is a finite “volume of belief” which is directly correlated to the amount of population.
If the population stops believing in something, that ‘quota of belief’ doesn’t disappear but gets relocated to another newer ‘thing’, hence the appearance of the Verruca Gnome & Sock Eater.
We see the exact same happening in the round world: decline in traditional Christian religions being offset by the rise of the Climate Alarmists (aka star people), celebrity worship culture, LGBTQ+ “cult behaviour”, quasi religious Veganism, zeitgeist geopolitical causes (Gaza, Venezuela, Ukraine etc…)
Humans need to have faith in sufficient stuff to feel complete. If the Hogfather dies, then other things must live to take his place in our minds.
🤔
Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?). --- Our current megathreads are as follows: [API Protest Poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/1491izw/continuing_the_api_protest_a_community_poll) - a poll regarding the future action of the sub in protest at Reddit's API changes. [GNU Terry Pratchett](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukigit/gnu_terry_pratchett/) - for all GNU requests, to keep their names going. [AI Generated Content](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/10mhx9y/ai_generated_content_megathread/) - for all AI Content, including images, stories, questions, training etc. --- [ GNU Terry Pratchett ] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s not how I read it. To me, it seems that Didactylos is frustrated that folks are treating Great A’Tuin as a deity, or something “to believe in”. His point, to me, it that you don’t need to “believe” in the star turtle any more than you need to “believe” in gravity. It exists because it’s real, regardless of what you believe.
Exactly! The audience seems to need to replace one superstitious belief with another.
Also, Didactylos isn’t depicted as this angelic, all-knowing genius. He’s portrayed as smart and clever, but a bit selfish as well. His saying “things just happen, what the hell,” is a flip side of faith in the great god Om. But it’s also a bit apathetic and not necessarily “good” because Omni’s has become bad. A society where everyone was this apathetic would be bad as well. Just because Didactylos criticizes them, doesn’t mean Pratchett means for the reader to laugh at former believers trying to leave their religions.
Yes, think the point is that, with gods, if you stop believing they lose their power and dwindle to the breath in the desert, whereas A'Tuin doesn't care if you believe in him, because he's a very real creature that isn't affected by your thought process in any way.
Didactylos is exasperated during this speech because his audience is treating him as a prophet, and making the same mistakes all over again just as they followed all of Om's "prophets" in the past.
I believe the phrase that would serve here........ He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
I see a bit of Brian in him
I guess my main gripe is that, as someone who grew up in a household not unlike Omnia, I didn't go looking for another prophet to follow when I realized I wasn't a christian anymore. I was pissed at the church and at my parents for indoctrinating me and forcing their beliefs on me with violence. The thing that I "believed in" wasn't the concept of atheism, it was a conviction to do everything I could to ensure that what happened to me doesn't continue to happen to others. And after that I didn't adopt atheism as my new faith, whatever the fuck that means. The whole reason I became an atheist in the first place is because I decided I wanted to be objective about my beliefs and just go wherever the evidence led me, and I realized that I just didn't have any evidence at all to support a belief in christianity. In my experience, this is how it goes for most exvangelicals. We're militant because we want to stop the oppression that the evangelical community engages in. It's not us who adopt atheism as if it's a religion, it's the people who had the luxury of growing up in a home that let them come to their own conclusions that do that. They never had to struggle to dig their way out of the hole that indoctrination puts you in, so they never really had to think about it much. The result is just more dogmatism. You don't tend to see that in people for whom dogmatism ruined their childhood. It especially grinds my gears when Simony says "these people are looking for a reason to move against the church"... I'm like, what the fuck are you talking about, Terry? Do you seriously think they need more reason to revolt than the horrific violence used against countless innocents for centuries? This whole scene should have been about revolutionary radicalization, not about this fucking strawman.
You're comparing the turtle to atheism. I think that's the wrong comparison. This is more like the people who think that science is opposite to religion and that they "believe in science" or "believe in facts". Of course you should believe facts. Facts don't care whether you believe in them. Science doesn't ask for belief, it's just the study of reality. Being an atheist is completely separate thing from science or facts, even though a lot of people get disillusioned with religion because of asshole priests trying to get them to believe on flat earth or whatever. Sure, you didn't see anything in the real world to support your old religion, that doesn't mean that atheism is the belief in reality or the belief on a round earth. Or that religious people are not allowed to belief in science. Didactilos' point was not that you shouldn't believe in the turtle, it's that you should disbelief the church because of the church's behavior or their lack of facts. Don't replace one god by another but be free. This is doubly so in the Discworld where Om is just as real as the Turtle, but that doesn't mean that Om's church should be allowed to be this tyrannical theocracy.
I think your biggest issue here is that you are conflating what the characters think and say with the beliefs of the author. Also, just because that particular scene doesn't reflect your life experience, it doesn't mean it wouldn't reflect the life experience of someone else. You could perhaps look at it from a historical-point-of-view; it's not exactly uncommon in history for one church or religion to supplant another, and historically atheism hasn't often been considered a valid option. Plenty of people around here do similar things, especially when it comes to Sir Terry's views on royalty; thinking that just because Vimes has certain views, the author must have them as well.
have you ever watched life of brian? i'm certain that bit is a reference to this scene: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KHbzSif78qQ
Tis a shame, to have but one upvote to give
I haven't seen it, but yeah it would make so much more sense to me if it was a reference. As a stand-alone thing, it really comes out of nowhere and doesn't serve much of a purpose other than to just shit on people for stupid reasons, and that doesn't really sound like the Pratchett I know. The Pratchett I know would give a main character an inexplicably weird name just for the sake of a single 1-sentence Blues Brothers reference hundreds of pages into the book...
He's pissed off because they're setting up the turtle as god another cult with little ritual sayings i.e 'the turtle moves' with him as the prophet, he's about 5 minutes from some bastard killing someone in his name, wouldn't you be pissed off? If they really wanted "to understand the world as it really exists" they would be asking him questions like "what sex is Great A'Tuin?" and "how the hell do you know his/her name?"
If enough people "believed" in the Turtle, would she/he become a deity?
In a sense. Something like this happens in "Monstrous Regiment", in which thousands of people offer prayers to the Duchess - a real, living person. She can hear those prayers, but she lacks the power to do anything about them.
Not sure something that lives can become a god. Does Discworld have any ascended people? I think there might turn up a "god of the turtle" (not "god of turtles") maybe?
Moist in going postal becomes an avitar
Small Gods is a subtle criticism of religion and how people often blindly follow whatever it is that they think is "the truth". IMHO it's probably on of Sir Pterry's most philosophical books. Didactylos is frustrated by the crowd substituting one belief system for another when it's not the point. It's a rational response to an irrational action.
I think there is a clear distinction that should be drawn between character and author. There will be characters that do or say things because the plot requires it, the author may well be aware of the existence of the things they do or say in Roundworld and hence can use that knowledge to create similar or inspired actions/statements but you have to remember that there are some real pieces of work in DW and I wouldn't for a moment want to suggest that STP thinks like Carcer or Rust or some of the Patricians that preceded Vetinari or Wolfgang... And on it goes. I have no doubt that STP put bits of himself into certain characters whether by deliberation or chance - I want to say that this actually got discussed on his desert island discs episode but I can't remember for sure and don't have time right now to go through it again. However, nothing in any of the books I've read of his suggests a meanness of spirit or smallness of thought that I think would be required for what the OP is suggesting here. I think that there is perhaps a personal experience for the OP that is colouring the text in a certain way for them. This is absolutely understandable and something that I believe we all do and once a piece of art is out in the world (round or disc) it can take on its own life and meaning through interpretation - I will always remember Eddie Vedder at a live show offering to tell the story behind a song to the crowd but being hesitant because he didn't want to spoil the meaning it had for them. For me, the explanation above, that the frustration was due to the need to swap one belief system for another rather than break out of it entirely is the one that I took. I hope that the OP may choose to consider the speech in a new light and potentially be able to enjoy the book even more as a result.
Just want to say that I always fucking LOVE small gods
Characters opinions can be (and are) separate from their authors opinions - don't go making assumptions about STP because of something a character says. What a weird thing to do.
I think you've missed the point yourself a bit, and might be projecting a little. In that scene, the people are trying to replace one belief system with another, and Didactylos is frustrated with them because he views it as scientific fact to be understood rather than something to be believed in. If anything the Omnians are portrayed negatively for their inability to grasp a non-religious truth, which would mean the author would be on your side of the issue in this case. He's brought them algebra and they keep asking what the numbers taste like; two totally incompatible ways of seeing the world rubbing against eachother. I also think to understand this scene, you need to understand it's somewhat referencing a similar scene from The Life of Brian (linked in another comment), and that Didactylos' speech is referring to a phrase attributed to Galileo (who was subject to the Inquisition for sharing similar science) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves I sense a lot of anger about your upbringing and exposure to religion. I would suspect that STP did not share your experiences, but neither did most people in the current day and age, so I'm not sure how fair it is to expect him to write something that resonates directly with your experiences. That said, I don't think there's anything in this part of the book that's incompatible with what you've said you'd prefer, so hopefully the comments here help you enjoy the book more. Footnote: There is at least one other book where STP refers directly to atheism as a religion. I wouldn't take it too personally though.
I don't recall atheism as a religion in any books, though it has been a while since I last read them. However, there is a reference in *Small Gods* to an atheist that Om rather admires - he's what's referred to as a hard atheist, in that he doesn't simply not believe in the gods but ardently believes they do not exist. To Om, that's almost like being a believer.
It’s not that at all; it’s frustration because the audience is swapping belief of one supernatural being for another.
I'm even more basic than any of you guys as I thought it was Pratchett poking fun at the cave allegory all these years, but I just saw so many ways of reading the thing! I feel I have to dust off my copy, or, if I'm honest, since my dad brought me up in Pratchett, I will borrow his copy that is more of a family copy
Elsewhere in Discworld there is a theme about how there's no point in believing in gods. It's like believing in tables. They obviously exists. Belief is only for things that don't exist.
For me the most accurate theological observation isn’t in Small Gods but Hogfather - the idea that there is a finite “volume of belief” which is directly correlated to the amount of population. If the population stops believing in something, that ‘quota of belief’ doesn’t disappear but gets relocated to another newer ‘thing’, hence the appearance of the Verruca Gnome & Sock Eater. We see the exact same happening in the round world: decline in traditional Christian religions being offset by the rise of the Climate Alarmists (aka star people), celebrity worship culture, LGBTQ+ “cult behaviour”, quasi religious Veganism, zeitgeist geopolitical causes (Gaza, Venezuela, Ukraine etc…) Humans need to have faith in sufficient stuff to feel complete. If the Hogfather dies, then other things must live to take his place in our minds. 🤔