Thief of Time
In Discworld, time is a resource managed by the highly capable Monks of History. Everybody wants more time, which is why on Discworld only the experts can manage it. While everyone always talks about slowing down, one young horologist is about to do the unthinkable. He's going to stop. Well, stop time that is, by building the world's first truly accurate clock. Which means esteemed History Monk Lu-Tze and his apprentice Lobsang Ludd have to put on some speed to stop the timepiece before it starts. For if the perfect clock starts ticking, time, as we know it, will end. And then the trouble will really begin.
Stats for nerds
2recommend
17mentions
16people
2015–2026years
12% recommend88% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- I believe the solution was given by the great philosopher Pratchett*:
"Wen considered the nature of time and understood that the universe is, instant by instant, recreated anew. Therefore, he understood, there is in truth no past, only a memory of the past. Blink your eyes, and the world you see next did not exist when you closed them. Therefore, he said, the only appropriate state of the mind is surprise. The only appropriate state of the heart is joy. The sky you see now, you have never seen before. The perfect moment is now. Be glad of it."
- Terry Pratchett
(from Thief of Time - a remarkable book, IMO)
* / Wen the eternally surprised
- Terry Pratchett- I've re-read Thief of Time the most but they all work.
For poetry, Mary Oliver.
- “Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.”
― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time
- > EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS STAYS HAPPENED.
> “What kind of philosophy is that?”
> THE ONLY ONE THAT WORKS.
— Thief of Time (Pratchett)
- It’d fit right into Thief of Time by Pratchett - the monks literally measure and distribute time.
- No discussion of what books and why. It's just taken as granted that it's good to read lots of books, to be a reader.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But I also want to think critically about why I read books. I don't want to read books just so I can tell people I read lots of books.
I've concluded that I read for entertainment, to understand other people, and for community - to have something in common with other readers of that book. Three recent books:
The most recent book I read was Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett. Very much in the entertainment category, but also for community: it's nice to have something in common, shared reference points, something to talk about with all the nice people loving these books, including family.
Then a book Norwegian book called "Men who hate local history", which I bought because I was traveling alone with limited other entertainment, and had heard about it and wanted to know what it was about (understanding people). But its entertainment value was questionable, and by god, it has more "serious Norwegian literature" clichés than "genre books" (what these authors absolutely do not want to get associated with) have "genre clichés". It IS a genre, just not a very entertaining one. Put it down, unsure if I will finish this one.
I tried to read Stefan Zweig, "The world of yesterday". That was strictly "understanding people". "Famous Jewish playwrights of the final days Austro-Hungarian empire" are not people I would think I have much in common with, and I don't, and it at times makes it downright alienating reading. Like, I can see he was absolutely starstruck by the art and culture of his time and place, and I can see that this time and place was hugely influential and had profound impacts on our world today (I've seen it claimed you could theoretically meet Hitler, Stalin, Tito, Trotsky etc. on the street in Vienna in these years, as well as Freud and all the art world celebrities Zweig obsessed over). But I just can't say I feel that sense of wonder myself and man, is it bleak reading. I put it down indefinitely.
