trusting authors and being rewarded

I am an easy reader, a trusting reader.  When I start a book, I have a shining, innate belief in the skill of the author.  Every dangling bit will be addressed  somehow in the end.  This question I have, or this line of dialogue that just doesn't make sense in the world of the story: these are here for a reason.  I trust the author!  It is really gratifying when that trust is rewarded.  And pretty rare.

I've been reading this series for a while, and there were these moments of jarring incongruousness, flashes of something that just didn't fit, moments of unanticipated tenderness that really threw me for a loop in the midst of this incredibly dark and intensely brutal story.  And this time I had the gratifying experience of watching things play out in accordance with those observations I had made.  I was thrilled.  It wasn't the twist I was anticipating, but it was a twist (two actually, by golly, and they were doozies! 

Of course, I immediately went back and re-read everything in the light of each new set of revelations (not a time-consuming task since we're early in the prologue, still, apparently), and it was really glorious.  There are still lots of questions (so many questions), but I feel like I can trust this author to sensibly address them in the future. 

Not that I'm expecting perfection.  I can fully trust an author right up until they totally bungle the ending and still feel pleased with the overall experience (if exasperated that the ending funked).  I am not looking for the perfect book, the flawless author.  Or maybe I am, and that quest is what keeps me reading the varying degrees of successfully-told stories around me.   Maybe I should say I don't demand perfection all the time, but I love it when I see it.  So I keep looking for it and finding brilliant flashes of it, and that is why I keep reading.

Jenny Lawson, partner in insomnia

You know what's good to read when you are having one of those Really Bad Nights where sleep is just not happening at all?  Let's Pretend This Never Happened by Jenny Lawson.  Maybe it's not, actually, a good book to read in that situation because it is hilarious (if you are of Jenny's bent) and will make you laugh, and this will do chemical things that make you happy and awake.  But that's just it: if you are going to be awake all night, you might as well be happy about something.  Then, as an added bonus, when you are having difficulty with your impulse control the next day due to sleep deprivation, you can just start giggling randomly about something she said that was laden with profanity and thus unsafe to repeat at work.  Several times.  Just try not to do it in meetings.

When a literary festival takes over your month

I was a reader at the first reading of a month-long literary festival, and it has been taking over my life.  It was organized by a friend of mine, and he's invited a truly staggering number of mutual acquaintances to take part.  This means I have been spending a lot of time in coffee shops around the area hearing writers I already liked and finding new writers I've never heard before.  It also means I haven't been home most evenings to write for my blogs.  I feel like a real slacker.  But I've been writing a lot.

Hearing numerous voices in all sorts of genres does that to me: it makes me pay attention to the words of others, and it makes my brain fizz with words and ideas and forms and topics I want to write about.  Hearing new work from writers I know makes me feel more a part of a community.  I talk to people I haven't seen since that class 6 years ago.  (Okay, mostly I think about talking to them.)  I am inspired again by the things that are important in their lives, the things they write and think about, and the ways they share these things with the world.

And the new voices.  That hilarious zombie piece by the guy in his 70s, the music of spoken word poets from Guinea, that essay about why fiction writers suck at life, or the piece about the travails of being a thug-ish husband forced to wear a shirt with sleeves when being dragged along by his wife to meet the potential Doula (he got ice cream as a reward).  The voices all swirl together.

There is not a single reader who has left me without some phrase or image to write down and mull over.  This is a feast, and I am thankful for its bounty.  So I may lie a bit and back date some of the posts for this month that are based on what I wrote in my notebook but never put in here.  Indulge me.  This dream world will only last for a couple more weeks, and then I will be left with the memories and the notes and the urge to read and think and edit and write, which can only be a benefit here, right?

Why you should keep writing

"Keep writing and submitting and asking and trying, but don’t forget that the joy of it is in the simple movement of pen over paper. Of finding the exact right word. Of finding yourself carried into the next paragraph by some wild thought. Of getting a new, startling glimpse of the holy. Publication may come, or it may not, but it will never get better than this." - Addie Zierman

Amen.

Why marathoning a show is not always a good idea

I watched most of the first season of the Big Bang Theory over the course of a couple of weeks.  I enjoyed the show, but I noticed something kind of odd.  In this marathon--and back when I marathoned Firefly--I began to suspect that episodic shows with multiple writers (most of them for weekly television series, I would imagine) tend to seem kind of scattered.  I didn't comb through scientifically, but there seems to be a pattern where certain episodes play up certain facets of certain characters, and I wonder if the episodes that play up the same thing are by the same writers.  I don't know if some writers just like certain characters or feel that certain sides of those characters don't get enough screen time, but the overall combination can seem oddly uneven when watched en masse.

I hesitate to say that this makes the whole seem artificial because by nature these things are artificial: they're TV shows about fictional people, but maybe this is why shows are still often played weekly: people don't nit-pick about this sort of thing when there's a whole week of life in between brief viewings of these fictional lives.

While Firefly was definitely more obvious in this regard, it's only fair to point out that it was also shorter in terms of episodes, so maybe the episodes that would have helped even things out never got made.

Are there any shows where you've noticed this disparity between character continuity in different episodes?  Do you care?

Three on stories

 

"But more importantly, without any context any description I gave you would read like an essay. Sure I could explain some of the lost pagan rites from Vint. But without context and narrative, our ability to care about such things is dramatically reduced.
 
"That’s why we need stories."

- Patrick Rothfuss

"So much of real religions lie in their stories, their parables, their prayers, their songs, their rituals. That’s what I set out to create for my werewolf culture."

- Rhiannon Held

"I have some pretty highfalutin’ ideas about the value of storytelling, including a deeply held belief that it is through stories that we (humans) share the most vital truths about ourselves and the universe we live in. I honestly believe that storytelling, in all its forms, is the most important thing we do as a species. So with that in mind, certainly cross-cultural storytelling can be an important tool for understanding each other."

- Melinda Beasi

A little John Scalzi on what aspiring writers should read

"This suggestion is actually more difficult to follow than you might think. People like to read what they like, and don’t like to read what they don’t like. That’s fine if all you want to be is a reader, but if you want to be a writer, you don’t have the luxury of just sticking to the stuff that merely entertains you. Writing that’s not working for you is still working for someone; take a look and see if you can find out why. Alternately, pinpoint why it doesn’t work. Fact is, you can learn as much from writers you don’t like as you can from writers you do — and possibly more, because you’re not cutting them slack, like you would your favorite writers."  - John Scalzi

Why We Need Stories

"But more importantly, without any context any description I gave you would read like an essay. Sure I could explain some of the lost pagan rites from Vint. But without context and narrative, our ability to care about such things is dramatically reduced.

"That’s why we need stories."

- Patrick Rothfuss

This sounds like why my sister hated the Silmarillion.  Then again, sometimes you want the info so badly that you'd prefer to have it in any form.  And when an author takes as long to write (admittedly great) novels . . .  Well, stories are amazing, but the facts are better than nothing.  Your thoughts?

Falling in love with onions and other mysteries of reading

I am reading The Supper of the Lamb and falling in love with onions.  I used to hate onions.  I started liking them in high school when I was working a fast food job, and I found out they could add a lot of flavor to my employee discount chicken sandwiches.  I haven't looked back since.  Reading an entire chapter about them, however, did not sound immediately appealing.  I mean, I'm not a cook.  But, then, Capon's book is not wholly a cook book.  It's a sort of love letter to food or a theology of food.  You probably don't have to cook to enjoy it; you just need to have a soul. Everything can be redeemed and redeeming if you look at it closely enough.

“First, a principle of attention, simply that.  A faith that if we look and look, we will be surprised and we will be rewarded.” – Mark Doty

Should I be falling in love with food I can't prepare, cook, or (sometimes even) enjoy?  Won't it just make me more miserable as I stick to easy-to-prepare food and cafeteria food since it's really all I can manage with my hands in the shape they're in?  Should I risk loving things I can't have? 

"Sometimes you have to watch somebody love something before you can love it yourself." - Donald Miller in Blue Like Jazz

Does it matter?  The love lasts as long as the book, and then a new love will likely take its place.  No one will have been harmed, nothing real lost.  This is not a bad way to live.  For a short time, I can dream of onions in all their glory.  And then on to the next dream.

Something I learned while reading a lot of reviews for the same book

Sometimes people don't like your book because

• they don't get it
• they get it, but they don't want to (bad mood)
• your characters are too realistic
• they don't understand why your characters are stylized
• they missed your point
• you killed a character they liked (and they will never ever forgive you)
• they're immature (they think "the only people who would like this book are 12-year-old girls" is actually some sort of serious review/response)
• your characters remind them of people they know (and dislike)
• they've never met anyone like your characters and think such people don't exist
• your book causes them to make conclusions they don't like
• they may not have read the same book (seriously, sometimes I wonder about this)
• they have issues (and are trying to make their issues your issues)
• your book challenges them to think in ways that make them uncomfortable

Any to add?

Zevin on what can help make a good writer

Oh, John Scalzi's blog, where you can hear writers talk about writing and their books from all sorts of angles.  I read Elsewhere by Gabrielle Zevin when I got the amazing chance to help a professor prep for a class.  The world was odd, and the characters were sympathetic even when they were making really bad choices.  There were lots of important issues pondered sideways.  It was great.  So when Mr. Scalzi's blog had a post from her in his Big Idea segment, I knew it would be great, too.  It was.  She wrote:

"And you ought to read some current events every now and again. And you ought to read books that aren’t necessarily the kind of things you like. (Because it turns out that literature occasionally aspires to a goal other than to make you like it.) And, if you really, really want to write a book, you’ll probably need to discover an aptitude for being alone and you might even have to get off the Internet a couple of hours a day. FACT: Books take slightly longer than tweets to write." 

and

"I have to love a concept enough to want to write it, but love is not enough. The fear is what keeps me engaged at two in the morning."

Check out the whole post and maybe even her wild new book set in a world you have to read about to believe . . .

Where do your rights end?

"No one has the right to live without being shocked. 
No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. 
Nobody has to read this book. 
Nobody has to pick it up. 
Nobody has to open it. 
And if you open it and read it, you don't have to like it. 
And if you read it and you dislike it, you don't have to remain silent about it. 
You can write to me,
you can complain about it,
you can write to the publisher,
you can write to the papers,
you can write your own book. 
You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. 
No one has the right to stop it being published, or bought, or sold or read."  
- Philip Pullman

 Your thoughts?

Which authors would you thank?

Patrick Rothfuss was not posting on his blog for a while.  Honestly, I have been too busy working two jobs to really even notice.  We both have good excuses not to be writing as much as we might want to, but I think his is better.  As much as we want the writers we love to spend all their time writing their next book so we can read it sooner, it's important that we realize they may have very good reasons not to be meeting our demands. 

Most authors aren't as forthcoming about it as Rothfuss is.  Rothfuss' honesty is one of the reasons why he's one of my favorite authors.  His skill is one of the reasons why publishers and readers are willing to cut him slack as we slaver impatiently for his next book, which will be a million pages long.  I am always willing to wait a bit longer if the result is something worth the wait.  Whether the reason is writer's block or the illness of a family member, cut your favorite author some slack.  Maybe write to thank him or her without asking, "More, please?"

Speaking of which, I need to write that thank you letter to Lois McMaster Bujold (one of my other favorite authors).  It is Thanksgiving this week, after all . . .

Which authors would you write thank you letters to if you had the time and the address?

Look, Ma, I'm in a Category, a haphazard meditation on something, Part 3 of 5

This is the third part of a sprawling, 5-part reflection started by what I found at this link.  Last time I thought a bit about about Religion and Diversity.  I challenged the integrity of people and the fiction they're willing to accept.

Speaking of acceptance, I have this other blog where I talk about my cheerful acceptance of my lack of desire to have sex with anyone.  I jokingly refer to myself as pretty much asexual.  I had no idea I was part of an actual acronym.

Nurul says: September 13, 2011 at 10:19 am

"Ooh, is that A in your QUILTBAG stands for asexual? Because if yes then thank goodness, someone remembers us! It seems like the world refuses to acknowledge that we exist."

Simple as that, apparently I have been categorized.  Now that I know the category exists, I cannot unknow it, so maybe I should find out about it. 

S.O. says: September 13, 2011 at 2:36 pm

there’s a few discussion communities on this topic:
http://group-x.dreamwidth.org/
http://asexual-fandom.dreamwidth.org/
http://asexuality.dreamwidth.org/

There's even a Facebook group.  Hmmmm.  Is this a sign of the Apocalypse?

As amazing as it is that I am suddenly in a category with a Facebook group, I was more amazed when one of the commenters said there was actually a YA book or two with a prominent asexual character (Kevin from Guardian of the Dead and the protagonist of Elizabeth Bear’s Dust).  Honestly, I never thought there would be a YA book with a prominent asexual character if I didn't write it.

Who would have thought it?!  Aren't YA books (and our culture) so driven by the idea that sex is a biological necessity (and that hormones rule all when one is a teenager) that one might wonder what teen would want to read a book where there was no possibility of sex at all?  I mean, what would be the point?  I think I'll have to read these books to find out whether the other characters provide the requisite sexual lust.  I promise I'm not really this cynical; I'm exaggerating a bit.

It's true there are plenty of fictional examples of teens making good and bad lust-related choices.  What was missing were fictional examples of people who didn't even play that game as teenagers.  I sort of assumed they didn't exist except as the "broken" characters this commenter below described.

T. Arkenberg says: September 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm

"As an asexual reader I’d feel most recognized if a character specifically identifies as not having sexual attraction to anyone, or as not intending to have any relationships and as being satisfied with that. Sometimes you’ll get a character who doesn’t want romance, but they’re often portrayed as ‘broken’ or coming down from a bad relationship, and they’ll be turned around by the right potential lover. An asexual character doesn’t need to be ‘healed’."

You know, that would have been kind of nice for me to read about when I was younger.  I never really had any role models of contented celibacy, real or fictional.  All the single people I knew considered themselves to be in (the sometimes long) transition to a state of non-singlehood.  (Or else they considered themselves utter failures as human beings despite the fact that they were wonderfully amazing people.)  I watched some of those people and wondered if they were just going through the motions of what was expected by their various cultures, like, maybe they didn't really want to have a boyfriend/girlfriend, but the culture had conditioned them to think that they were broken if they were not half of a whole, that if they did not feel this need, it was because of something they lacked that they needed to seek out, which created a false sense of longing.  I still wonder that.

I personally spent too much time combating those sad, sympathetic looks from otherwise intelligent folks who pitied me the brokenness they perceived even as I rejoiced in the freedom I had from certain kinds of drama they endured.  The idea of someone else being contentedly celibate never crossed our radars.

I wonder what (if any) difference if would have made for me if I had encountered anyone like me in the fictionverses.  I wonder if it really would have made any difference to be given permission to exist as I did.  I mean, I never really asked for permission.  (Or forgiveness, for that matter.)  But teens who aren't quite as self-assured/self-contained as I was, maybe they need a fictional trailblazer to lead the way.  Maybe they need to know that they actually have options other than the one they've been given in order for them to consider their situations and decide for themselves what option to choose . . .

What do you think?  Do you know any other folks who are in my category?  Do you know any who might have been if not for peer and societal pressure?  Do you think the existence of an asexual fictional character would have given them some sort of permission?

Stay tuned for Part 4 Who's Giving Your Kid Permission next week . . .

Religion and Diversity, a haphazard meditation on something, Part 2 of 5

This is part 2 of a 5-part series kicked off by this post.  Please pardon the draft-yness.

-----------

In the early responses to this kerfuffle, I came across the following comment, which made me happy.

"MM says:
September 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm

"What’s really needed is more authors willing to tackle gay-related viewpoints that don’t conform to the mainstream. The views and struggles of those who leave the lifestyle/choose to go on with their lives from a Christian standpoint and not give into gay urges and who are ex-gays should not be avoided or ignored. I can’t blame the libraries on that one, because I have a strong feeling that not many authors are willing to go there. But these viewpoints do exist and they need to be tackled. Libraries shouldn’t be afraid to get the ones that do come out, though, if they really want to be unbiased and cover all viewpoints. The same actually goes for nonfiction as well…there aren’t nearly enough.. . ."

And then this comment (and the subsequent slightly hysterical one bashing the post, which I will not repeat) made me so very sad.

"Editor’s note: I’m allowing this comment through because I think it’s honestly meant and not a troll. I request that commenters who disagree refrain from responding directly. Please keep this comments section a space for people to support diversity–even diversity of viewpoints you may find objectionable–and discuss the topic at hand."  MM 9/12

The problem being addressed included a lack of religious leanings in a typical YA protagonist, and now those who agreed that this was a problem were branding what seemed to me to be a respectful, enthusiastic, and in-tune-with-the-spirit-of-the-post comment as trolling because it expressed a religious viewpoint they didn't even want to give the time of day.  This kind of hypocrisy makes me tired.  If you're going to embrace diversity, you can't make exceptions like that, especially in a knee-jerk reflex fashion, or people can't take your "commitment to diversity" seriously.

The original authors and the blog owner who posted their statements were trying to raise awareness about how they perceive that certain viewpoints/opinions (that have to do with religion and other things) aren't permitted in mainstream YA fiction.  This commenter was agreeing and pointing out one that was missing.  For doing so, she got slapped by the blog owner in an indirect manner and by another commenter in a rather ugly and direct manner.  To give the blog owner credit, she was apparently right about how other people might take the post.  It's just sad that she had to step in to keep this discussion about why we need to be more open to discussions about religion in YA books from degenerating into incivility because someone brought up religion.

I agree with the original commenter: Christian teens wrestling with homosexuality and their faith and deciding on a course of action that leads to celibacy in order to exercise discipline and bring their lives into conformity with their beliefs and faith have nowhere to turn in YA fiction.  That perspective is not represented anywhere.  "Christian" publishers won't touch it in a meaningful and realistic way because it's too "liberal."  "Secular" publishers won't touch it in a meaningful and realistic way because it's too "conservative." 

No one will touch it.  No one will embrace it and publish something beautiful that will give Christian teens struggling with this issue validation that they are not alone in their struggles.  No voice will give an affirmation that these teens struggling with sexuality as they become adults need to contend with the issues thoughtfully and not just hide themselves away because people (and especially the church) don't want to talk about it because it's hard and divisive and painful.  No fictional character will help them realize the fact that they are part of a greater story.

I would read that book in a heartbeat.  I would recommend that book to lots of people, especially to people who went through that struggle alone when they were teens.  I believe there is value in reading about that kind of struggle written well even if you share none of the beliefs the protagonist has.  I thought that's what those who claim to believe in the need for increased diversity in YA fiction were saying.  I didn't realize they meant "except for conservative Christians who choose to buck the mainstream and choose to abstain from sex they believe is wrong."  I would like to believe that's not what they meant.  I would like to believe that they would give this book a fair shake, especially if they talk the talk of diversity.

Would you?

-----------

Stay tuned for part 3 coming later this week . . .

What Started It All, a haphazard meditation on something, Part 1 of 5

I came across this keruffle and found myself giving it a lot of thought.  The gist is that some authors believe that there is a thing that needs to be addressed in YA publishing: 

"The usual protagonist of a YA sf/fantasy novel is a heterosexual white girl or boy with no disabilities or mental/neurological issues, no stated religion, and no specific ethnicity. Reading and reviewing novels whose characters break that mold in other ways would also be a step forward."

Quite interesting, I thought, and right on.  I have nothing wrong with the usual protagonists; I just think that when I read non-standard protagonists, I really like them.  Stoner & Spaz by Koertge comes to mind and The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm by Farmer.  Don't forget Paterson's Sign of the Chrysanthemum or even Libba Bray's Going Bovine.  Different times, different places, different mental spaces: these are things I can only experience in books.  I love me some usual, but I also love me some unusual.

So there was that kerfuffle and rebuttals and comments and more rebuttals.  There are some great lists, too.  Feel free to get lost in it if you'd like, but be sure to come back for part 2 of this meditation where I think about religion and diversity and integrity.

3 Jaw Chuck and Other Piracies

Ahoy, mateys!  International Talk Like a Pirate Day is nearly here!  In honor of this festive occasion, I thought I would mention this amazing piece of mechanical engineering I came across at work and have decided to steal for the name of some throwaway character in a story some day.

"Who was THAT?!"
"That's 3 Jaw Chuck.  Heart of gold, really," she shook her head and grimaced.  "Terrible luck with axes, though, has Chuck."
"Ah," he said faintly.  "Yes."  He swallowed and looked back again.  "How is he alive?"
"Bit of a miracle, really."

All writers are thieves and pirates, as one of my mentors once said.  We steal any words that aren't nailed down and sail the world in search of treasures. 

Come across any good treasure troves lately?

Patrick Rothfuss AND Jim Butcher

So, you may know I like Jim Butcher.  And I may have mentioned liking Patrick Rothfuss, too.  So the highlight of last week was Patrick Rothfuss interviewing Jim Butcher!  (And Jim Butcher interviewing Patrick Rothfuss.)

And because I love you, I share them both with you.  : D

In defense of a sub-genre lots of people hate

So I was reading this article in defense of Christian romance novels today, and it got me thinking about the usual fiction and faith-related topics.  I would love to hear your thoughts.  Below are some highlights to entice you to read the whole thing (and at least skim the comments). 

1. '"It’s nice to enter a world where broken people get their pieces put back together."'
2. '"I think she’s dead-on. Any of us who enjoy reading fiction — of any stripe — do so in part for the entertaining escape. Whether it's romance or mystery, literary novels or action-packed adventures, we love reading because we love getting lost into other people’s lives, worlds, interests, and desires. We can enjoy all the good of their world or cringe at the hardship, all the while understanding that it is made up."'
3. "Christian romance novels may indeed hold some danger for some. If your relationships suffer because of them, of course don’t read them. And if — as is often the case with those who view porn — you read romance novels to fulfill your own unmet longings and needs, be warned: you won’t.
4. 'But unlike porn, which offers empty depravity, Christian romance stories offer something beautiful and hopeful and God-honoring: stories of people overcoming hurts and heartache and finding love.'
5. 'In fact, this is why Pleiter says she writes Christian romance. “I welcome the chance,” she says, “to pull readers out of their daily lives for a few hours and show them a lovely world where people forgive one another and where love conquers all.”'
6. 'Pushing back on Moore’s comment, Pleiter says this isn’t about creating an illusion but holding up an ideal.'
7. 'While we may not agree on all the “ideals” romance novels convey, Pleiter raises a good point. It is the ideal of being forgiven and love conquering all that appealed to me. And while my brain knows this isn’t always true, my heart wishes it were. The good news is that my soul knows it will. Not in a book. Not in this life. But one day.'
8. 'So, far from wrecking marriages, the occasional Christian romance should strengthen our hope."'
9. '"My point? All fictional genres are based on unreality and unreal presentations of the world, whether it be romance, military suspense, mystery, or science fiction. There is always a danger of being sucked into unreality and making unreasonable expections of life, whether that be in terms of a spouse, a job, or any other life experience. I fully understand that certain situations may be a danger to the reader/viewer. I myself have certain reading/viewing standards. To ban an entire genre, though, and one which a number of godly women use as a means of coping with the demands of a life devoted to God, church, and family, seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No doubt there are people who have been harmed by fiction. To claim it is all bad, though, requires more than sweeping generalization and anecdote. For the Christian, I'd say there needs to be Scriptural evidence and consistency, for the verse "Guard your heart" is a phrase that can refer to a number of idols we put up in our hearts, including "godly" activities like serving the Church or even reading the Bible (as I recall, there are a number of hunks and scandals in there, too)."'
10. '"I can see many who have a problem with these are many who have a problem with fiction in general. We lack metaphorical intelligence for poetic truth."'

Feel free to comment on one or all (they're numbered for your convenience).  What is your experience with these books?  If you have none, why not?  I'd really like to hear people's thoughts about this controversial subgenre. 

Also, I think the article's author earns class points for not using the term "Bonnet Ripper," but I'm not sure if those points are positive or negative.

This witch is still magical (and so is Terry Pratchett)

How is it that when I finish a Terry Pratchett book, I am always wiser and gentler than when I started?  And how is this true when the books are also hilarious, clever, and comical as all get out?  I don't know how Pratchett keeps it up, but I love it.

I find myself feeling a bittersweet sadness with every Pratchett book I read now that I've learned he has early-onset Alzheimer's disease.  Will this be the last book?  When will the cracks start to show?  Will he be able to write all the stories he has in his head before his head becomes a strange place for him?

It must be ten times worse for him.  I wonder if he feels pressured to make each book end well just in case it is the last.  He's always made the Discworld books mostly self-contained.  I've always liked that about him.  No cliffhangers here. 

However, this most recent Tiffany Aching novel feels like a last one since so many of the growing up type issues have been resolved.  (And there are tons of cameos!)  I'm sure Pratchett could revisit and make something else brilliant, but I wonder if he just wants to stop while he's at the top of his game? 

Have you read this one?  What do you think?  Is he done with this corner of Discworld?