I don't understand the last sentence enough to do anything for it, but surely an island didn't become a member of the Royal Society? Also, can anyone confirm the spelling of "Boys' Island" (apostrophe or not?) --Old Dickens 14:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there's an apostrophe - Boys'. --Hapenny 04:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC) And the island did, in a way, become a member of the Royal Society - the King offered it a place in the British Empire, but Mau requested that, instead, it be made a member of the Society as it had so many scientific and historical artefacts.--Hapenny 04:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope we can get a little explanation in there; it's still a huh? moment. --Old Dickens 00:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite all its rules on original research and citations, Wikipedia states firmly that the period of the book is "the early 1870s". This is more than enough to account for the characters and events mentioned, and takes no account of technological development. By 1870, no one would be using flintlocks, and a steamship would surely have been used for a spare-no-expense emergency dash around the world. --Old Dickens 16:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
And now for something completely different
Except it isn't. Most of the familiar personalities are there: Grandmother, Ataba, Mrs Gurgle... all have recognisably Pratchettian qualities.
I've only just come to Nation. I didn't want to have to cope with a new set of circumstances after the Discworld in case it wasn't as good. I'm not a fan of the Nomes. But, by the stripes on Lord Nelson's Trousers! it's bloody brilliant! It may well become my favourite. I'll have to read it a couple more times until familiarity allows me to place it up there with Men at Arms and Night Watch, but I was stunned. Again. It was so much better than the Tiffany novels. And having read Unseen Academicals, it's a relief to know that even if he's now past the peak of his powers they were such peaks. --Knmatt 12:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Better late than never...I guess there aren't enough articles, or good enough articles, yet. I don't care for the Nomes, either, or the old SF, but I wouldn't say this was so much better than the Tiffanies. I think it's the best of the Young Readers' including the Carnegie-winner, and probably one of my top ten overall, but Tiffany and Maurice are pretty good. --Old Dickens 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)