When I started reading this thread, I couldn't figure out how it related to the title, then I realized that I started on page 3--by which time the discussion had drifted somewhat off the original point/title of the thread, the Inconsistencies of Discworld Novels, at least as I envision the idea. By the way, though, it's a great pleasure to discuss books with people who are interested in reading and even feel passionately about authors & their works. (Even if that isn't what the original idea was, as far as I can tell.)
To borrow from Lucy, I thought it was time to jerk the thread back from a comparison of Pratchett to other authors, and talk about the question of inconsistencies in the Pratchett cannon.
There are (as one might expect) all sorts of minor inconsistencies, false starts, revisions of ideas, I think, in the novels. One of the things which has been interesting is that for 3 years (on the stamp forum) a rather small group of us have been reading and discussing the novels in the order written. I had read them all, but not at all in the order written. Nor had I read, as I have come to believe is absolutely necessary, most of his novels at least twice. There is simply so much in most (if not all) of his novels that I don't think it's possible to understand fully the ideas which form the framework of the story which he tells so entrancingly that it's only later one realizes what philosophical or political ideas are being suggested.
One type of inconsistencies come about, I think, because Terry wrote these 30 some books over a number of years, and either out of necessity (or simple forgetfulness) made some changes--some significant, others not. For example, Granny Weatherwax in Equal Rites bears only a vague resemblance to the Granny of Carpe Jugulum, let alone to the Granny in the Tiffany books. I think this happens, in part. because the whole idea of witches and wizards that Pratchett used in his first book proved not workable. That, I suspect is why we never see or hear a mention of Esk or Simon again. They are a dead end--as is that whole view of the nature and function of witches and wizards.
Tony & I disagree somewhat on this but I think the Feegles of Carpe Jugulum are not so much a different clan of Feegles as they are a rough approximation that Terry picked up and changed into useful characters -- not simply comic relief & plot facilitation as in CJ -- in the Tiffany books . There the Feegles (who are significantly different even in the first book) change and develop over the course of the current 3 novels.
And I suggest that as Terry began to develop more and more serious explorations of the human condition, the books and the characters change because he needs to do different things with them. I think that is one of the reasons that the novels at least since 5th Elephant have been markedly different than those which preceded them. Numerous characters continue on in most if not all of the novels--but they are being used in different ways to explore ideas which resonate with the modern round world.
I have to agree with Jan-- Terry is one of the great writers in the English language. I have heard him compared before to Chaucer, Dickens & Mark Twain. I would also suggest Jonathan Swift & Jane Austen and in a strange way William Shakespeare.
Pratchett creates a world that is so real for him (and the readers) that he can do a literary tour-de-force like Nightwatch which catapults Sam Vimes back 30 years and helps to explain some of the forces which have shaped his character and that of Vetinari, for example. And the ability to make a world that lives and breathes, as Pratchett does, is a rare talent shared by all the great authors. It also makes for a certain degree of frustration because over time, his ideas and uses of characters changes. The Carrot of Guards! Guards! is so different from the Carrot of Thud! that one wonders if they are really the same person.
I want to bring up one more point before this post gets totally out of hand. One of the points of genius Pratchett possess, I think, is his ability to write what is in fact biting, insightful satiric commentary on social conditions and human frailties in such a way that the reader isn't aware (at first) what the implications of a rollicking fun novel like Jingo (which I think is a more powerful anti-war novel than Slaughterhouse 5) are without the reader being immediately put off by the bite of the satire. And I think that Thud! is an incredible novel -- only apparently about the traditional war between Trolls & Dwarfs. But one does not have to stretch to see it's applications to wars of terror conducted in the name of religion, or to political battles in which truth is the ultimate casualty.
So, I don't think the inconsistencies in Pratchett's novels are generally important. (eg. when & how Dibbler got his name and what the initials really stand for) The changes in characters and the problems Pratchett attacks cause significant modifications of characters, but they are not inconsistencies.
(I appologize for the length of this post--but I had 3 pages of discussion to consider--and rather a lot to say.)
Fully agree with all that. I think for fantasy genres especially, the readers need to use their own imaginations as much as the author at times. And just as nobody can 'know' everything in the RL - why IS the sky blue and not green? Does the sun HAVE to rise in the east? - why shouldn't it be the same in an even more anarchic world like the Disc? BTW I don't want to know the answer to those questions - I'm quite happy with blue and the sun's too scary to start changing it around...
. Fantasy writers are I think fairly reliant on this else they have to think every little detail through and then they'd have to spend more time telling us why the sun rises in the east and not enough on what's really interesting.
