swreader said:
While I think basically we agree, Jan, and certainly about some fixed (though remarkably few) characteristic of the Discworld itself (location of countries, nature of the sun, etc.), I have a problem with your use of the term"evolution" in describing characters.
I know that many authors (including Pratchett) have seen their characters as almost real human beings--but they are, in fact, characters. And this means that they are tools of Pratchett used to create and develop ideas about the human condition, provide humorous relief, and sometimes as vehicles for philosophical speculation.
I don't think we disagree at all in essentials Sharlene (if I may?
). Evolution
is change or adaptation but on a grand scale (and in the real world mostly achingly slow although there are always exceptions especially where the 'higher' mammals are concerned). So that's just a question of definition I think? Of course in 'Literature' the author is creator and can do what they like - it's
how they do this that counts I think.
The ones who are best at that strike more chords with their readership and the better the chords the bigger and more affectionate that readership becomes? I hate to mention JK Rowling in the same breath as Pterry and Tolkien, but she
is obviously getting something very right indeed else she wouldn't have achieved the success she has. She just has
different skills, not least in marketing her stories and her characters I think. They are appealing and broadly so and also in a way more easily accessible to more people (as in parents love to read the books to their kids which is something that happens with Tolks and Pterry of course but, I suspect, not as much). Rowling's main skill I think is that she's a great screenplay writer or perhaps a playwright - her dialogue charms and convinces - which is why her books in general mostly make it onto the big screen with few alterations (certainly the earlier films).
What she is
NOT is in the same league as Pterry and Tolks for the simple reason that her world and writings are 'easy' - everyone's been to school - everyone wishes they could do magic etc etc. Any number of reasons, but in the end it comes back to one thing - she's easy to read because her concepts aren't too challenging and most people are able to grasp what she's giving them because her language is easily understood - even the Latinised spell words (and I admit I love what she does there and would literally kill for a
pensieve some dark and tyrannical nights).
You can't say that for Tolkien or even for Pterry to some extent. Tolkien's from a different era altogether and he was always an academic of course (even in
The Hobbit for although that is truly a child's book it does require some mental 'muscle-work' to take in). I compare him to Pterry and Rowling because they write in the same genre, but he has a very different tack to both of them because he lived in a completely different era where dignity and intellect were more important than being 'street-wise' and 'sassy' - he was born at the end of the 19th cent so
of course he's very different to Pterry, just from a generation perspective, but also in terms of how he looked at the world. His worlds (and I mean the real one more than the imaginary to some extent) was grand and ordered and he had lived and even fought through terrible conflicts and the most appalling human misery - and we still had an Empire for the bulk of his life. He comes from another age in other words and he was a brilliant scholar who influenced other great and influential writers (CS Lewis of course, but some of the other Inklings were also pretty nifty authors and poets).
So he's 'old school' or 'old boy's network' in effect. Rowling has borrowed heavily from him and indeed from Pterry and other fantasy writers - but then Tolks romped through Mallory, Tennyson, Chaucer and Norse myth taking what he wanted and then twisting it. And so has Pterry of course - fantasy is out there and has been 'since the dawn of time' as my hero Gaspode would say. Pterry's genius touch is that he of course uses satire, but also psychology and often just plain common sense for his 'twist'. This is where he and the Prof are most different to Rowling.
They challenge their readers to THINK about what they're reading!
... not so markedly with Pterry as the humour is what shines out to most of his fans, but the concepts behind the humour are, as every person on this forum is aware of on some level, often very serious and deep and touches at the raw core of human experience... Tolkien's writing also does this but mostly in a sad and ponderous way although as I've said humour does come into it, but it's mostly very gentle and with Hobbits almost entirely kind and domestic - family values I suppose. Pterry pulls it off it better I think because I'm his contemporary and I love satire and adore Monty Python and The Fast Show and Frasier etc etc. He 'relates' to modern times where nothing is particularly sacred and everything is open to criticism - his message though is the same in essence because like Tolkien he has integrity at the core of his own unique style and this shows most in the characters he loves best and uses most to get his message through.
They are both then 'harder' to appreciate for a significant portion of people in this celebrity-obsessed and facile population where even 'reality' has to be spoon-fed to us on the TV and in 'popular' mags. Pterry and Tolkien are too subtle and too deep for a lot to people to bother with or if they can often can't grasp the real message. So yes - its Pterry who calls the shots with his characters and its him who puts them in those situations, but as a writer myself I know that sometimes he'll try several times to make their responses 'fit' how they,
not him, would respond - and that's the the key or trick to the genius of a truly great author and their approach to characterisation.
To be fair Rowling does that too - but not as much and it's not as subtle either, which is why she may be far richer and more widely-read than Tolks and Pterry, but she isn't, and I think never will be 'accused of writing literature'
I know this is long - but it's such an interesting debate
Tony - whilst this is still kind of on topic in what we're talking about here as to WHY there is (or aren't) too many constants (or why there's some inconsisitencies) in the Discworld universe, I'm happy if you think we ought to move the discussion over this particular avenue into another/new thread... I'm finding it really fascinating *durr!* and so I have far too much to say... 
