SPOILERS Wyrd Sisters Discussion *Spoilers*

Welcome to the Sir Terry Pratchett Forums
Register here for the Sir Terry Pratchett forum and message boards.
Sign up
Jul 25, 2008
720
2,425
Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.
#41
Sorry for disappearing--shoulder problems again, and this may be shorter than I'd like.

As to the 15 year change, I think that Pratchett simply does it because somehow, he's got to make the baby old enough to challenge Duke Felmet. It is, of course, Granny who weaves the spell (though all 3 have to take part), since Granny is going to be the "head" witch of Discworld. Pratchett does this sort of thing occasionally in other books--less so as time goes on (and he gets better at plotting, I think). But, for example, I think that the inclusion of the Vampire and the Troll in Monstrous Regiment is somewhat akin. He wants to make a point about females, and he doesn't want to limit it to humans.

As to the use of allusions-- my thought (being exceedingly familiar with Macbeth) is that novel works all right, but is a bit odd--quite odd in places if you don't have any idea about Macbeth. And since we have only a tiny glimpse of Lancre before this time, Pratchett uses this book to define the country and the characters which will become more important in later books. Most of the allusions, I think, are just plain fun (like those in Soul Music). If you know that Shakespeare's theatre was The Globe, then it is appropriate that TomJohn & his father call their The Dysk. The same could be said for many (most?) of the allusions--The fool's awkward re-working of Shakespeare's sonnet (Shall I compare thee to a summer's day) which turns into June 14th (IIRC).

The place that I think Pratchett uses the play and the witches most strongly (although Shakespeare's witches are certainly not unique in their character) is by setting up the total difference -- turning the nature of the witches and their powers & responsiblities almost on their head. These witches do not cause evil actions, but rather right the larger evil committed by the Felmets (who are certainly fell types) and protect the land and it's people.

(More comments later, but shoulders have given out completely.)
 

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#42
(((hugs SWreader gently)))

We had quite a long thread going about the 'nature of Witches' on Discworld ages back didn't we? I think we mostly settled on the 'wise woman' option of them mostly not doing magic (in public anyway) and morecommunity support by nagging/headology and natural remedies - so more Roundworld-type herbal medicine and midwifery/undertaking without the oppression ;)

When you think about it most of the magic that the Lancre coven does is done of necessity and generally against supernaturally endowed antagonists (not in this one but otherwise Lily, elves, vampires etc) which then leads into the Chalk and Tiffany on how a witch learns her craft.
 
Jan 1, 2010
1,114
2,600
#43
Blasted technology, my post from this morning has disappeared :devil:

Hope your shoulders improve soon swreader.

swreader said:
The place that I think Pratchett uses the play and the witches most strongly (although Shakespeare's witches are certainly not unique in their character) is by setting up the total difference -- turning the nature of the witches and their powers & responsiblities almost on their head. These witches do not cause evil actions, but rather right the larger evil committed by the Felmets (who are certainly fell types) and protect the land and it's people.
I agree. It's also quite appropriate as James I was known to fear witches and the play was written partly to appeal to him - very much like Hwel's first version of his play, that it's the witches role that is changed.
 

Tonyblack

Super Moderator
City Watch
Jul 25, 2008
30,856
3,650
Cardiff, Wales
#46
theoldlibrarian said:
Why does a witch have to be a witch o_O:
I'm not sure I understand the question either. But I'm guessing you mean something along the lines of - why isn't a midwife a witch?

The difference seems to be to do with magic, even if most witches try not to use it. In the Tiffany books, Granny Aching seems to be a witch even though she doesn't dress like one or acknowledge herself to be one. Indeed, in Tiffany's part of the Disc it was positively dangerous to be a witch.

A Discworld witch is a practitioner of magic with the advantages (or disadvantages ) that brings. So a witch can see Death and knows when she is going to die, and she can manipulate the magic field of the Disc.

In the Ramtops, it seems that letting everyone know that you are witch, by dressing like one and acting like one, is an important part of the magic. It gets respect and the community, although they might not like the witch, will have a certain amount of pride in her and make sure they look after her.

That's why it is such a bad thing in Wyrd Sisters when the Duke spreads rumours about the witches. If they lose that respect, they lose a lot of their power. :)
 

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#47
And selfishly that's when the coven decides to meddle big time and move Lancre by 15 years.... ;) But there of course other reasons besides them getting the respect they should have so it's also an altruistic act. :laugh:

Have found a thread in this forum which looks at how witchey witches ought to be and why the Ramtops/Chalk witches (older generation) deliberately don't use magic unless there's no good alternative.

Wyrd Sisters. There may be another one because I do remember us talking about how the Discworld witches do have definite parallels with the wise woman aspects of witching in Roundworld from medieval times up to the early 19thC CEin that they do a lot of birthing and doctoring rather than turning people into toads (just making them think they're a toad.... :twisted: )
 

theoldlibrarian

Lance-Corporal
Dec 30, 2009
304
1,775
Dublin, Ireland
#50
Sorry about that. I was really getting at what they were tlking about in Equal Rites. A witch is a magical evil woman, a wizard is an old magical man and a king is a grand rich gentleman. Or so we all thought.
Nothing really to get caught up on though :laugh:
 

Tonyblack

Super Moderator
City Watch
Jul 25, 2008
30,856
3,650
Cardiff, Wales
#51
theoldlibrarian said:
Sorry about that. I was really getting at what they were tlking about in Equal Rites. A witch is a magical evil woman, a wizard is an old magical man and a king is a grand rich gentleman. Or so we all thought.
Nothing really to get caught up on though :laugh:
Ah! Well Terry does tend to turn fantasy stereotypes upside down. Who'd have thought that elves were so evil? ;)
 

Tonyblack

Super Moderator
City Watch
Jul 25, 2008
30,856
3,650
Cardiff, Wales
#53
You have two weeks to read or reread Thud! for the discussion starting on Monday 1st March 2010. :)

I've already had a volunteer to write the introduction for this discussion. ;)
 

Tonyblack

Super Moderator
City Watch
Jul 25, 2008
30,856
3,650
Cardiff, Wales
#56
Jan Van Quirm said:
It did get a little confusing didn't it? Verrence is the true heir however since he was the Verence I's son (Tomjon was the son of Verence's Queen by his jester - I think that's right anyway?)

In other words Tomjon and Verrence aren't related in any way :laugh:
I think you're wrong - and they are related. ;)
 

Willem

Sergeant
Jan 11, 2010
1,201
2,600
Weert, The Netherlands
#57
From what I remember, Tomjon was the son of the old fool and the queen, while Verence was the son of the old fool and the old fool's wife. This would make them half-brothers, but neither has any royal blood. Assuming that the royal bloodline was coming from the king, not the queen :)

Aren't there a couple of hints about Tomjon and Verence looking a bit alike?
 

Tonyblack

Super Moderator
City Watch
Jul 25, 2008
30,856
3,650
Cardiff, Wales
#59
Willem said:
From what I remember, Tomjon was the son of the old fool and the queen, while Verence was the son of the old fool and the old fool's wife. This would make them half-brothers, but neither has any royal blood. Assuming that the royal bloodline was coming from the king, not the queen :)

Aren't there a couple of hints about Tomjon and Verence looking a bit alike?
That's the way I read it Willem. We are led to believe that Verence I was exercising his Droit de Seigneur and therefore Verence II was his bastard. But there's a mention that Verence's father, the fool, left home but came back to lisit old friends. And that he was good at climbing - which suggests he was visiting the queen. So Verence and Tomjon are half brothers - same father but different mothers. As you say Willem, neither of them really have a right to be king, but a new dynasty has to start somewhere. :laugh:
 

poohcarrot

Sergeant-at-Arms
Sep 13, 2009
8,317
2,300
NOT The land of the risen Son!!
#60
Wasn't the fool brought up by his grandfather because his mother wasn't around and his father was away fooling? So why wasn't his mother around? How could he have been born without a mother, unless his mother was the Queen?

I could be completely and utterly wrong here but can't be bothered to check. :rolleyes:
 

User Menu

Newsletter