History Headscratchers / Discworld

22nd Mar '17 4:31:46 PM MagBas
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[folder:Sues]]

* Maybe it's just me, but it feels like several of Pratchett's major recurring characters sometimes edge into MarySue territory, mainly Granny Weatherwax and the Patrician. Granny can beat just about anyone by glaring at them, gets away with treating everyone with rudeness, but intimidates into suspicion anyone who does the same to her. As for Vetinari, as the series progresses he seems to become ever more omniscient and infallible, by the end of the book getting credit for everything guys like Vimes and Moist do without ever having to struggle for it. He was much more tolerable and even enjoyable earlier on, like in ''Jingo'' where he comes up with a brilliant plan, but not only after having a run of bad luck through the first half of the book, and even then he almost missed the key to the whole puzzle by tuning out whatever Leonard of Quirm said.
** I don't know about Granny Weatherwax, but with Vetinari I suspect it's just fan service. Everyone ''loves'' Vetinari (myself included) and if he screwed up Pratchett would be getting some ''very'' angry email from all the Vetinari fans out there - 'Why did you ruin my favourite character? Why? Why would you do such a thing? Why? Why?' - whereas the more omniscient, infallible and all-round ''[[MagnificentBastard awesome]]'' he gets, the more people love him, and the more books they buy. Terry Pratchett is not a stupid man.
** Granny Weatherwax has on several occasions shown herself to be vulnerable to people who ''aren't'' intimidated by her. And in those cases, she actually has magical talent. And, let's face it, if you knew the old ladies ''I'' know, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to believe that a hard look an even harder word here-and-there is enough to cause even the toughest person to at least hesitate.
** Yeah. The Patrician gets away with it, I think, because he's ''not'' the main character; he doesn't take over books he's in, but quietly works in the background before revealing the whole thing is his GambitRoulette. I don't agree he takes credit for what Vimes and Moist do, though, most of the time he seems quite happy to let them have the spotlight (which, for different reasons, neither of them want). I agree about Granny to some extent, and I suspect this is why she's now shown as Tiffany's mentor (two-thirds Main/TheMentor to one-third Main/SinkOrSwimMentor), rather than a main character (although what she does has always been portrayed as bloody hard work, and ''Carpe Jugulum'' (the last "standard" witches novel, and the one most people refer to as the one where she becomes superhuman) definitely shows her on the point of failure.
** I get the feeling that the Patrician is a genius, and as he says in ''Jingo'': "After ruling over Ankh-Morpork, everything else is ''easy'' in comparison".
** I was so relieved when Granny got put into the mentor role, because she really had become too powerful to have her own plots and I was terrified that Creator/TerryPratchett was going to have to kill her off. There's a interview from around then talking about when it's necessary to kill off characters and talking about Granny having become hard to plot for.
** Well, the Patrician doesn't take credit within the story, but the reader is certainly meant to give him much of the credit. As for Granny, while she does struggle a lot, that's often due to her self-imposed rule of using magic as little as possible (and at one point even cutting her hand after using magic to block a sword). In many of the Witches books it's implied Granny ''could'' take care of most of the antagonists easily if she didn't restrict herself (the Elves being an exception).
** She didn't use magic to block the sword and then cut her hand. She just delayed the injury until a more appropriate time.
** I actually found Vetinari ''less'' tolerable in ''Jingo''. Besides, as seen in ''The Truth'', he can be vulnerable to random events. I seriously doubt he planned out everything that happened in ''The Truth'', which would have led to him, you know, being deposed. If the son of one of the conspirators hadn't just been doing random things.
** Random? I don't know if my memory is playing tricks on me, but Vetinari was all over William De Worde like a rash for most of the story. I'd be quite prepared to argue that if William had at any point required a little, how shall we say, 'steering', Vetinari would have done so, using his interest in the ''Ankh-Morpork Times'' as a very useful cover.
** Granny really doesn't appear like a MarySue to me; for one thing, Mary Sues are supposed to be ''liked'' by everybody, even if there's no conceivable reason for it. Yes, she's extremely powerful, both in magic and headology, but she's constantly struggling against going "cackling", as the witches put it. And she really doesn't seem a very satisfied person, despite of all the power she holds. A powerful character doesn't make a Mary Sue; in Granny's case it very nearly makes a nervous wreck. But since it's more difficult to write entertaining stories about that kind of struggle, she's been shifted into the background of the Tiffany stories. As for Vetinari, he isn't omniscient, but extremely good at using the unexpected situations for his own advantage and then pretending that he had planned it all along. This is extremely obvious with almost anything to do with the City Watch.
** This is true, as the City Watch are often falling over in several different directions. I think Vetinari makes his plans flexible enough to accommodate unpredictable outcomes. So he must think of a lot of possible outcomes, and guide events in the direction he wants, narrowing them down as time goes by. Even if it's partly an illusion, it benefits him to make people think he knew it was always going to happen that way, and he knows what they're doing now.
** It's actually explicitly stated, at one point- Vetinari ponders to himself that only an incompetent leader needs to plan, while a competent one, such as himself, merely ''steers''. Vetinari is simply aware that most people hold the opposite conviction, and so takes care to present the whole thing (and quite possibly everything, ever) as one huge GambitRoulette, when in fact it is an all-encompassing IndyPloy as conducted by a man of genius and, more importantly, total clarity of thought.
** That wasn't Vetinari, that was the nut who THOUGHT he was Vetinari.
** Also, all Mary Sues are portrayed as good people, whereas Vetinari, and to a greater extent, Weatherwax, are portrayed as horrible people. They are [[GoodIsNotNice horrible in addition to being good]], but still, a Mary Sue is never intentionally portrayed as someone you'd like to punch.
** Not entirely true: there's JerkSue and VillainSue subtypes.
** I'd say that Vetinari isn't as omniscient as he sometimes seems to be. He certainly didn't anticipate A. E. Pessimal trying to bite a troll, or Adora Belle Dearheart [[spoiler: bringing back 4000 golems]], or being [[spoiler:turned into a lizard]], or [[spoiler:being shot]].
** Or Leonard of Quirm [[spoiler:having visited Leshp in the past.]]
** That is Vetinari to a T. He may not have expected Adora to do what she did, but within five minutes he had the pieces arranged so they were exactly where they had to be and everybody believed it was his plan all along.
** There are two different portrayals of his operation. In one book we get this: "A great many rulers, good and bad and quite often dead, know what happened; a rare few actually manage, by dint of much effort, to know what's happening. Lord Vetinari considered both types to lack ambition." And another time we are told that he never relies on knowing what is going to happen, because that means that he will change it so it is not going to happen after all, making plans meaningless.
** Just because he knows what's going to happen doesn't mean he relies on it. In all likelihood he has the equivalent of backup plans B through several other alphabets; he just doesn't need to spell them out for himself. The point is that trying to pin it down to one trick doesn't cut it.
** You have to remember that Vetinari is constantly working and has an impressive staff to help him keep track of as much of what's going on as he can. The man is responsible for most things that happen in Ankh Morpork, but he's heavily reliant on the characters that push the plot along for his plans to work.
** This is arguably one of Vetinari's greatest abilities. He is a superb ''manager''. He can even manage people who, by any normal standard, are completely unmanageable. Sam Vimes is practically the AnthropomorphicPersonification of stubborn integrity. Moist von Lipwig is a brilliant con artist. And yet Vetinari is quite deliberately maneuvering and exploiting these people. He deserves a share of the credit for their actions because without him, they would never have been in a position to do what they've done. For example, without Vetinari's support, Vimes would probably have fallen afoul of the aristocracy years ago.
** Consensus seems to be that Vetinari's success comes from planning for all foreseeable outcomes, and the ability to rethink on the fly. Has anyone actually looked at the definition of XanatosGambit recently? It's not just any ludicrously complicated plan, people!
** Same guy again: XanatosSpeedChess fits slightly better, actually, but the point remains.
** I'm sure that if you gave yourself the opportunity to think this though, you would realize that the proper term would be Xanatos Speed Thud. However, it would not behoove you to also allow the opportunity to realize that Vetinari would not play at Speed antything. He would play at to his own measure. Don't let him detain you.
** He uses a fair number of [[BatmanGambit Batman Gambits]] as well, mostly for the manipulation.
** You have to admit though, the way he solves a "sudoku" puzzle in a few (I forget how many) seconds is pretty ridiculous.
** Vetinari just happens to be a genius (bordering on savant) at recognising patterns and making connections. This actually plays into how he is portrayed throughout the series. I have a theory that Vetinari has Asperger's syndrome.
** I agree on the Asperger's syndrome. Considering there are autists who can computate new prime numbers in their heads that even computers needs hours for, don't underestimate the capacities of the human brain.
** I dunno. What I know about Asperger's (which is mostly being tentatively diagnosed with it, and then being told I probably didn't), says that Aspies have difficulty with social interaction. But dealing with people is Lord V's strongest suit.
** Blind Io, why are people so quick to label an intelligent character as having Asperger's in the face of that character's biggest trait? Vetinari with Asperger's wouldn't even have made it to the position of Patrician.
** Having lived and dealt with a person who suffers from Asperger's, I can say with confidence that Asperger's is something the cool, calm, and collected Patrician does ''not'' have.
** Actually having Aspergers, I can say with confidence that you can indeed be cool, calm, and collected and can be quite adept in social interaction. Remember it is a very broad spectrum disorder.
** Being powerful or competent does not turn a character into a Mary-Sue. Being more talented, magically gifted, beautiful, brilliant and chosen by Fate ''than every other character'' in the story (especially if the Sue is far too young to have all that experience) makes one a Sue. Most importantly, having ''everything'' that happens focus on her and everyone else fawning over her, that makes a character a Sue. Both Vetinari and Granny Weatherwax have spent their entire lives honing their talents as hard as they can, to the exclusion of everything else like friends, family or a social life.
** Many, probably most lead or prominent characters can be seen in a Mary Sue light. That's the problem with calling canon sues. Having amazing abilities, or even being liked by lots of other characters, are not necessarily bad. It all depends on if it fits with the story. Mary Sues are usually bad because they feel out of place next to canon characters. And it can be frustrating to go looking for fic with your favorite characters, only to see that most of the fic out there only includes one character at a time, each one paired with someone's OC. These stories almost never echo what was good about the source material.
** Pratchett has evolved a style whereby he can use these characters for great comedic and [[CrowningMomentofAwesome awesome]] effect every time another character actually gets one over on them. Vetinari's face on hearing of Mr Pessimal's little moment is ''priceless''. And of course, you develop a whole new respect for Nanny Ogg when you realise that she's worked out ways to steer Granny around.
** The implication seems to be that if she really wanted to be, she could be more powerful than Granny Weatherwax. But she's happy where she is, partly because working as a trio helped (and helps) to stop Granny from turning bad.
** Bear in mind, too, that we usually see Vetinari's genius when he's interacting with main characters like Vimes and Moist, who are the heroes of their respective stories and therefore successful examples of his manipulation. He offered Reacher Gilt the same opportunity as Moist at the end of ''Going Postal'' and was unable to win him over - this may happen often, but we don't see it (it would certainly make for a short story, after all.)
** A lot of Terry Pratchett's characters can be viewed as Mary Sues. That's what Pratchett does - that's what Pratchett is ''for''. He picks up on common tropes from both fiction and RealLife and applies ridiculous amounts of RuleOfFunny and RuleOfCool to them. Vetinari is the standard impossibly-ingenious MagnificentBastard overlord, Granny Weatherwax is the impossibly-powerful old witch, Carrot is the pure once-and-future king combined with the righteous by-the-book copper, Ponder is the dynamic student who outstrips his superiors etc. Each has had their sue-esque elements extended to hilarious extents (Vetinari can solve Sudoku in seconds; Carrot can make Ankh-Morpork scum smile at him; Ponder single-handedly discovered most of the principles of nuclear and quantum physics; Granny can block swords with her bare hands [[spoiler: even though it'll hurt later]] ) but has also been deconstructed to show that these come hand-in-hand with negative elements (Vetinari's a masochist and a ruthless jerk; Carrot's eerily, almost inhumanely rule-abiding and logical; Ponder is constantly frustrated and pushes himself far too far; and God help us if Nanny Ogg were to give up on trying to keep Granny on the straight and narrow...) The point behind Discworld is that it contains the same elements as most stories, but done in a more 'realistic' way, [[HilarityEnsues With Hilarious Results]].
** I would like to know how we see Vetinari is a "masochist".
** Well, he ''is'' the ruler of Ankh-Morpork.
** Rant Alert: Characters don't have to be Mary Sues just because they're competent! Look, the reason Mary Sues are shunned and hated is because your typical Mary Sue is a girl named Sapphire Moondream, who gets all the hot guys in whatever work she's in, and can fix any problem better than anyone, and is loved by everyone (in fact, you can identify the villains by the way they dislike the Mary Sue). Obviously, neither Havelock Vetinari or Granny Weatherwax are like that. I guess the closest you could come is that Vetinari ''is'' extremely intelligent and Granny ''is'' very good at witchcraft, but first of all they've both had their failures, like Granny in the staring contest in Lords and Ladies and when Vetinari got shot in Men at Arms. Second of all, they're not loved by very many people. Third of all, their names are nothing special. (Sure, Granny's first name is Esmerelda, but still.) Look, Vetinari got shot in Men at Arms! He got transformed into a lizard in Sourcery! His plan wouldn't work as well as he thought it would in The Unseen Academicals! Oh, but I guess he's got to be a Mary Sue, because ''he's good at sudoku!'' Are you serious? And furthermore, his ridiculous sudoku skills were meant as a joke! A CrowningMomentOfFunny, ''not'' a CrowningMomentOfAwesome. The problem with the concept of Mary Sues is that it's a phrase that was first created in order to classify the horrible perfect self-inserts in fanfiction, self-inserts who are instantly loved and perfect at everything. It was ''not'' created to imply that there's something wrong with characters who manage to pull off what they try to do, and who aren't incompetent. Is there anybody who sees Granny Weatherwax as wish fulfillment? Anyone? She's not a Mary Sue just because she wins in the end. I'm fed up with people thinking that any hero who wins in the end is a Mary Sue! There's nothing wrong with a character who's extremely skilled at something. That might make for an intersting story! The problem is when they're perfect beings and their stories aren't plots but rather wish-fullfilment. (end rant)
* As was formerly mentioned, Vetinari is most likely only as infallable as he is (and this Troper likes Vetinari), as he is 'only' an important minor character. As the discworld goes, it is not that unlikely that even Discworld's Fate and Luck have him as such a character in the game, and thus not hit too hard by any of them but if he should ever become a main character of his own book (wich won't happen now), he would be an InUniverse main character as well and his ability to fail would grow a lot, if only for some time, as Fate and Luck would pay much more attention to him. This Troper thinks that Vetinari is most likely not one of the Lady's figures as he lacks beeing a wild card like Rincewind and Vimes but most likely not Fate's as well.

[[/folder]]



[[folder:Carrot]]

* Why do people (both in Discworld and in Real Life) like Carrot? He's ruthless, calculated, and hiding behind the mask of good looks and honesty. If I was to be working with a guy like that, i'd run away.
** Because basically he ''isn't'' all of those things. He is everything that fantasy tales expect of the returning True King, he actually ''is'' that honest and friendly, despite Sam Vimes trying to teach him how to be a bastard.
** Honest? He killed Cruces. Without a trial. And for extremely egotistic reasons. He is at least partly responsible for Gavin's death. He broke into Mended Drum and replaced the questions in the quiz machine so that he could arrest the customers. From ''Men at Arms'' it's clear that most of his friendliness is just a mask (behind the mask he's still friendly but in a different way). And in some talks with Vetinari he seems to basically say that he's waiting until he will be really needed.
** He killed Cruces in defence of Vimes, really, and because he thought Cruces was too powerful to beat peacefully. He believes "personal isn't the same as important" and that sometimes means he makes very cold-blooded decisions: there's no suggestion that he feels good about doing so. Ankh-Morpork is a rough place - Vimes has also killed people in the execution of what he considers to be his duty, remember. I thought it was a case of KnightTemplar more than anything.
** Plus, the people he killed and/or played dirty tricks to arrest were guilty. I mean, a few cheap (not even illegal) tricks to find out the real culprit of a dangerous crime just saves everybody some bother.
** No, he killed Cruces because he had known the secret. He was not holding the gonne at the moment. And as for personal and important - after [=T5E=] it can be discussed. And for instance the first scene in [=T5E=] - he is effectively framing people into crimes they didn't commit and because they held Angua hostage. Personal and important, my ass.
** Cruces WAS holding the gonne at the moment. Carrot may be simple, honest, and straightforward, but he isn't stupid. He might have not killed Cruces if the assassin hadn't said "But now we must remove this annoying policeman." Referring to VIMES. He had the gonne. Carrot had seen firsthand how powerful the influence of said weapon had been, almost corrupting [[{{Determinator}} Vimes.]] If he hadn't killed Cruces, Vimes would have died. And when Carrot has to choose between killing Cruces and possibly corrupting himself in the process of doing the right thing or letting Vimes die, you can sure as hell bet he'll do the right thing. The other choice will never enter his mind.
** Cruces *was definitely* holding the Gonne having retrieved it - although it is implied that the Gonne itself was steadying his aim - but ultimately whether Cruces was holding the Gonne or not, the fact is that he was armed, and had attempted to (and was still intending to) kill a Watchman. It's never explicitly stated, but if the 'Mirror' aspect of Discworld holds true, then that authorised Carrot to use deadly force (see: any cop show or movie you care to name). Combine that with Carrot's affection for Vimes and you have Legal, Personal and Important all covered.
** ''(Intentional or not, Carrot's actions at the end of ''Discworld/GuardsGuards'' and ''Discworld/MenAtArms'' echo the ending of Robocop. In the case of the former, a seemingly innocuous phrase from Vimes allows Carrot to [[spoiler:knock the bad guy off a ledge to his death]]. In the case of the latter, [[spoiler:the bad guy's own words satisfy all the requirements to allow Carrot to dispatch him]].)''
** First if you think that lacking the Gonne meant that Crunces harmless, you are just plain wrong. As in dead wrong. Second, you might want to re-read that business with the people who kidnapped Angua. Not only is Carrot uneasy, but the whole system of Crime and Punishment in that city works on the principle of finding someone to punish, and exactly how long do you think it would take for someone to be stupid enough to kidnap a Watchman again.
** Yeah, Carrot explicitly asks if it's really okay for them to be doing this, and Reg Shoe (I think?) answers that the charges won't stand up anyway, so they're just making them sweat.
** Moreover, Carrot didn't ''need'' to kill Cruces to conceal his royal heritage. If he'd brought Cruces in alive, Vetinari would've simply made the evidence disappear, and the Patrician and Carrot would've come to exactly the same understanding: Vetinari wants to govern and Carrot doesn't, and they both want the city to thrive. Saving Vimes was the ''only'' reason to kill the man on the spot.
** ...Because he's kindly, and charismatic, and handsome, and pretty much everyone's definition of a hero? It wasn't his fault Gavin died; Carrot has A Destiny that bends the world around him to his benefit, and it manifested in that instance as Gavin attacking Wolf and getting killed. Yeah, he is a bit manipulative, but he ''has'' to be, he's a goddamn cop in goddamn Ankh-Morpork! I think he's justified in being a bit underhanded! As for Cruces' death, he ''was'' holding the gonne and about to shoot Vimes, according to my copy; Carrot steps between them to stab Cruces. And I can't find any scene in The Fifth Elephant like you're describing; the closest thing to it has nothing to do with Carrot and in fact involves Angua and ''Nobby''. However, Carrot is shown in just about every other scene to be genuinely good and optimistic and sweet. He doesn't care about what people look like or what they were born as, he's deeply respectful of everyone's beliefs, he loves his city, he loves Angua, and he doesn't, even for a ''second'', show any sign of wanting power for its own sake. He sure sounds like a good guy to me.
** Besides, i think the point is that due to his returning-kingly qualities, people (in the books at least) ''have'' to like him. There are several instances where he manages to pull off impossible feats of charisma. So it doesn't matter how nasty he is as a person, people will still like him (unless they're as cynical as Vimes, of course)
** Even Vimes: "Everyone likes him. I'd be annoyed about that, if he wasn't so likeable".
** WordOfGod on the hostage scene in ''Jingo'' (not ''Fifth Elephant'' but I think it's the one being referred to):
--->"I assumed when I wrote this that everyone concerned would know what was going on. The thieves have taken a Watchman hostage, a big no-no. Coppers the world over find their normally sunny dispositions cloud over when faced with this sort of thing, and with people aiming things at them, and perpetrators later tend to fall down cell stairs a lot. So Carrot is going to make them suffer. They're going to admit to all kinds of things, including things that everyone knows they could not possibly have done.
--->What'll happen next? Vetinari won't mind. Vimes will throw out half of the charges at least, and the rest will become UsefulNotes/TICs and probably will not hugely affect the sentencing. The thieves will be glad to get out of it alive. Other thieves will be warned. By the rough and ready local standards, justice will have been served."
** And it's ''not Carrot's idea'': he asks Reg, with genuine concern, if it's coercion, and Reg responds that they ''chose'' to take a werewolf hostage. It's certainly not "personal being important", because he's ''not'' worried about Angua, he's more worried ''she's'' going to hurt ''them''!
** TruthInTelevision: Cop killers are rarely brought in alive.
** The only way Carrot was "responsible" for Gavin's death is by not being fast enough to make the HeroicSacrifice himself. It's even stated in the book that he would have if Gavin hadn't.
** Not everyone in Real Life likes Carrot, trust me. He actually reminds me of some people I've known in real life who care about everyone in a very abstract way, and no one in reality. He's like a nice version of a sociopath. No one is a real person to him, but he cares for them anyway.
** Angua at the very least is real to him; he ''abandoned his duty'' to follow her, when he didn't even know if she was going to need him.
** Seems that some readers are ascribing traits to Carrot that don't exist. When Pratchett says stuff like "he cares about everyone" it's exactly what it says on the tin in black and white, even to a fault. You don't have to like him, though, even Vimes says something like, "he wouldn't like him except that he's so damn like-able."
** And anyway, wouldn't the sort of "very nice sociopath" in question be quite suitable as a king, which is what the universe has decided Carrot is destined to be? His whole "personal isn't the same as important" maxim is essentially his way of expressing, consciously or not, that his kingly duty to his kingdom and subjects takes precedent over personal interests. He's a lot like Vetinari, really, but trades out the latter's dictatorial intimidation for a more appropriately royal charisma.
** Carrot is supposed to be a Deconstruction of the typical fantasy hero, the returning king who solves everything regardless of sense because it is ordained by fate. The result is a man who is by all appearances a good, kind, open-minded, almost supernaturally lucky and somewhat simple fellow who, like all good deconstructions, shows the reason why people like that only exist in fantasy by being...slightly unnerving. And moreso the more you sit and think about it. Though he is not ''bad'' (and he's not a Knight Templar, otherwise he would have taken the throne by now to 'improve' things), he is definitely a bit worrying. Which is the case with a lot of fairy tales, really. People in the story like him because they have to (he's got bags of krisma. "Krisma?" "Bags of it.") and people in Real Life like him because he's an interesting spin on an old, old archetype. And honestly, he's no worse than Vetinari.
** Have you read ''Hogfather''? Mr. Teatime is much more of a [[SlasherSmile smiling]] [[AxCrazy sociopath]] than Carrot is.
** Carrot is utterly honest. All of his "underhanded" tricks are pulled off by being even more honest than people expect. Like the Mended Drum's Quiz machine- the questions are there. He didn't force people to answer them, he didn't make the questions vague or unclear, he just asked them when they didn't expect it. It's like someone coming up to you and saying "May I borrow your pants?" You'll probably nod before you realize what the hell he just said, and by then you're butt's in the wind. Anyways, Carrot hasn't once lied in any single way. He occasionally puts his own interpretation of what was said into action, but he does exactly what he said he would do, to the word.
** Honest, yes, simple, no, he does after all manage to trick Doctor Whiteface into a confession in Men At Arms with no more than a bluff, if it's really a bluff.
** Fred says right after that bluff that he had seen people bluff with a bad hand, Carrot bluffed with ''no cards.''
** Ruthless Carrot isn't, at least in most circumstances (I don't think he's ever 'not' given the bad guy at least one chance to surrender), and calculating, maybe, but then that isn't necessarily a bad thing (Vetinari isn't a bad guy, nor is Death). Besides, he is honest most of the time (he's never told a lie, he has occasionally left bits out, which can make things 'sound' different).
** it's a bit more complex than that. Carrot has never willfully lied ''while pursuing his duty to Ankh-Morpork''. He can and does lie outright to the villagers in Scant Cullot, in ''The Fifth Elephant'', when he and Gaspode con them into letting him carry off [[strike: Asshole]] Bum, the captive wolf. ("All the blood in the victim congeals in an instant, by sheer terror" is ''not'' deception by omission.) As he wasn't acting as a Watchman at the time, but as a young man in pursuit of his girlfriend, he probably figured that stating a falsehood couldn't disgrace his uniform: under the circumstances, he was merely a private individual, bound only by ordinary dwarfish morality, and your average dwarf ''will'' tell a lie if it's necessary.
** It's worth pointing out that this section started off with people commenting on how ''unlikable'' they found the character, and ends with people saying he's ''too likable''. Perhaps he is neither.
** That, or [[BrickJoke the fact he doesn't have a beard]]
** Oh Gods, it's his Bags of Krisma, they'll kill us all!!! (After They make us like him for doing it, of course.)
** As I see Carrot, he always cares about what's good and right, but he's changed from defining good by the written rules to defining it by the overall outcome. That can be a scary trait because it means the only thing that limits Carrot is Carrot, but he does the job well. The scheming of Vetenari is morally sketchy because the ultimate goal is his own continued well-being, but the scheming of Carrot is aimed at the well-being of Ankh-Morpork as a whole. The readers don't have to be comfortable with it, just as a lot of the characters aren't, but I admire him for it.
** What are you talking about? Vetinari is the very embodiment of ascetism who cares about nothing but perfect functioning of his city. He lives on bread and water and barely ever sleeps. His only selfish indulgidences are crossword puzzles and Thud-games. Any action that he ever commits is for the good of the city, never for personal gain. Carrot on the other hand does not scheme, period. Sometimes he's simple in a way that requires extreme cleverness, but the reason why he is a Captain rather than Commander or a politician is because he wants to be executing justice in person, not talking about it.
** I see the difference being that Carrot is willing to sacrifice himself in a situation to preserve the safety of the city and the people he cares about, while Vetinari recognises that the best thing for Ankh Morpork is his continued survival as ruler.
** In Vetinari's defense on that one, Carrot and Vetinari have more than implied that the only reason Carrot allows Vetinari to stay Patrician is because that it's best for Ankh-Morpork. Also Ankh-Morpork doesn't need Carrot the king, it needs Carrot the copper.
** In my opinion, the following quote from the end of ''Discworld/MenAtArms'' completely sums up every reasons as to why Carrot is explicitly not a fake or a ManipulativeBastard:
--> Carrot (to Vetinari): "But I will not command the Watch, if that's what you mean...because I ''could'' command the Watch. Because...people should do things an officer tells them. They shouldn't do it just because Corporal Carrot says so. Just because Corporal Carrot is...good at being obeyed"
** Carrot fully understands that he has almost supernatural charisma and if he wanted to, he could have the entire city eating out of the palm of his hand. But he doesn't just want peace on the street solely because people like to obey him. He wants peace only if it's because the people decide that they want to act like better and more lawful people. There's nothing duplicitous or fake about that.
** "''Personal not the same as important''" - actually I believe he originally said that personal is not ''always'' the same as important (i.e. sometimes can be). This got somewhat {{flanderize}}d, but then - OOCIsSeriousBusiness.
[[/folder]]



[[folder:Witches as Mafia]]

* Does anyone else get a sort of [[TheMafia Mafia]] vibe from the Lancre Witches? They do services for the community, sometimes without asking first, and in turn expect crazy levels of respect from everyone. If anyone slights them they dish out DisproportionateRetribution and everyone is afraid of them.
** Or your grandmother.
** DisproportionateRetribution? You mean like the story of the witch who punished the man who broke into her house by saying nothing about it and smiling at him in a faintly amused way when she ran into him on the street, until the worry about what she was ''going'' to do drove him to skip town? Like the witches who mumble curses loudly enough to be overheard just so whenever the person who wronged them has something minor go wrong in their lives, they assume it was because of the witches? What exactly do you think would be proportionate retribution, inviting the would-be thief inside and telling him to take his pick?
** The witches are based on traditional English wise-women and such who were given things as payment or as thanks for their efforts. Every-one respect the wise-woman.
** Mind you, the comparison does make sense. There is no leader of the Mafia, because the Mafia does not exist. Without the organisation, there can be no leader, and Don Corleone is the leader they do not have. Absolutely ''nothing like'' the situation with Granny Weatherwax.

[[/folder]]

to:

[[folder:Witches as Mafia]]

* Does anyone else get a sort of [[TheMafia Mafia]] vibe from the Lancre Witches? They do services for the community, sometimes without asking first, and in turn expect crazy levels of respect from everyone. If anyone slights them they dish out DisproportionateRetribution and everyone is afraid of them.
** Or your grandmother.
** DisproportionateRetribution? You mean like the story of the witch who punished the man who broke into her house by saying nothing about it and smiling at him in a faintly amused way when she ran into him on the street, until the worry about what she was ''going'' to do drove him to skip town? Like the witches who mumble curses loudly enough to be overheard just so whenever the person who wronged them has something minor go wrong in their lives, they assume it was because of the witches? What exactly do you think would be proportionate retribution, inviting the would-be thief inside and telling him to take his pick?
** The witches are based on traditional English wise-women and such who were given things as payment or as thanks for their efforts. Every-one respect the wise-woman.
** Mind you, the comparison does make sense. There is no leader of the Mafia, because the Mafia does not exist. Without the organisation, there can be no leader, and Don Corleone is the leader they do not have. Absolutely ''nothing like'' the situation with Granny Weatherwax.

[[/folder]]




[[folder:Thugs]]

* Why is it that Terry is so eager to give redemption to the large, thuggish men? Sure, Banjo I might understand, but Mr. Tulip? He murdered at the drop of a hat, did drugs (well, tried to anyway) and cursed a blue streak.
** This likely has nothing to do with their physical build, and everything to do with their character/personality and estimation of their actual culpability for their actions. Mr.Tulip, for instance, obviously suffers from repressed memories and possibly other mental afflictions, and for the most part only does as Mr.Pin tells him to; and in Night Watch, Vimes makes mental note that he could understand a thug, "simple as a fist", being paid money to beat someone to death, but could not extend that same level of justification or any forgiveness to Findthee Swing, since he "had brains".
** Maybe because, alongside the above example, small, simple characters don't get used to beat people to death, and smart, ManipulativeBastard Bad Guys don't get redemption anyway, no matter their physical build?
** Actually, Mr. Tulip's case was a case of ExecutiveMeddling. Pratchett's editor was really, really upset when he'd killed off Mr. Tulip, so he wrote a pseudo-happy ending for the character.
** Mr. Tulip didn't curse. He said "--ing." It's not censored, that's [[UnusualEuphemism how he talks.]]
** Also, not everyone considers substance abuse and bad language to be damnable sins. A case of ArsonMurderAndJaywalking there, I think.
** Tulip believed if he had his potato and was sorry everything would turn out alright, he would come back alive. Tulip had his potatoe and was honest when asked if he was sorry, he didn't know. Tulip then was forced to relive his life from everyone elses point of view with the full knowledge of the context, so he was forced to experence his every bad deed from the other side. After that he was allowed to come back as a bug eating art, art being the one thing he was shown to care about.
** Add Mr Petty from ''Discworld/IShallWearMidnight'' to that score.
** Angua's father could rate as another example, as he's so far-gone into his wolf mentality that he seems barely aware of what his wife's and son's wicked scheme ''is'', never mind playing an active part in it.
** Then there's Algernon Stollop, who pulls a full-on KarmaHoudini in ''Snuff'': he strikes a blow against an innocent bystander who'd have died permanently as a result if not for [[spoiler: Nutt's "little brother"]], and doesn't receive any comeuppance for the deed at all.
** I have an answer for the first two Banjo was intentional but Mr. Tulips redemption was made by his [[ExecutiveMeddling editor.]]

[[/folder]]



[[folder:Dumb is good]]

* Does it honestly annoy anyone else how pretty much everyone (by that, I mean the general batch of background characters and a portion of the main ones) has the same sort of always happy-go-lucky, cheery, stupid, sure-let's-go-with-that kind of personality? It was probably the way they describe Lancre and its people at the beginning of ''Carpe Jugulum'', but for some reason it ''really'' kind of annoys me; might be because it reminds me of my friend's (who introduced me to Pratchett) assortment of characters, who all seem to have this sort of personality. Either that, or I'm just thinking Terry's humor and writing style is too formulaic...
** One word for you that invalidates the "all happy-go-lucky" thing. Vetinari. Another word- Rincewind. And another- Cohen.
** They're background characters, it's what they do. The Discworld runs on Narrative Causality; the background characters (and minor main characters) work the way they do because that's what's necessary for the story (i.e, the universe) to run.
** The hell? Sam Vimes is anything but "happy-go-lucky" and would probably break your arm for suggesting that he was. (Or at least introduce you to Mister Desk Drawer.) Besides, you live in a world that rides through space on the back of four elephants that sit on top of a giant turtle. Wizards and witches toss spells around. Your camera is actually a box with a minor demon (and his paints and easel) inside it. Vampires and werewolves wander around more or less in the open, and one of the dominant life forms is giant rocks that walk under their own power. I think that sort of environment begets a sort of laissez-faire attitude towards general weirdness, don't you?
** Maybe thats what differs the background characters from the main and minor characters. Say, a man collapses in the street. You'll usually have a crowd of people staring and/or discussing what to do ("Someone should really do something") and a few people who'll actually call an ambulance. Following those characters who do stuff when confronted with a problem is just more interesting, so the story focuses on them.

[[/folder]]

to:

[[folder:Dumb is good]]

* Does it honestly annoy anyone else how pretty much everyone (by that, I mean the general batch of background characters and a portion of the main ones) has the same sort of always happy-go-lucky, cheery, stupid, sure-let's-go-with-that kind of personality? It was probably the way they describe Lancre and its people at the beginning of ''Carpe Jugulum'', but for some reason it ''really'' kind of annoys me; might be because it reminds me of my friend's (who introduced me to Pratchett) assortment of characters, who all seem to have this sort of personality. Either that, or I'm just thinking Terry's humor and writing style is too formulaic...
** One word for you that invalidates the "all happy-go-lucky" thing. Vetinari. Another word- Rincewind. And another- Cohen.
** They're background characters, it's what they do. The Discworld runs on Narrative Causality; the background characters (and minor main characters) work the way they do because that's what's necessary for the story (i.e, the universe) to run.
** The hell? Sam Vimes is anything but "happy-go-lucky" and would probably break your arm for suggesting that he was. (Or at least introduce you to Mister Desk Drawer.) Besides, you live in a world that rides through space on the back of four elephants that sit on top of a giant turtle. Wizards and witches toss spells around. Your camera is actually a box with a minor demon (and his paints and easel) inside it. Vampires and werewolves wander around more or less in the open, and one of the dominant life forms is giant rocks that walk under their own power. I think that sort of environment begets a sort of laissez-faire attitude towards general weirdness, don't you?
** Maybe thats what differs the background characters from the main and minor characters. Say, a man collapses in the street. You'll usually have a crowd of people staring and/or discussing what to do ("Someone should really do something") and a few people who'll actually call an ambulance. Following those characters who do stuff when confronted with a problem is just more interesting, so the story focuses on them.

[[/folder]]



[[folder:American editions]]

* Why don't the American editions of the Discworld books have the beautiful Paul Kidby covers? Not that the cover is terribly important, but it ''would'' be nice to have Kidby's wonderful art instead of the generic stuff we get Stateside.
** My bet is that it's a royalties thing. (Money talks, people are stingy, et cetera.) So they go with more generic covers because they're cheaper.
** Terry Pratchett is frequently filed under children's books in American libraries. (Seriously.) The more "adult" covers may be an attempt to appeal to an older demographic.

[[/folder]]



[[folder:Tiffany and witchcraft]]

* Is it just me, or are the Tiffany Aching books just incredibly moralising and holier-than-thou on the subject of witchcraft? Okay, so a bit social work rather than showing off your badass powers was always part of what differentiated Discworld witch magic from wizard magic, but A Hat Full of Sky especially was incredibly preachy and joyless about the whole issue.
** Being a witch actually has very little to do with magic; it has to do with having First Sight and Second (or even Third) Thoughts. It's about helping others and expecting nothing in return. It's about noticing everything and making connections. And it's about Boffo. The magic itself is pretty much just something that helps the witches do what they must in emergencies. And while I don't think it's mentioned (I haven't read Discworld/IShallWearMidnight yet so I don't know if they say it there), I think that the type of actual magic that witches learn can actually be used by anyone, but only those who are naturally inquisitive and insightful will even think of trying to use it. In short, the only people who would even imagine using witchcraft are those that already have the most important witch qualities. Wizard magic is traditional arcane magic, based on studying and whatnot. It's a completely different animal from witchcraft.
** Being a witch has everything to do with magic, girls without magical talent don't become witches, plain as that. The fact that they don't '''use''' magic much is similar to the reason senior wizards don't use it much, in small quantities it can be very helpful, but using it too much is very dangerous.
** Not true. It's explicitly mentioned in the books that Granny and Tiffany weren't born with an ounce of magic in their blood. They became witches through sheer force of will and stubbornness. It seems to me that it takes a certain personality to get magic, and people with that kind of willpower are witches whether they use magic or not (Granny Aching was almost certainly a witch, and she never used any magic at all, as far as I remember).
** Source or it didn't happen. Near as I've been able to tell, they're born with magical abilities, but need training before they realise they've got them.
** In Tiffany's case it is explicitly stated near the end of And I Shall Wear Midnight that she was not born with any special talent in magic (she was born instead with a special talent in making cheese), but when she decided as a young girl that she wanted to be a witch, her determination more or less "forced" the universe to give her magic ability. But this sort of thing is fully consistent with the Theory of Narrative Causality. You could say the local narrativium responded to her will and caused her to develop magical powers. But you could also read that line to mean that Tiffany had some magical talent all along, just not ''special'' magical talent. Because by the end of her trilogy, Tiffany isn't just any young witch, she's a ''very powerful'' young witch, basically the Granny Weatherwax of her generation. So, in this interpretation, she was born with sufficient magical ability to become an ordinary witch, but her force of will turned her into a very good witch.
** All this I know. My annoyance isn't about how witch magic works, it's about the preachiness of the Tiffany Aching books.
** Pratchett actually contradicted himself very badly on Tiffany being born with or without magical talent. It was an important plot point in ''The Wee Free Men'' that Tiffany inherited the position of witch -- including the magic, and the particular ''kind'' of magic -- from her grandmother, Granny Sarah Aching. This carried through when Tiffany kickstarted the plot of ''Wintersmith'' specifically because she is tied to land and nature the way that most witches aren't. Then, it was an important plot point in ''I Shall Wear Midnight'' that Tiffany was born ''without any magical talent at all,'' and you might even call the plot the universe punishing her for taking the power that she has through sheer force of will. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
** Tiffany inherited her ''close connection to the Chalk'' from Granny Aching, not her magic. Having that connection had nothing innately to do with witchcraft, and could just as easily have helped to make her a good shepherd or a good druid or a good gardener or a good geologist as a good witch.
** Keep in mind, they're aimed at children/young adults. Pratchett's being a bit more obvious than usual.
** Completely disagree. Heavy-handed moralising is no more acceptable in a children's book than an adult's book and Pratchett's earlier work for younger audiences (such as the Johnny Maxwell series) shows none of it.
** Possibly they are that way because ''Tiffany'' is prone to taking a moral hard line. The sections which are told from Roland's or other characters' POV aren't particularly "preachy", so perhaps it's intentional: Pratchett's way of illustrating how Tiffany is becoming as ultra-strict about right and wrong as Granny Weatherwax, who's all-too-aware of her own potential for "cackling".

to:

[[folder:Tiffany and witchcraft]]

[[folder:Dog-speak]]

* Is it just me, or are the Tiffany Aching Why is Angua able to speak with dogs? The books just incredibly moralising and holier-than-thou on the subject of witchcraft? Okay, so a bit social work rather than showing off your badass powers was always part of what differentiated Discworld witch magic from wizard magic, but A Hat Full of Sky especially was incredibly preachy and joyless about the whole issue.
** Being a witch actually has very little to do with magic; it has to do with having First Sight and Second (or even Third) Thoughts. It's about helping others and expecting nothing in return. It's about noticing everything and making connections. And it's about Boffo. The magic itself is pretty much just something
show that helps the witches do what they must in emergencies. And while I don't think it's mentioned (I haven't read Discworld/IShallWearMidnight yet so I don't know if they say it there), I think that the type of actual magic that witches learn can actually be used by anyone, but only those who are naturally inquisitive and insightful will even think of trying to use it. In short, the only people who would even imagine using witchcraft are those that already (non-were) wolves have the most important witch qualities. Wizard magic is traditional arcane magic, based on studying and whatnot. It's a completely an ''extremely'' different animal from witchcraft.
** Being a witch has everything to do with magic, girls without magical talent don't become witches, plain as that. The fact that they don't '''use''' magic much is similar to the reason senior wizards don't use it much, in small quantities it can be very helpful, but using it too much is very dangerous.
** Not true. It's explicitly mentioned in the books that Granny
mental process and Tiffany weren't born with an ounce style of magic in their blood. They became witches through sheer force of will and stubbornness. It seems language to me that it takes a certain personality to get magic, and people with that kind of willpower are witches whether they use magic or not (Granny Aching was almost certainly a witch, and dogs (and humans), so why is she never used any magic at all, as far as I remember).
** Source or it didn't happen. Near as I've been
able to tell, they're born communicate with magical abilities, but need training before they realise they've got them.
** In Tiffany's case it is explicitly stated near the end of And I Shall Wear Midnight that she was not born
both dogs and wolves with any special talent in magic (she was born instead with a special talent in making cheese), but when she decided as a young girl that she wanted to be a witch, her determination more or less "forced" the universe to give her magic ability. But this sort of thing is fully consistent with the Theory of Narrative Causality. You could say the local narrativium responded to her will and caused her to develop magical powers. But you could also read that line to mean that Tiffany had some magical talent all along, just not ''special'' magical talent. ease.
**
Because by the end of her trilogy, Tiffany isn't just any young witch, she's a ''very powerful'' young witch, basically the Granny Weatherwax werewolf, not a wolf. The series mentions that a dog is what happens when you give human qualities to a wolf. A werewolf is what happens when you have a human and a wolf combined. As for also speaking to wolves, think of it as her generation. So, in this interpretation, she was born with sufficient magical ability to become an ordinary witch, but her force of will turned her into a very good witch.
** All this I know. My annoyance isn't about how witch magic works, it's about the preachiness of the Tiffany Aching books.
** Pratchett actually contradicted himself very badly on Tiffany
being born with or without magical talent. It was an important plot point in ''The Wee Free Men'' that Tiffany inherited the position of witch -- including the magic, and the particular ''kind'' of magic -- from her grandmother, Granny Sarah Aching. This carried through when Tiffany kickstarted the plot of ''Wintersmith'' specifically because she is tied to land and nature the way that most witches aren't. Then, it was an important plot point in ''I Shall Wear Midnight'' that Tiffany was born ''without any magical talent at all,'' and you might even call the plot the universe punishing her for taking the power that she has through sheer force of will. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
** Tiffany inherited her ''close connection to the Chalk'' from Granny Aching, not her magic. Having that connection had nothing innately to do with witchcraft, and could just as easily have helped to make her a good shepherd or a good druid or a good gardener or a good geologist as a good witch.
** Keep in mind, they're aimed at children/young adults. Pratchett's being a bit more obvious than usual.
** Completely disagree. Heavy-handed moralising is no more acceptable in a children's book than an adult's book and Pratchett's earlier work for younger audiences (such as the Johnny Maxwell series) shows none of it.
** Possibly they are that way because ''Tiffany'' is prone to taking a moral hard line. The sections which are told from Roland's or other characters' POV aren't particularly "preachy", so perhaps it's intentional: Pratchett's way of illustrating how Tiffany is becoming as ultra-strict about right and wrong as Granny Weatherwax, who's all-too-aware of her own potential for "cackling".
bilingual.



[[folder:L-Space and art]]

* Not a complaint about the series itself, but why does the L-Space Wiki use fan art instead of Kidby illustrations? Quite a bit of it is dreadful, and pretty inaccurate.
** Probably copyright.
** Who would sue a Wiki?
** As an administrator and moderator on the L-Space Wiki, may I offer WordOfGod here? We've got some terrific people on board who really know how to write and who can do accurate and Pratchett-esque entries on the characters, locations and books. Unfortunately we get few people who can draw original art. Horses for courses, really: the very best fan-artists (with no slur on our regulars) will inevitably gravitate to a visual site such as Website/DeviantArt rather than a word-based one. And you are right: we do have a responsibility to respect copyright law, so in most circumstances original art such as Kidby's is closed to us. (I have used one piece of Kidby's, citing "fair usage", using it to justify the piece on how Alice Band is an expy of [[Franchise/TombRaider Lara Croft]]. Which begs the question: was Kidby himself breaching copyright, in basing Miss Band on Lara? Or for that matter, his drawing of Ponder Stibbons to look suspiciously like Harry Potter...) I have in the past personally contacted people who have drawn memorable and brilliantly good fan-art to ask if they have any objection to our showcasing their work - the reaction is generally favourable and I must do more talent-spotting of this kind. But there are only so many hours in the day...

to:

[[folder:L-Space and art]]

[[folder:Age]]

* Not a complaint about Who's older, Vetinari or Vimes? From the series itself, but why does general dynamic between the L-Space Wiki use fan art instead of Kidby illustrations? Quite a bit of it is dreadful, and pretty inaccurate.
** Probably copyright.
** Who
two, I would sue have guessed Vetinari by a Wiki?
** As an administrator and moderator on the L-Space Wiki, may I offer WordOfGod here? We've got some terrific people on board who really know how to write and who can do accurate and Pratchett-esque entries on the characters, locations and books. Unfortunately we get
few people who can draw original art. Horses for courses, really: the very best fan-artists (with no slur on our regulars) will inevitably gravitate to years, but Night Watch makes it weird.
** Why? Vetinari is implicitly
a visual site such as Website/DeviantArt rather few years older than Vimes in Night Watch. He's a word-based one. And you are right: we do have a responsibility young gentleman, so he's still in school, college-phase to respect copyright law, so in most circumstances original art such as Kidby's be exact, whereas Vimes is closed to us. (I have used one piece of Kidby's, citing "fair usage", using it to justify the piece on how Alice Band is an expy of [[Franchise/TombRaider Lara Croft]]. Which begs the question: was Kidby himself breaching copyright, in basing Miss Band on Lara? Or for that matter, his drawing of Ponder Stibbons to look suspiciously like Harry Potter...) I have in the past personally contacted people who have drawn memorable poor and brilliantly good fan-art thus had to ask if they have any objection to our showcasing their work - the reaction is generally favourable and I must do more talent-spotting of this kind. But there are only so many hours in the day...
get a job.



[[folder:Dog-speak]]

* Why is Angua able to speak with dogs? The books show that (non-were) wolves have an ''extremely'' different mental process and style of language to dogs (and humans), so why is she able to communicate with both dogs and wolves with ease.
** Because she's a werewolf, not a wolf. The series mentions that a dog is what happens when you give human qualities to a wolf. A werewolf is what happens when you have a human and a wolf combined. As for also speaking to wolves, think of it as her being bilingual.

to:

[[folder:Dog-speak]]

[[folder:Death's appearances]]

* Why is Angua able to speak with dogs? The books show Does everyone who dies meet Death (or an appropriate associate) or not? I can find many quotes, some bordering on BadassBoast, that (non-were) wolves suggest so, but then there's ''Discworld/{{Mort}}'', which directly implies that he doesn't have an ''extremely'' different mental process to personally pick up everyone as long as he picks up some of them.
** CharacterizationMarchesOn
and style of language many ideas used early on[[note]]such as trolls, Vimes in Guards! Guards! compared to dogs (and humans), so why is she able to communicate with both dogs in Thud! and wolves with ease.
the like[[/note]] disappear or are drastically changed in later books.
** Because she's a werewolf, not a wolf. The series mentions scene where Death comes for the small deep-sea tube worm clarifies this: Death ''has'' to appear personally for the deaths of wizards and some others, as per ''Mort'', but he also ''chooses'' to attend ones that a dog is what happens when you give human qualities aren't crucial nodes to a wolf. A werewolf is what happens when you have a human and a wolf combined. make sure that things are operating smoothly. As for also speaking he's become more interested in mortal affairs, he's probably showing up voluntarily to wolves, think more of it as her being bilingual.
them than he used to.



[[folder:Age]]

* Who's older, Vetinari or Vimes? From the general dynamic between the two, I would have guessed Vetinari by a few years, but Night Watch makes it weird.
** Why? Vetinari is implicitly a few years older than Vimes in Night Watch. He's a young gentleman, so he's still in school, college-phase to be exact, whereas Vimes is poor and thus had to get a job.

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Death's appearances]]

* Does everyone who dies meet Death (or an appropriate associate) or not? I can find many quotes, some bordering on BadassBoast, that suggest so, but then there's ''Discworld/{{Mort}}'', which directly implies that he doesn't have to personally pick up everyone as long as he picks up some of them.
** CharacterizationMarchesOn and many ideas used early on[[note]]such as trolls, Vimes in Guards! Guards! compared to in Thud! and the like[[/note]] disappear or are drastically changed in later books.
** The scene where Death comes for the small deep-sea tube worm clarifies this: Death ''has'' to appear personally for the deaths of wizards and some others, as per ''Mort'', but he also ''chooses'' to attend ones that aren't crucial nodes to make sure that things are operating smoothly. As he's become more interested in mortal affairs, he's probably showing up voluntarily to more of them than he used to.

[[/folder]]
6th Feb '17 12:45:41 AM Philweasel
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Note that Ridcully is also very qualified, his list of achievements and awards is often stated to be extremely impressive, and he's always portrayed as a truly powerful wizard in a way many of the other senior facility never are. Coupled with that is the impression that given he had never expressed any interest in political power, and had actively avoided it by going out into the countryside, he would be an unambitious, boring, stable man, of the kind they really needed at that moment.
25th Jan '17 9:55:02 AM Willbyr
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** From my understanding zombies are people who refuse to die, rather a matter of will like the Nobodies in KingdomHearts.

to:

** From my understanding zombies are people who refuse to die, rather a matter of will like the Nobodies in KingdomHearts.''Franchise/KingdomHearts''.
15th Dec '16 6:27:30 AM maticro
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In French, the word 'Singe' means both Monkey and Ape. So how do the French translations of Discworld novels deal with the fact that it is 'monkey' and not 'ape' that is the Librarians BerserkButton.

to:

* In French, the word 'Singe' means both Monkey and Ape. So how do the French translations of Discworld novels deal with the fact that it is 'monkey' and not 'ape' that is the Librarians BerserkButton
** They use the word 'anthropoïde' . 'Singe' is used for the
BerserkButton.


Added DiffLines:

28th Nov '16 9:22:35 AM isolato
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Yep. TheoryofNarrativeCausality is one thing and genetics another, and if Carrot just don't grow facial hair well, a dwarf with scruffy beard would not look well. After all Carrot is dwarf ''and'' six foot six tall. Not to mention that he's also a spit-clean [[TheIdealist idealist]] [[RightfulKingReturns rightful heir to the throne]], so in his case there are several tropes in play simultaneously, not all of which go well with a bearded face.

to:

** Yep. TheoryofNarrativeCausality TheoryOfNarrativeCausality is one thing and genetics another, and if Carrot just don't grow facial hair well, a dwarf with scruffy beard would not look well. After all Carrot is dwarf ''and'' six foot six tall. Not to mention that he's also a spit-clean [[TheIdealist idealist]] [[RightfulKingReturns rightful heir to the throne]], so in his case there are several tropes in play simultaneously, not all of which go well with a bearded face.
23rd Nov '16 9:38:00 AM isolato
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** "''Personal not the same as important''" - actually I believe he originally said that personal is not ''always'' the same as important (i.e. sometimes can be). This got somewhat {{flanderize}}d, but then - OOCIsSeriousBusiness.
23rd Nov '16 9:14:42 AM isolato
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** ''Krisma. Bags of krisma''. He has indeed a very special relationship to Ankh-Morpork, but he still exudes charisma whenever he goes.
23rd Nov '16 9:09:46 AM isolato
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Yep. TheoryofNarrativeCausality is one thing and genetics another, and if Carrot just don't grow facial hair well, a dwarf with scruffy beard would not look well. After all Carrot is dwarf ''and'' six foot six tall. Not to mention that he's also a spit-clean [[TheIdealist idealist]] [[RightfulKingReturns rightful heir to the throne]], so in his case there are several tropes in play simultaneously, not all of which go well with a bearded face.
30th Oct '16 9:46:26 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The "officially unofficial" ''{{GURPS}}'' book says that Sto Helit is currently run on a day-to-day basis by a council of burghers, but when Susan's in town what she says goes ... eventually.

to:

** The "officially unofficial" ''{{GURPS}}'' ''TabletopGame/{{GURPS}}'' book says that Sto Helit is currently run on a day-to-day basis by a council of burghers, but when Susan's in town what she says goes ... eventually.
25th Aug '16 11:38:38 AM MrDeath
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* As was formerly mentioned, Vetinary is most likely only as unfailable as he is (and this Troper likes Vetinari), as he is 'only' an important minor charakter. As the discworld goes, it is not that unlikely that even discworlds fate and luck have him as such a charakter in the game, and thus nothit to hard by any of them but if he should ever become a main charakter of his own book (wich won't happen now), he would be an in Universe main Charakter as well and his ability to fail would grow a lot, if only for some time, as fate and luck would pay much more attention to him. This Troper thinks that Vetinary is most likelynot one of the Ladys figures as he lacks beeing a wild card like Rincewind and Vimes but most likely not fates as well.

to:

* As was formerly mentioned, Vetinary Vetinari is most likely only as unfailable infallable as he is (and this Troper likes Vetinari), as he is 'only' an important minor charakter. character. As the discworld goes, it is not that unlikely that even discworlds fate Discworld's Fate and luck Luck have him as such a charakter character in the game, and thus nothit to not hit too hard by any of them but if he should ever become a main charakter character of his own book (wich won't happen now), he would be an in Universe InUniverse main Charakter character as well and his ability to fail would grow a lot, if only for some time, as fate Fate and luck Luck would pay much more attention to him. This Troper thinks that Vetinary Vetinari is most likelynot likely not one of the Ladys Lady's figures as he lacks beeing a wild card like Rincewind and Vimes but most likely not fates Fate's as well.
This list shows the last 10 events of 110. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.Discworld