The Discworld Thread

Short version: It's not the ideal book to start with, but reading it first shouldn't be a problem.

So apparently at the Terry Pratchett memorial yesterday, it was announced that there's currently an adaptation of The Wee Free Men in the works.

Prepare for completely unintelligible Scottish accents, I guess?

Here's all the news. Gaiman got the hat btw.

Prepare for completely unintelligible Scottish accents, I guess?

Hurray for tautologies!

Though if Trainspotting managed to become a classic I guess it's not insurmountable. Though thinking of it, aren't the Feegles basically a race of small blue Begbies? (Except maybe Daft Wullie, who would be the Spud equivalent I guess.)

So I've finished my second read of Raising Steam, and I've finally figured out what the problem is: There are no stakes. The good guys aren't hampered for a single moment in the entire book. Everyone in Ankh-Morpork loves the trains, all the rival dangerous trains fail on their own, Moist saves those kids and averts a political incident, the grags admit that their plan to depose the Low King probably isn't actually going to succeed, and then she comes out as a female and everyone just accepts it. I wonder if this is what one of Pterry's first drafts looks like. Does he normally write something like this, then go back and add conflict?

Sad that it had to end on such a low note. I still haven't read The Shepherds Crown. How is it?

It's obviously not finished. You get the feeling, all the way through, that it hasn't had enough rewrites. That's the main problem with it. It's a decent story, and it makes the points it sets out to make. It's entertaining, but it's not quite Discworld quality. (Starting with Snuff, I don't think Pratchett ever managed to get back to his level. That, of course, is entirely understandable.)

There are some great scenes - especially in the beginning - and a compelling exploration of certain aspects of humanity. There isn't much that hasn't been covered in previous stories involving Granny Weatherwax and/or Tiffany Aching, though. Granted, the Tiffany books are probably meant as a sort of parallel to the older witch books, and written for a different audience. That's probably why they're so similar, thematically.

Seconding the above. Every book from Snuff onwards has felt very 'rough draft' - which is not to say bad, only maybe not quite as good as they could be. Also I do feel that they have been getting steadily less subtle and more anvilicious, though I guess this might be another symptom of the 'first draft syndrome' and seems more forgiveable in the Tiffany Aching stories being that they are (primarily) aimed at a younger audience.

So, after telling a friend a bit about opera and having him listen to some of The Magic Flute, he recommended I read Maskerade. I will do so, having just purchased the book on Kindle.

First time in Discworld or no? Maskerade is not a standalone book, quite late into the series, just so you know. It might not be too bad though since a lot of the focus is on one new character.

Yeah he knows, I got him to check that out because he's a HUGE Opera fan.

All Discworld books are standalone, to an extent. They always give all of the information you need to know the characters and their past sufficiently to be on board for the story in the book you're reading. There's more to enjoy if you've read the books that came before, but it's not essential.

Not essential but I do think the Watch books in particular you really do need to have read in order to get the most out of them, particularly the last three. The Death stories and the misadventures of Moist Von Lipwig are more standalone and the Witches stories you can probably read in any order and be okay with. The Rincewind stories are the weakest for me so I haven't really bothered re-reading them enough to know either way.

Movie.

Per the namespace cleanup effort, Discworld and other speries-specific namespaces ought to be merged back into the main media namespaces. I've thrown up a project thread for Discworld; anyone who can help, please do.

Hello everyone.

I'm a long-time lurking contributor here and I love Discworld, especially the Watch, Moist, and Tiffany books. And I've got a question for you guys, because there's something I really don't get.

Why is Vetinari a villain?

Across TV tropes, Vetinari is cited as an anti-villain, evil overlord, villain protagonist etc, etc. But what is it about him that's actually *villainous*?

He lives like a monk and loves dogs. He pushes for racially inclusive policies and has consistent support from women guild heads. His city is the most prosperous and influential on the Disc and people from all over the Disc want to live there. He doesn't want his people to 'pull together' because that's a sign of despotism. He tolerates anything except anything that endangers the city. He believes in freedom, including facing the consequences of one's actions. He gave second chances to criminals. He avoided a war and rejected an opportunity for economic hegemony. He was infuriated to be accused of having 'bought and sold' people. He regrets he might have to kill an innocent man to prevent an invasion from hell, and then doesn't do it.

Yes, Vetinari killed Winder and probably Snapcase too, but Winder had people tortured, and Snapcase had John Keel killed for protecting the citizens from Winder. Yes, he organized crime and then implied a threat on the lives of the head thief's family to keep the man in line, but this *successfully reduced crime*. He holds Leonard locked up, but Leonard is a man who causally invents nukes while being completely naive about people, and Leonard is *happy* with the arrangement - he doesn't notice being locked up, he's got free room and board, a great view, and endless supplies. Vetinari thinks democracy is a joke and has mimes hung upside down over a scorpion pit, but his citizens agree with him about both. He spies on nobles and guild heads, but he's constantly a target of conspiracy from power-hungry lords: shot at, poisoned, accused of treason, framed for murder... He uses Vimes and Moist, but he does it for the benefit of the city and against greedy bastards, and before he used them, Vimes was a depressed drunk and Moist was destroying people's lives for fun and profit.

Vetinari *calls* himself an evil overlord, but he's actually a textbook example of a Pragmatic Hero.

Deep down wants the best for others? Check. Lacks the moral 'cleanliness' of an Ideal Hero, ie, when fighting evil, commits acts more characteristic of a villain than a hero? Check. With exception of unintentional mistakes, only commits bad deeds that further the cause of good? Check. Views morally questionable actions as Dirty Business, seeks to avoid them if possible, and justifies them as I Did What I Had to Do? Check. Holds himself to strict a moral standard, but that standard isn't what people expect of a hero? Check. Doesn't let personal goals get in the way of his job, seeing that as shortsighted and unprofessional? Check. Acting without thought for the consequences of one's actions is against everything he believes in? Check. More concerned with the plot business than etiquette? Check. Does the right thing whether anyone likes it or not? Check. Is an anti-nihilist and evolves into a cynical mentor? Check.

So... why villain?

People consider him evil because he likes it that way. It's stated across the books in multiple different ways that each faction in the city hates him because he doesn't favour them over the others, but virtually all of the factions also agree that no one else would be better than him. There's a sort of equilibrium between people's dislike of him and their grudging satisfaction with the status quo. That's how he plays the power game. That people call him a tyrant is also helpful because it allows him to act - or threaten, or pretend, to act - like a tyrant without changing the status quo. If he's a tyrant no matter what (or at least within certain, flexible parameters), he'll use that freedom to get results.

He has this conversation with Moist von Lipwig, Sam Vimes, William de Worde, and Mustrum Ridcully - and probably a whole bunch of others - when he makes demands or threats of or against them. Sort of: "you forget I'm a tyrant" -> "You don't usually act like a tyrant" -> "Yet I am considered a tyrant, and therefore I can be tyrannical towards you in this instance without losing face - but of course you'd prefer to do this voluntarily and spare us both of my display of despotism". And it does seem to work, consistently.

In another time and another society he wouldn't be doing this. He'd be more open and more democratic, usually. In Ankh-Morpork, though, that sort of behaviour would just make him vulnerable, as we pretty much saw in The Truth. Of course, if he goes too far with the strong man approach, he'll also trigger an uprising against him - probably one much stronger and more popular than one based on his perceived weakness as a ruler.

This might be part of the reason why he delegates so extensively in his distribution of power across various public or otherwise essential institutions, getting people who can do the job and will be reliably on the side of the city. If he installed people that were clearly puppets, instead of ones who pretty blatantly resist him, he'd appear much more of a tyrant and, again, might be vulnerable to a popular uprising.

I kind of feel like the villain idea is connected to his presentation in Guards Guards, and doesn't quite reflect the evolution of Vetinari's character. It's been a while since I've read any of the books, but my recollection is that in Guards Guards, Vetinari seems more like a Trains Run On Time ruler who is effective and not that cruel due to Pragmatic Villainy. However, in later books, particularly Jingo, The Truth, and Going Postal, Vetinari seems to actually have good intentions and comes across as humane.

One thing that I think is striking is Vetinari's famous line in Guards Guards, "There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.” In that book, this seems like something he sincerely believes, and there's more than a tough of At Least I Admit It. Whereas in subsequent books, while I think Vetinari still thinks of himself as a bad person, I don't get the sense that he sees everyone else as bad. Because if he did, he'd have no interest in reforms, and it would be at odds with how he interacts with heroic characters.

@ Best Of

I get that he cultivates a villainous reputation because it's useful, and that characters *in story* perceive him as one, but that just makes him a Hero With (deliberate) Bad Publicity.

@ Hodor 2

But he isn't a villain even in Guards.

First, his introduction is basically "Looks like a Bond villain, you'd expect him to act like one, but nope."

Second, he enjoys seeing the head thief flustered for getting arrested because he *isn't* running a kleptocracy.

Finally, his speech to Vimes is self-contradictory - If there are no good people, how can they only be good at taking down bad people, and how can Vimes be one of them? Every Evil Overlord has a plan to rule the world, but Vetinari *doesn't*.

He was understandably sour after Snapcase turned out to be as bad as Winder, but his cynicism was a logical fallacy, he doesn't fit his own idea of an evil overlord, and he got better when the first decent person showed up in town. He ticks off every box for Pragmatic Hero. So why is he perceived as a villain *by the audience*?

edited 14th Jul '17 3:52:41 AM by akylae

The characters in story view him as villainous because his game plan works, and being perceived as an enemy - albeit one with whom you have an indefinite and mutually beneficial truce - is part of said plan.

I get why other characters *in story* think he's a villain. What I don't get is why readers *in real life* think he's a villain.

He's a textbook Pragmatic Hero, yet he's consistently described as Pragmatic Villain, Anti-Villain, Evil Overlord etc etc etc.

And the examples given are usually wrong. Anti-Villain says: "more sympathetic than other villains of the series [...] In no book is he actually an antagonist, although sometimes his schemes result in problems for other characters." But it's the other way around. He's sometimes an antagonist to Vimes and Moist, but in no book is he actually the villain. The villain always turn out to be some noble plotting against either him (in Watch books) or some city institution (in Moist books).

What gives? And would it be a problem if I corrected this?

I'm not sure if any significant number of readers do actually consider him a villain. I suppose it might be good to make sure our articles reflect that, if they don't already. Obviously, I can't authorise wholesale changes to multiple articles alone - you'd have to initiate a discussion in the relevant talk pages first.

I think Vetinari does his best to muddle the distinction as best as possible between Anti-Hero and Anti-Villain. He is some kind of an antagonist in the Moist stories, who is himself an Anti-Hero (or becomes one in the course of his books), as he resolutely avoids cutting him any kind of slack (most of Moist's gratifications for getting the job done are to stay alive). He is more sympathetic during the Watch books, although doing his best to hide it. Maybe you could argue that he begins as an Anti-Villain, quickly switches to Anti-Hero (of the Good is definitely not Nice variety), and is... something in-between in the Moist books (depending on how you consider Moist himself).

I think it's because Vetinari is a survivor. His character changes dramatically over the course of the books (Which was Pratchett improving his writing and molding the discworld more) but he is someone who restricts individual freedoms, claims to know what is best for everyone and isn't above following through on killing people who do get in the way.

Pragmatic Hero maybe but he is the Bond Villain who read the Evil Overlord List. And part of that is appearing to be benign. As the phrase goes in-book - a little bit of cake regularly is better than the whole cake with a dagger in it.

Antagonist =/= Villain. Why is not cutting slack to a self-centered criminal unsympathetic? Most is charming so Vetinari is mean to oppose him? Moist used his charm to *ruin* people.

"You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipwig. For The Joy Of The Game."

"No, Mr Lipwig, you signed up to die. You signed up to be justly hanged by the neck until dead for crimes against the city, against the public good, against the trust of man for man. And you were resurrected, because the city required you to be."

And Moist doesn't only get to keep living; he becomes a powerful and liked public figure, *plus* he gets with Adora.

Vetinari is actually more sympathetic in *Moist* books:

"Sometimes, Mister Lipwig, the young you that you lost many years ago comes back and taps you on the shoulder and says, '... You have given the world all you can give and now it’s the time that is just for you, the chance to go for broke in the last hurrah.' Hurrah!”

I would argue he begins as a Pragmatic Hero in training under his aunt, then becomes The Cynic because of Snapcase. He starts his Patricianship as a Knight in Sour Armor - taking care of a Wretched Hive. As a textbook Pragmatic Hero, he enacts morally shady policies that reduce crime. He's a self-professed Anti-Nihilist in 'Guards! Guards!'. He Gets Better across the Watch books and grows into a Big Good - With (deliberate) Bad Publicity. In 'Unseen Academicals' he confesses he's an Anti-Theists becasue Gods Are Bastards. By 'Raising Steam' he's Earned His Happy Ending.

None of these are Villain tropes. As Knight In Sour Armor states: "You really have to be a good guy to believe that Humans Are Bastards and care about them anyway."

First: "He would tolerate absolutely anything apart from anything that threatened the city" Also: "I believe in freedom. Not many people do, although they will of course protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences." And also: "Pulling together is the aim of despots. Free men pull in all kinds of directions."

Second: "The city works, Mr Lipwig. We progress. We would not do so if the ruler was the kind of man who would kill elderly ladies."

Vetinari does what's best for the *city* because he *actually knows*. Or do you think he should have pushed for war instead of surrendering? Kept other races second class citizens? Played the Trolls and Dwarves against each other? Shut down the Times? Let Moist and Reacher Gilt get away with their crimes? Let the post, clacks and the bank fail? Used the Golems for financial dominance?

He only killed Winder and the thugs who attacked his carriage.

Finally: "Just by looking at him you’d expect to keep a white cat, and caress it idly while sentencing people to death in a piranha tank; and you’d hazard for good measure that he probably collected rare thin porcelain, turning it over and over in his blue-white fingers while distant screams echoed from the depths of the dungeons. ... Practically none of this was in fact the case."

All the way back in Sourcery it's established that he *looks* like Bond Villain, but that he *isn't."

See, *this* is what I don't get. People claiming things that go directly against cannon. Or siding with the criminal who destroyed lives over well-intended authority. If a good leader came forward, you'd think he's an evil overlord and vote for the con-man.