Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

WOSSNAME -- APRIL 2001 -- PART 2 OF 3 (continued)

Expand Messages
  • JSCHAUM111@aol.com
    WOSSNAME -- APRIL 2001 -- PART 2 OF 3 (continued) 7) LETTERS FROM OUR READERS WHEREFOR ART THOU VETINARI? To the editor: Pterry has mentioned before where he
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      WOSSNAME -- APRIL 2001 -- PART 2 OF 3 (continued)



      To the editor:

      Pterry has mentioned before where he got his
      influence for Vetinari's name, but he said
      that with some lateral thinking we could work
      out why the other families had names like
      Selachii and Venturi. Any ideas?

      -- Hayley Francis

      To the editor:

      Isn't that in the new, revised APF? If not...
      Selachii and Venturi are sharks and jets.
      The Sharks and the Jets were the rival teenage
      gangs in the Broadway musical, West Side Story,
      which was based on Romeo and Juliet, and set in
      Italy in more or less the era of the Medici and

      -- Tamar Lindsay


      To the editor:

      Reading the new Star Wars scriptment on the net
      got me thinking about movie characters, and how
      generally speaking the villains are usually much
      more memorable than the good guys. Which got me
      thinking about PTerry, and how in his books this
      is reversed.

      PTerry's heroes are very memorable: Rincewind,
      Granny, Vimes, Carrot -- they all have amazing
      personalities and are very unforgettable. But his
      villains? His most memorable villains, the elves
      and the auditors, are memorable for what they are,
      rather than any distinct personality. The others
      are sort of just Interchangeable Bad Guys. What
      do people think? Does PTerry write good Bad Guys?

      -- Steven D'Aprano

      To the editor:

      I have to disagree with Steve. I think PTerry
      writes great villains. I mean, look at people like
      Vorbis and Mr. Teatime, truly evil, twisted,
      demented, and despicable people. I don't think his
      villains are more memorable than his protagonists,
      but I do think he writes good villains.

      -- Dan

      To the editor:

      Someone has questioned whether Pratchett's villains
      are a bit underdeveloped. Well, of course, as the
      antagonists of a given book, they have to be
      eliminated by the (hopefully continuing) heroes, so
      there is less time for character development. It's an
      inherent handicap in the role.

      Personally, I found the villains in The Truth to be
      quite a bit more memorable than the hero. And the
      title characters in Lords and Ladies had quite a bit
      in common with the chief malfeasor in the Fifth

      What I notice (and appreciate) about Pratchett is that
      wanton cruelty is clearly condemned. And picturesque
      poverty is not romanticized.

      It's strange, to find oneself seeking moral guidance
      and instruction from a fantasy series, but it works
      for me.

      -- Sue Reynolds, carefully refraining from
      spy planes or werewolf comments

      To the editor:

      A reason why PTerry's villains may appear to be
      somewhat... bland is the fact that they're only
      around for the one book! With the exception of
      the Auditors, of course... Whereas the 'good guys'
      have more than one book, and therefore, more time
      to develop their characters.

      -- Bobby Cox

      THAT ----ING WORD

      To the editor:

      How do you pronounce Mr. Tulip's "----ing"?
      I like to know how to pronounce words I'm
      reading, but this has me stumped!

      -- Sue Reynolds

      To the editor:

      You know, this is one time I think there was a
      misjudgment by the author. If you delete all
      the ----ing, the book reads much more fluently,
      and it's far less annoying. I tended, the first
      time around, to assume that the ---- represented
      the conventional profanities, and that the
      author was just trying to avoid writing them out;
      when it became clear that the profanities were
      deleted by the character, the whole thing became,
      um, tedious. Besides, as my father always reminded
      me when I was cussing, it's a sign of inadequate
      vocabulary--not something that Pratchett, bless
      his figgins and moules, can be accused of.

      The "----ing" is to show what sort of a person
      Mr. Tulip is... thugs like him generally swear
      every couple of words, so he has to! obviously
      Pterry didn't want to swear a lot in the book,
      so he replaced it with "----ing" and made it
      into a character quirk that shows how Mr. Tulip
      actually says the word. That's what I think anyway.

      -- Fuzzy (aka Fiona Wynn)

      End of Part 2, says my computer -- continued on Part 3 of 3

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.