SPOILERS Wyrd Sisters Discussion *Spoilers*
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
On the Bernard Cornwell site I admin, we often get newbies who have see the Sharpe TV series with Sean Bean but not read any of the books. When they do try the books they quickly see how superior they are and go on to read all the other books as well. 
Getting back on topic.
Throughout the book, the fool insists that he has to be loyal until death. He actually causes the witches a lot of trouble because of his advice to the Felmets - and yet ultimately he doesn't remain loyal.
What changes his attitude?
Getting back on topic.
Throughout the book, the fool insists that he has to be loyal until death. He actually causes the witches a lot of trouble because of his advice to the Felmets - and yet ultimately he doesn't remain loyal.
What changes his attitude?
I think he goes along, reluctantly, with the 'loyalty to the master' thing until Granny bids 'the truth to have it's.....day' and the real story is re-enacted. That's when he realises that his loyalty should have stayed with the old king, his real master, and, in his absence, to the kingdom itself. This is even clearer when you get to Lords and Ladies and there's the bit when they find he's sleeping inside the bedroom door - the door to the kingdom...
We know he's not the real successor according to Roundworld genetics, but on Discworld?
We know he's not the real successor according to Roundworld genetics, but on Discworld?
Interesting point about the fool - he is loyal to Felmet for a long time despite the fact that he has seen him murder the old king! I'm not sure whether this is because he's trying to follow the code of the guild or because he's scared of what will happen if he accuses them.
I suspect he only comes out on the side of the witches because he knows Magrat will have nothing more to do with him if he doesn't help them.
I suspect he only comes out on the side of the witches because he knows Magrat will have nothing more to do with him if he doesn't help them.
Another point I'd like to make and ask your opinion on is why Lord Felmet apparently doesn't become King.
He's effectively usurped the king by killing him and seems to have some rights to the throne - but why doesn't he take it? He's employed heavies to back his claim and the sequence of events after the murder of the king seem to go on for a year or more and yet he's still Lord Felmet, not King Felmet.
He's effectively usurped the king by killing him and seems to have some rights to the throne - but why doesn't he take it? He's employed heavies to back his claim and the sequence of events after the murder of the king seem to go on for a year or more and yet he's still Lord Felmet, not King Felmet.
Tonyblack said:
Another point I'd like to make and ask your opinion on is why Lord Felmet apparently doesn't become King.
He's effectively usurped the king by killing him and seems to have some rights to the throne - but why doesn't he take it? He's employed heavies to back his claim and the sequence of events after the murder of the king seem to go on for a year or more and yet he's still Lord Felmet, not King Felmet.
He's effectively usurped the king by killing him and seems to have some rights to the throne - but why doesn't he take it? He's employed heavies to back his claim and the sequence of events after the murder of the king seem to go on for a year or more and yet he's still Lord Felmet, not King Felmet.
or if it's part of his rejection of the land - he want's the power but not the responsibilites of kingship - Terry says "The king and the land are one" so maybe Lord/Duke Felmet never gets himself crowned?
They don't actually have the crown, that's true. The witches hid it amongst the props of the troupe when they were handing over the baby.
But surely, if Felmet was that determined, he'd have had another crown made. He'd already taken over the kingdom - a crown would have been a small matter, I'd have thought.
But surely, if Felmet was that determined, he'd have had another crown made. He'd already taken over the kingdom - a crown would have been a small matter, I'd have thought.
Of course I always enter these discussions way after the discussions have moved on to another book, BUT, seeing as that this discussion inspired me to read WS again (it's much better on the second reading, for me at least), I did have a question on something I couldn't understand.
What was the meaning of the cockerels--i.e., when Granny is flying around the kingdom, getting her time-shift spell ready, she asks how many cockerels there are in Lancre. Nanny (I think) specifies a certain number, but then she has also arranged something with her extended family--are they the ones who imitate cockerels? What is the purpose of this and is this what Nanny ordered her family to do, or was there something else?
J-I-B
What was the meaning of the cockerels--i.e., when Granny is flying around the kingdom, getting her time-shift spell ready, she asks how many cockerels there are in Lancre. Nanny (I think) specifies a certain number, but then she has also arranged something with her extended family--are they the ones who imitate cockerels? What is the purpose of this and is this what Nanny ordered her family to do, or was there something else?
J-I-B
What Penfold said - it was Nanny's safety net in case Granny didn't manage the spell in time.
Actually, Nanny subtly supports Granny in a few of the books and this might be the first of such cases. She quietly makes sure that Granny doesn't over extend herself. In some later books Nanny deliberately sets up a situation to keep Granny from getting bored. A bored Granny Weatherwax could be dangerous.
Actually, Nanny subtly supports Granny in a few of the books and this might be the first of such cases. She quietly makes sure that Granny doesn't over extend herself. In some later books Nanny deliberately sets up a situation to keep Granny from getting bored. A bored Granny Weatherwax could be dangerous.
Tonyblack said:
Actually, Nanny subtly supports Granny in a few of the books and this might be the first of such cases. She quietly makes sure that Granny doesn't over extend herself. In some later books Nanny deliberately sets up a situation to keep Granny from getting bored. A bored Granny Weatherwax could be dangerous.
J-I-B
Swreader, your point back at the start of February, about Guards Guards being a good first book is a very good one. My partner is a book snob, and only reads certain books. I got him hooked with Guards Guards, and he's now working his way through the Discworld. The Colour of Magic is of course the first book, but it is not necessarily the best.
Wyrd Sisters is one of my favourite, and I adore the Witches. Pratchett's allusions to Shakespearian drama make the book even more entertaining, although it does get me in trouble when discussing Shakespeare in a seminar and I begin to digress. As characters, the Witches are a wonderful mix of personalities, and it's a joy to read and re-read later novels featuring them!
Wyrd Sisters is one of my favourite, and I adore the Witches. Pratchett's allusions to Shakespearian drama make the book even more entertaining, although it does get me in trouble when discussing Shakespeare in a seminar and I begin to digress. As characters, the Witches are a wonderful mix of personalities, and it's a joy to read and re-read later novels featuring them!
A rose by any other name
I've only read the first five pages of this thread, but I need to get some sleep, so I'll post this now and read the rest later. This was one of the first DW novels I ever read and remains one of my favourites, even though I haven't re-read it for a long time (it's one of the books that got stolen, if you've read any of my other posts). I recently read the annotations for this, which reminded me why I liked the book so much. I think I got all but two of the Shakespeare allusions, even though I didn't study any of the relevant plays and I'd say it does help if you at least know what the allusions are. I wouldn't call this book a parody of MacBeth, but I would say that it parodies MacBeth. I just think it's very funny. In particular, the introduction of the thieves' guild and the scenes where Hwel keeps getting side tracked by his visions of Marx Bros/Laurel & Hardy/Charlie Chaplin skits. I remember nearly wetting myself with laughter. As for the act of moving Lancre fifteen years into the future, call it poetic license. If you want someone who confronts the paradoxes of time travel with logical consistency, read 'The Star Diaries' by Stanislaw Lem (also very funny). To me, TP's books are about stories and as such they don't have to be logically consistent. I have to say that I didn't really give it much thought, but then again, the Discworld's such an odd place that a few unnoticed inconsistencies wouldn't really warrant much attention. Isn't this another one of TP's themes anyway? That we steadfastly refuse to see what is really there (first sight and second thoughts, as the Tiffany books call them), preferring to see what we think is there. Hence everyone's inability to see Death for what he really is.
Didn't really mean to write so much and I really must get to bed. I'll apologize once I've read the rest of this thread...
I've only read the first five pages of this thread, but I need to get some sleep, so I'll post this now and read the rest later. This was one of the first DW novels I ever read and remains one of my favourites, even though I haven't re-read it for a long time (it's one of the books that got stolen, if you've read any of my other posts). I recently read the annotations for this, which reminded me why I liked the book so much. I think I got all but two of the Shakespeare allusions, even though I didn't study any of the relevant plays and I'd say it does help if you at least know what the allusions are. I wouldn't call this book a parody of MacBeth, but I would say that it parodies MacBeth. I just think it's very funny. In particular, the introduction of the thieves' guild and the scenes where Hwel keeps getting side tracked by his visions of Marx Bros/Laurel & Hardy/Charlie Chaplin skits. I remember nearly wetting myself with laughter. As for the act of moving Lancre fifteen years into the future, call it poetic license. If you want someone who confronts the paradoxes of time travel with logical consistency, read 'The Star Diaries' by Stanislaw Lem (also very funny). To me, TP's books are about stories and as such they don't have to be logically consistent. I have to say that I didn't really give it much thought, but then again, the Discworld's such an odd place that a few unnoticed inconsistencies wouldn't really warrant much attention. Isn't this another one of TP's themes anyway? That we steadfastly refuse to see what is really there (first sight and second thoughts, as the Tiffany books call them), preferring to see what we think is there. Hence everyone's inability to see Death for what he really is.
Didn't really mean to write so much and I really must get to bed. I'll apologize once I've read the rest of this thread...
