Wyrd Sisters Discussion *Spoilers*

[theoldlibrarian]

Heres what I want to know:
Granny Weatherwax sends the whole of Lancre fifteen years into the future. If you were living at the border of Lancre but not actually in Lancre what would you have seen for those fifteen years while you looked into Lancre or at least where Lancre was?

[Tonyblack]

It's a question that I've asked myself as well. Of course it means that everyone in Lancre at the time is 15 years younger than they should be, so presumably, when Granny meets Ridcully in Lords and Ladies, she's 15 years younger than him relative to their meeting as youngsters.

[theoldlibrarian]

It's a question that I've asked myself as well. Of course it means that everyone in Lancre at the time is 15 years younger than they should be, so presumably, when Granny meets Ridcully in Lords and Ladies, she's 15 years younger than him relative to their meeting as youngsters.

Maybe you should add that to the thread about inconsistencies.

[Penfold]

I'm guessing its all quantum.

[Tonyblack]

It's a question that I've asked myself as well. Of course it means that everyone in Lancre at the time is 15 years younger than they should be, so presumably, when Granny meets Ridcully in Lords and Ladies, she's 15 years younger than him relative to their meeting as youngsters.

Maybe you should add that to the thread about inconsistencies.

I don't think it's necessarily an inconsistancy, I just find myself asking those questions such as what must have happened to people from Lancre who were out of the Kingdom at the time. Nanny's daughter in A-M for example would presumably be 15 years older and the baby she had had that Nanny mentions is now a teenager. And what about people who do business with the kingdom - did they find ther place gone?

I'm sure it works, it just brings up a whole bunch of questions in my mind.

[theoldlibrarian]

Perhaps no time travel was done at all but the entire Disk grew 15 years older while one kingdom didn't. Still that raises further questions.

[Doughnut Jimmy]

It's a question that I've asked myself as well. Of course it means that everyone in Lancre at the time is 15 years younger than they should be, so presumably, when Granny meets Ridcully in Lords and Ladies, she's 15 years younger than him relative to their meeting as youngsters.

Maybe you should add that to the thread about inconsistencies.

Maybe Ridcully was just being diplomatic and not mentioning it - I mean would you go up to Granny and comment on her age, even to say she looked younger than you expected?

But yes there are all sorts of logical/logistical problems that Terry carefully avoids mentioning, like why people working in Ankh Morpork had suddenly sent home 15 years wages at once?

[Tonyblack]

Can I ask you all if you thought that it was necessary to know Shakespeare's plays to enjoy the book?

The danger of using allusion is that you'll completely go over the heads of your readers. Did you feel that at all?

[Jan Van Quirm]

It's not really that important to know WS I think - I read somewhere that most English-speakers don't need to know Shakespeare because he's at the heart of the language - the number of phrases and motif's that we quote unconsciously, just in hamlet's soliloquy that Batty? quoted in another thread yesterday brought that home most effectively...

The 2 plays that Terry deliberately references for the Witches books are Macbeth and Midsummer's Night Dream which are the only 2 plays of his I've ever been made to study and I hated Macbeth and thought MSD was just plain weird even though it had pure fantasy in there - but L&L is still my fave Witch book and as I've said it took me a while to accept WS because I didn't take to the satirisation because I knew the play

Terry's stamp balances the Bard's so no I don't think the allusions matter as such - just the way Terry translates them so you then interpret them in context to Discworld...

[Doughnut Jimmy]

Can I ask you all if you thought that it was necessary to know Shakespeare's plays to enjoy the book?

The danger of using allusion is that you'll completely go over the heads of your readers. Did you feel that at all?

Really difficult one to answer Tony because I can't imagine not knowing Macbeth. I think if you didn't know the storyline it would be a bit difficult to follow why Terry turns bits upside down.

Plus without "Out, out damded spot" the ongoing thing with the Duke's hand would just be weird - though I found it disturbing rather than funny on this rereading, taking a grater to your own hand is so wrong

You certainly get a lot more fun if you know the play, but then unlike Jan I think Macbeth is great - some wonderful use of language

[theoldlibrarian]

Id say it would it would be pretty weird to read if you didnt know Shakespeare. Although Ive read plenty of satire in the past and thought it funny, not even knowing what its referencing.

[raisindot]

Can I ask you all if you thought that it was necessary to know Shakespeare's plays to enjoy the book?

The danger of using allusion is that you'll completely go over the heads of your readers. Did you feel that at all?

Isn't that a question that really applies to nearly all the DW books (at least most of the early ones, which were crammed to the gills with such allusions and references?) "Soul Music" isn't nearly as good unless you've got knowledge of early rock and roll. "Moving Pictures" doesn't work that well without some knowledge of the early film industry. "Maskerade" reads better with knowledge of musicals and operas. That doesn't mean that WS can't be "enjoyed," but that it's a much more literary experience if you know the references.

WS in particular almost sort of requires knowledge at least of some of the plot (if not necessarily the actual lines) from Macbeth and Midsummer Night's Dream to get the most out of it. It may BE a parody (as has been discussion) but it does (verb) parody whole chunks of these plays' plots.

I think that may be part of the reason why some of the adult DW books are not always that popular among younger people (well, at least in the U.S.), or adults who don't have a deep knowledge of both U.S. and English culture, literature and history.

J-I-B

[Doughnut Jimmy]

WS in particular almost sort of requires knowledge at least of some of the plot (if not necessarily the actual lines) from Macbeth and Midsummer Night's Dream to get the most out of it. It may BE a parody (as has been discussion) but it does (verb) parody whole chunks of these plays' plots.

Which bits are references to Midsummer Night's Dream then? - when someone mentioned it earlier I thought they were on about Lords and Ladies but I'm obviously being dense as usual

[Jan Van Quirm]

I mentioned MND and I did mean Lord and Ladies

Not too sure how MND specifically relates to WS except for the 'play within a play' thingie which seems to be a recycled motif as it's also in Hamlet of course... Like I was saying, Shakespearean themes are simply part of the scenery in the language so people 'know' him without knowing it's him - and so no prior knowledge needed as a good story is a good story is a good story

[theoldlibrarian]

Who is your favorite character in WS and why?
Mine is Greebo, just for the laughs.