Wyrd Sisters Discussion *Spoilers*

[Tonyblack]

Why does a witch have to be a witch

I'm not sure I understand the question either. But I'm guessing you mean something along the lines of - why isn't a midwife a witch?

The difference seems to be to do with magic, even if most witches try not to use it. In the Tiffany books, Granny Aching seems to be a witch even though she doesn't dress like one or acknowledge herself to be one. Indeed, in Tiffany's part of the Disc it was positively dangerous to be a witch.

A Discworld witch is a practitioner of magic with the advantages (or disadvantages ) that brings. So a witch can see Death and knows when she is going to die, and she can manipulate the magic field of the Disc.

In the Ramtops, it seems that letting everyone know that you are witch, by dressing like one and acting like one, is an important part of the magic. It gets respect and the community, although they might not like the witch, will have a certain amount of pride in her and make sure they look after her.

That's why it is such a bad thing in Wyrd Sisters when the Duke spreads rumours about the witches. If they lose that respect, they lose a lot of their power.

[Jan Van Quirm]

And selfishly that's when the coven decides to meddle big time and move Lancre by 15 years.... But there of course other reasons besides them getting the respect they should have so it's also an altruistic act.

Have found a thread in this forum which looks at how witchey witches ought to be and why the Ramtops/Chalk witches (older generation) deliberately don't use magic unless there's no good alternative.

Wyrd Sisters. There may be another one because I do remember us talking about how the Discworld witches do have definite parallels with the wise woman aspects of witching in Roundworld from medieval times up to the early 19thC CEin that they do a lot of birthing and doctoring rather than turning people into toads (just making them think they're a toad.... )

[Tonyblack]

This one Jan?

[Jan Van Quirm]

Dat's da Bunny Tony!

[theoldlibrarian]

Sorry about that. I was really getting at what they were tlking about in Equal Rites. A witch is a magical evil woman, a wizard is an old magical man and a king is a grand rich gentleman. Or so we all thought.
Nothing really to get caught up on though

[Tonyblack]

Sorry about that. I was really getting at what they were tlking about in Equal Rites. A witch is a magical evil woman, a wizard is an old magical man and a king is a grand rich gentleman. Or so we all thought.
Nothing really to get caught up on though

Ah! Well Terry does tend to turn fantasy stereotypes upside down. Who'd have thought that elves were so evil?

[Jan Van Quirm]

Who'd have thought that elves were so evil?

Me!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Tonyblack]

You have two weeks to read or reread Thud! for the discussion starting on Monday 1st March 2010.

I've already had a volunteer to write the introduction for this discussion.

[Tonyblack]

Did anyone find the ending of the book confusing? The actual relationship between Tomjon and Verrence?

[Jan Van Quirm]

It did get a little confusing didn't it? Verrence is the true heir however since he was the Verence I's son (Tomjon was the son of Verence's Queen by his jester - I think that's right anyway?)

In other words Tomjon and Verrence aren't related in any way

[Tonyblack]

It did get a little confusing didn't it? Verrence is the true heir however since he was the Verence I's son (Tomjon was the son of Verence's Queen by his jester - I think that's right anyway?)

In other words Tomjon and Verrence aren't related in any way

I think you're wrong - and they are related.

[Willem]

From what I remember, Tomjon was the son of the old fool and the queen, while Verence was the son of the old fool and the old fool's wife. This would make them half-brothers, but neither has any royal blood. Assuming that the royal bloodline was coming from the king, not the queen

Aren't there a couple of hints about Tomjon and Verence looking a bit alike?

[poohcarrot]

I thought they were both sons of the queen and the fool's dad. The king didn't get a look in, did he?

Sourcery and Soul Music. I've read them millions of times, but you ask me what exactly happens in the end and I'd have trouble explaining.

[Tonyblack]

From what I remember, Tomjon was the son of the old fool and the queen, while Verence was the son of the old fool and the old fool's wife. This would make them half-brothers, but neither has any royal blood. Assuming that the royal bloodline was coming from the king, not the queen

Aren't there a couple of hints about Tomjon and Verence looking a bit alike?

That's the way I read it Willem. We are led to believe that Verence I was exercising his Droit de Seigneur and therefore Verence II was his bastard. But there's a mention that Verence's father, the fool, left home but came back to lisit old friends. And that he was good at climbing - which suggests he was visiting the queen. So Verence and Tomjon are half brothers - same father but different mothers. As you say Willem, neither of them really have a right to be king, but a new dynasty has to start somewhere.

[poohcarrot]

Wasn't the fool brought up by his grandfather because his mother wasn't around and his father was away fooling? So why wasn't his mother around? How could he have been born without a mother, unless his mother was the Queen?

I could be completely and utterly wrong here but can't be bothered to check.