Q: You're quite a writer. You've a gift for language, you're a deft hand at plotting and your books seem to have an enormous amount of attention to detail put into them. You're so good you could write anything. Why write fantasty? /1
Pratchett: I had a decent lunch and I'm feeling quite amiable. That's why you're still alive. I think you'd have to explain to me why you've asked that question.
Q: It's a rather ghettoized genre. /2
Pratchett: This is true. I cannot speak for the US, where I merely sort of sell okay. But in the UK I think every book - I think i've done twenty in the series - since the fourth book, every one has been one of the top ten national bestsellers... /3
...either as a hardcover or paperback, and quite often as both. Twelve or thirteen have been number one. I've done six juveniles, all of those have nevertheless crossed over to the adult bestseller list. /4
Pratchett: On one occasion I had the adult bestseller, the paperback bestseller in a different title, and a third book on the juvenile bestseller list. Now tell me again that this is a ghettoized genre.
Q: It's certainly regarded as less than serious fiction. /5
Pratchett (sighs): Without a shadow of a doubt, the first fiction ever recounted was fantasy. Guys sitting around the campfire - was it you who wrote the review? i thought i recognised it.Guys sitting around the campfire telling each other stories about gods who made lightning /6
and stuff like that. They did not tell one another literary stories. They did not complain about difficulties of male menopause while being a junior lecturer on some midwestern college campus. Fantasy is without a shadow of a doubt the ur-literature. /7
[Fantasy is] the spring from which all other literature has flown. Up to a few hundred years ago no one would have disagreed with this, because most stories were, in some sense, fantasy. /8
Back in the middle ages, people wouldn't have thought twice about bringing in death as a character who would have a role to play in the story. Echoes of this can be seen in Pilgrim's Progress, for example, which hark back to a much earlier type of storytelling. /9
The epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest works of literature, and by the standard we would apply now - a big muscular guy with swords and certain godlike connections - That's fantasy. /10
The national literature of Finland, the Kalevala. Beowulf in England. I cannot pronounce Bahaghvad-Gita but the Indian one, you know what I mean. The national literature, the one that underpins everything else, is by the standards that we apply now a work of fantasy. /11
Now I don't know what you'd consider the national literature of America, but if the words Moby Dick are inching their way towards this conversation, whatever else it was, it was also a work of fantasy. /12
Fantasy is kind of a plasma in which other things can be carried. I don't think this is a ghetto. This is, fantasy is, almost a sea in which other genres swim. /13
Now it may be that there has developed, in the last couple of hundred years, a subset of fantasy which merely uses a different iconography and that is, if you like, the serious literature, the Booker Prize contender. /14
Fantasy can be serious literature. Fantasy has often been serious literature. You have to be fairly dense to think that Gulliver's Travels is only a story about a guy having a real fun time among big people and little people and horses, and stuff like that. /15
What the book was about was something else. Fantasy can carry quite a serious burden, and so can humor. /16
Pratchett (cont): So what you're saying is, strip away the trolls and the dwarves and things and put everyone into modern dress, get them to agonise a bit, mention Virginia Woolf a few times and there! Hey! I've got a serious novel.
But you don't actually have to do that.
Pratchett (Pauses): That was a bloody good answer, though I say it myself.
-- Terry Pratchett (1948 - 2015) on Fantasy.
"A man is not dead while his name is still spoken."
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Uber have now LOST their appeal on the ruling that they employ workers, not contractors.
I said back in 2019 that refusing basic benefits was silicon valley bro culture at it's worst and a massive own goal.
Because English Employment law includes the Duck Test.
A quick thread
FIRSTLY:
My long read, from the beginning of this whole drama, is over on @lonrec.
It features the legal difference between golf caddies and pole dancers, the WORST Uber lawyer in the world and an explanation of the difference between cabs and apps londonreconnections.com/2019/schroding…
The short version though, is that Uber's model was (and is) in every jurisdiction built on the idea that it can work around existing transport (and legal) regulation long enough to force through regulatory change, or to force other operators out.
What's interesting (and lovely) is watching how he utterly trusts/distrusts each of his kids about different things.
Like, he'll 100% expect me to work his new complex power saw flawlessly, while I'll get a 10min lecture on the new microwave. Whereas my brother is the opposite.
I don't think he's even conscious he does it. He just clearly has very defined and well-worked in ideas as to what we're individually fucking useless at in his own head.
Sometimes based off of one household or workplace incident when we were like, twelve or something.
Victor's art and the occasional bit of 3D modelling was what made Time Team a must watch for me, as a kid.
It helped me learn how to map ruins to reality. It made me want to study, then tell, stories from history. I wanted to be like him and make them real.
He helped make me.
Whenever I see diagrams in a book now, or talk about trench outlines on a tour, or try and bring something to life in a thread here, I'm hoping to do for someone else what Victor did for kid me.
He was as critical to my love of Time Team as Tony, Phil, Carenza and the others.
Should say that we almost NEVER get other cats in our garden. Only #notMyCat. That's why it's full of birds.
He's worked out that if he hides under the pond fountain for one hour a day, the other cats just assume he might ALWAYS there, and don't enter his territory just in case.
Of course, in reality, he's either sloped off back over the fence and is (presumably) curled up asleep in his actual house.
Or, if it's noisy over there, he's snuck in here (like today) for a snooze instead.
Absolute top level kitty grifting.
Of course sometimes it backfires on him. The other night I saw him jump out of his under-fountain pounce spot at what he assumed was another kitty, only to discover it was actually a fox.
BOTH animals instantly decided discretion was the better part of valour and legged it.
Let's talk about how not once, but TWICE, in WW2 a 650 year old treaty between Britain and Portugal (that the rest of the world had mostly forgotten about) was invoked to help the Allies win the war.
~~ wobbly lines ~~
It's 1385 and John of Aviz is standing on a hill with 6,000 soldiers, asserting his right to be King of Portugal.
Unfortunately, at the bottom of that hill is is the King of Castile, along with 30,000 Castillians, French, Aragonese and Italians who disagree.
Luckily, for John:
1) This is a REALLY steep hill. A good hill to (potentially) die on 2) The Castillians and French love to Zerg rush with armoured knights 3) He has crossbowmen 3) He has 200 battle-hardened English longbowmen.
By meeting Churchill and Stalin at Yalta President Roosevelt indicates he's more interested in the views of the citizens of Yalta than in the lives of the citizens of Pittsburgh. This agreement will do little to effect the end of the war and will harm the livelihoods of Americans
By signing the 1783 Treaty of Paris with George III, George Washington indicates he's more interested in the views of the citizens of Paris than in the jobs of the citizens of Pittsburg.
By facilitating the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, President Carter indicates he's more interested in the views of some guy called David than in the jobs of the citizens of Pittsburgh.