Seeing that there seems to be a lot of Pratchett fans here. And quite a few Heinlein fans too, I was wondering if you guys, as well as I, are fans of both Heinlein and Pratchett. In fact, it was a post at alt.fan.heinlein that made me look into Pratchett in the first place.
I can also see a lot of similarities: Both have a humanistic, and slightly elitistic (less with Pratchett) outlook. RAH is a libertarian and Pratchett seems to be so too. I think that RAH would have liked living in Ankh-Morpork, seing that it is a liberal, anarchistic society, where the population mostly rule itself.
After reading Strata for the first time I find that it’s very Heinlein-esque, even though TP has said that it’s mostly inspired by Larry Niven.
I don’t see a lot of parallels in their work, but I do like them both. Pratchett has become my favourite author since I first read him two years ago. I have appreciated Heinlein since the late sixties. Come to think of it, Heinleins main fantasy output (the underrated masterpiece Glory Road) has some parallels to Pratchetts work, which it predates by 30 years or so.
Quibble: while Heinlein’s characters seem to have some sympathies towards libertarian views, in the one interview where he was actually questioned about his political leanings (J. Neil Schulman’s…Schulman was a Libertarian and was pretty desperately trying to get Heinlein to admit he was one too) Heinlein pretty firmly implies that he’s not a libertarian as such. And given what happened to the proto-libertarian Luna of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, I don’t think you can draw any real conclusions about his personal beliefs.
That said, COOOOoool thread and the biggest similarity I see is in their writing styles. Neither does “stupid word tricks” or literary games. In both writers’ works, the plot and characters reign supreme and the prose is there, not to show you how clever the author is (a la James Joyce, for example), but to tell a story.
Pratchett a Liberitarian? If anything, he’s an old-fashioned British class warrior, with strong humanistic leanings. I’ve never noticed any politics more specific than that.
I tried Heinlein, but could never get into his stuff the way I do with Pratchett’s. Don’t see a connection at all. If anything, I’d venture they could be diametrically opposite in their worldviews.
Alessan:
I don’t agree. He’s very humnistic. And I think his politics is very clear. Rincewind talking to The Red Army in Interesting Times:
“I know about people who talk about suffering for the common good. It’s never bloody them! When you hear a man shouting “Forward, brave comrades!” you’ll see he’s the one behind the bloody big rock and the one wearing the only really arrow-proof helmet!”
And Ankh-Morpork seems to be a very libertarian society. TP might have a love-hate attitude towards it, but I think that he leans towards ove, more than hate. He likes Vetenari, and his on-going joke on street performers shows that there is a mean streak in him.
As to RAH: His politics might never have been stated, but 50 years of writing had one thing in common: libertarian world views.
I’ve read a fair amount of both, and what I find least similar is Heinlein’s preference for the smart, strong and beautiful. It’s survival of the fittest for him.
Pratchett’s heros frequently bumble along at the mercy of chaotic forces, and don’t seem to have much confidence in themselves, or anyone else.
Granny Weatherwax, Archchancellor Ridcully, and Susan (granddaughter of Death) are three characters off the top of my head who contradict that premise.
Partly_Warmer:
I think RAH makes the females smart, strong, competent and self-reliant. Something quite unusual in the 40’s and 50’s. His male charracters are more often everyday “Joes” being manipulated by said, smart, women: Scar Gordon, Manny, all the juvies.
As rjung says: TP has quite a few ccharacters that are very strong. Not all of them are Rincewinds.
I would not be surprised if TP read all the RAH juvies when he was a kid.
That there are characters who don’t strictly fit the rule seems unavoidable, and doesn’t change my comment that “characters frequently bumble along.” (Even the summaries in the back mention Weatherwax’s broom of spare parts…)
More on humor recommendations, actually:
Saki. There are more than a few yucks in his short stories.
The Phantom Tollbooth, but surely everyone’s read that.
Tintin. Really well-crafted and clever humor. (Even better in French.) Ok, so it’s a comic book.
And…fearlessly…it being targeted toward children…but with more interesting characterization, than, say Stephen King, or this hack I just read in the hospital waiting room, Nevada Barr…but they didn’t put most of the Freddy the Pig books back in print because there was no potential market. Humorous, and FAR better written than any of the modern chapter books I’ve sampled.
Sigh…posted all but the first paragraph to the wrong thread. A new personal best off-topic record! I’d ask why horses are free in their stalls, but barred from the freeway, but one musn’t intentionally go off-topic.
Heinlein’s universe is populated by superpeople and subpeople. Pterry’s is populated by people. Come on, which is a more realistic antedeluvian: Lazarus or Dios?
You really can’t make any kind of generalization about Pratchett. Not even political. There are good people and bad people and just peole, and they are all running around in a very funny farce a la Monty Python.
