literature — Blog — Razielsomething

As a people we do an interesting thing with our history, we often confuse it with romantic ideals of what we want to have been, rather than what was. An odd point to me, is in some cases we don’t realize which parts are nearly completely fictional and which are just romanticized history. Some people believe the three musketeers are as fictional as Arthur and his knights, or that the epics of Homer are as based in history as the Romance of The Three Kingdoms.

Here’s a decent example of something so many of us romanticize, Pirates. We constantly romanticize pirates in popular fiction. We’ve distorted the idea of what pirates were, we’ve made them into heroes. From the Dread Pirate Roberts to Jack Sparrow to Guybrush Threepwood, we’ve made pirates into charming, roguish, good-natured ne'er do wells. In history, however, Pirates were very much not. They were criminals, oftentimes poor ones at that.

We can talk about Edward Teach(Blackbeard) and his great exploits that lead, ultimately, to his untimely death when he got the attention of the governor of Virginia, but let’s talk about piracy in the Caribbean in general instead. There were many pirates in what we call “The Golden Age of Piracy” that are much closer to what our romanticized idea of pirates are, but they are still quite a bit distant. Some were more good-natured or well intentioned, some beleaguered or disenfranchised after the wars seeking to make back what they felt was theirs, or seeking their fortune. In some cases it was just easier and paid much better than good honest work was for a mariner of the time. The only downside, once the Royal Navy actually went after you, you likely didn’t live long. Piracy was not very “noble,” though a few notable pirates were noble born. Enough about pirates, I like the romanticized version and don’t want to knock it too much by thinking about the reality of it.

Let’s move to a different subject, how about Dumas and the Musketeers, we could go into detail about how the characters come from a lesser known novel titled, Memoires de M. d’Artagnan, but currently that’s beside the point. In both cases the Novels or Novel series, in Dumas’ case, d’Artagnan and the Three Musketeers take center-stage as the main protagonists. Strangely as it’s a novel, people seem to be under the impression that d’Artagnan, and the Musketeers are fictional, which is simply not the case. Memoires de M. d’Artagnan was a semi-fictional novel based on the life of Charles Ogier de Batz de Castelmore, Comte d’Artagnan published just 27 years after his death. He was indeed a real person, but his semi-fictional portrayal in the novel led to Dumas writing(plagiarizing) his own novel The Three Musketeers of which d’Artagnan is the star character.

We’ve reached a point in our society that the fictional form of d’Artagnan and the three musketeers are more recognized than their historical counterpart. Interesting when you think about it, even more so if you consider my next subject.

Now everyone probably knows some portion of Arthurian legends, it’s even common for those among that group to believe there is some historical bases for the legends. Now, while Musketeers actually had a basis in reality, being inspired by real characters, and it taking place during real events, many of the events of Arthurian legends never happened, or, if they did, are vastly different from the reality of what happened. It’s why there’s so much debate between historians about who Arthur may have actually been. Many of you, as I originally was not, are unlikely to be aware that Lancelot wasn’t a real person at all, but a fictional character added on to the legends sometime later to try to give knights of the time a kind of “role model.” This is further complicated when we realize that we have no idea who Thomas Malory(Morte D’Arthur) even was, or if he was a real person at all.

Verifiable information about Arthur in any real sense is almost completely nonexistent. Another and possibly more important is that the knights that are described in Arthurian legends do not have any real reflection of knight behavior in a historical sense. Also some people have said things that led me to believe they think of knight a military rank, or that a group of knights was a military force, most commonly confused with cavaliers. Knight was, and still is, a social rank, it just so happened that in the middle ages there was crossover between the two. Being a knight at times just meant you were part of a noble house, it never meant you were a good fighter, or even a decent commander. Even the terms nobility and chivalry seem to carry some prestige of honor nowadays, when it used to only mean you had rich parents.

Also no one married for love in the middle ages, it was all for money, to form alliances, or to garner favor. Love was a luxury most women could never afford back then. Daughters were a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder, not sure what kind of chivalry that represents. It’s probably a good thing chivalry is dead.

Now brings us to the next point in our journey, the Romance of The Three Kingdoms. Now RoTK is a chinese epic from the three kingdoms era of chinese history, that’s right, it’s based on fact. Most of the cast of characters were real people who lived real lives, and many of the events and battles in the story actually happened in some way. The story is part fiction, probably about as true as musketeers, if not more so, but mostly historical with a splash of mythical for good measure. I personally have not read it myself but I have played the Dynasty Warriors games which are heavily based on the story of RoTK, so I know a rough outline of the events, I’ve also seen Red Cliff, which is a movie about the battle of Red Cliff. It’s a great movie by the way and well worth the time if you have any interest in chinese history. I’ll get around to the story itself one day, but still have plenty of things on my plate before I get there.

On to the next subject, Homer. Homer’s epics are some of the longest living texts from western civilization we have. It’s incredibly old, and as such is also mostly unknown about the true identity of the author. That’s right, we’re not exactly sure who Homer was, or if he was a real person. It is only in the last century that we have found evidence of where the city of Troy may have been, and given any evidence to a previously thought complete myth. The legend of a Trojan Horse is so well known I probably don’t even need to explain it for everyone reading this to immediately have pictured a wooden horse in their head from me merely typing the words Trojan Horse. Even though there is now evidence of a possible war that could have led to the fall of a city we believe might be Troy with dates that seem to be in the same ballpark as those pieced together by historians, we don’t have enough to verify that it actually was based, in any sense, on reality and not just us forming a connection that might not be there. That’s just how history works sometimes we might never find out enough to be absolutely sure, we might only find out enough to be close enough to be reasonably convinced that it might be true. It’s unlikely we’ll ever find a big neon sign, that say, “This was Troy,” or that such a sign would even be readable by us. Still there could be some truth, to Homer’s epics, even if he was not even a real person. Currently I’d put them on the same plate as Arthurian legends, might have some semblance of history there, but likely mostly myth.

In closing, knights and pirates weren’t as we portray them in popular fiction. Whereas d’Artagnan and Guan Yu, are historical figures, Arthur and Achilles are likely fictional. Sometimes we like to remember things better than they were and romanticize it, this happens to our personal history as well. Sometimes we get so carried away we forget which parts are real. It’s good to have a reality check once in awhile.

Also wikipedia is a great resource when you can’t remember names.

It is with heavy heart that I write this entry. I know it was over a month ago now. However, I find, I've had little ability to think of anything else. Not sure if this is due to the impact he had on my personal life, or the impact he had on the lives of so many I had come to admire and respect. From the references to his work in the media I had come to enjoy, to the live action adaptations of his works, Sir Terry Pratchett had become a staple of the world to me. He wasn't just my favorite living author, or one of my favorite authors of all time, he was a central theme that bound the scattered parts of my world together. My life was forever changed by the imprint he left on it.

I discovered Sir Terry Pratchett, sometime after I finished high school. I had just finished devouring the Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy series, which is a series I will write about its effect in a later entry, and was seeking something with new. My brother had told me of a series that had the acclaim of being a fantasy equivalent to the Hitchhiker series, that was the first I heard of Discworld. He told me both of the novel series, as well as the adventure game, featuring Eric Idle voicing the lead character. Being a fan of Python made this even more interesting to me, so picked up the game, as well as the first few novels in the series and Good Omens, which was recommended by a friend who was in love with Neil Gaiman at the time.

I started the game and immediately got stuck, the puzzles were some of the hardest I had ever encountered. The logic seemed maddeningly complicated. Out of extreme frustration and desperation I gave up and just used a walkthrough, the game was definitely funny but incredibly challenging to the point I simply could not progress without outside help. About half-way through I stopped playing feeling like the difficulty of the puzzles and the frustration with needing a walkthrough to move on took away from my enjoyment of it. After reading a few of the novels, I did come back and play it again to see if a better knowledge of the universe helped with understanding the puzzles. Once more I started the game, and while I did not do much better with the puzzles I did enjoy it more. A Knowledge of the series gave me a better appreciation of the humor, and a better understanding of the puzzle elements, even if most of them weren't significantly easier. When I did discover the answer, it was a profound “Oh!” instead of a frustrated “Why!” Which to me felt quite a bit better.

After completion of the first game, I did play the sequel, which had Eric Idle reprise his role of Rincewind, except in the sequel he more plays, Eric Idle playing Rincewind, than Rincewind proper. The second game was loaded with equal parts Discworld and Python. It was self-referential and fourth wall breaking, making comments about the difficulty of puzzles, and the differences between parroting and parody while reenacting the stoning scene from The Life of Brian. All that being said, the second game was much simpler and I was able to get through it alright. I'm not exactly sure, however, about how I feel the writing in the sequel was handled. On the one hand it was funny, but it seemed to detract too much from what was Discworld, in my opinion, to add in more than a bit to what was Python. Though I know some people feel Discworld was already Pythonesque, and I do agree, in many cases, but when playing that game I feel it showed more the difference of being Pythonesque and parodying(parroting?) Python. Overall I did enjoy it, I mean it was more Discworld and more Discworld is always good. Now on to Good Omens.

It might seem a bit strange for me to jump into Good Omens before going into the Discworld novels, but I will go on for a bit about the series and don't want to forget to mention this book, because it's one of the major things that really got me into Pratchett.

So I picked up Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch during my first spending splurge into the world of Pratchett; picked up the first 4 Discworld books at the same time. Neil Gaiman was one of my best friends favorite authors, and I had already read a bit of sandman, and Coraline. By this point I was already becoming a fan myself, so reading a Collaboration between him and Pratchett, whom I had just discovered, only seemed to make sense to me. It being about the Antichrist and revelations, which is probably one of my favorite parts of biblical mythos, only seemed to seal the deal.

Good Omens holds a special place in my heart, it pulls many themes from both novelists' work, is a fantastic story in its own right, and served to cement my fandom for both the two men. In and of itself Good Omens is a strange and silly take on the end times, it takes place in a roughly modern day and someone has misplaced the Antichrist. The angel, Aziraphale, the demon, Crowley, have grown used to human comforts and don't want their human world to end, and endeavor to postpone the Apocalypse as long as they can feasibly get away with. That's all I really intend to say about the story, I might write a full review at a later date. If you want to find out more, You should seriously consider picking up a copy, I couldn't recommend the book highly enough, or possibly do it justice in the small space I give it here. Onto Discworld, and the vast wealth of imaginative brilliance that resides there.

My first adventure into Discworld was with the Color of Magic, which is the first novel. Doesn't seem like it needs to be said but I know some people start at Guards! Guards! I can see many reasons for it, because Guards! Guards! is one of the best early books; where Pratchett really found his place in the Discworld. However, I'm not one of the kind of people who can really starting the middle and going back to catch up. If you are one of those people, I recommend starting at Guards! Guards!

An interesting thing about Discworld is that it is made of several parallel running arcs featuring different main characters. There's the Night/City Watch who protect Ankh-Morpork, the wizards at the Unseen University, The inept wizzard Rincewind, the witches of Lancre, Cohen the Barbarian Hero and his Silver Horde, Tiffany Aching, the History Monks, Lord Havelock Vetinari, the charming Moist von Lipwig, Death and his family, as well as a decent sum of one-shot characters.

Each cast of characters has a sort of unique running theme to their novels. Rincewind novels usually feature exploration of the Disc, The Night/City Watch novels usually focus around Ankh-Morpork and social policies and social justice. Wizard novels usually focus on the science of Discworld, Death novels are usually about the mythology and inner workings of the universe. Witch novels are usually parodies of Shakespeare and such, Tiffany Aching novels are about a growing girl and her struggles in learning witchcraft. Moist von Lipwig was his most recent character, he is a fast talking conman who usually deals with reinventing old technologies as well as helping budding new ideas to flourish in a world they might have failed, most often not by choice.

In The Color of Magic I met Rincewind for the second time, first being back in the game where he was voiced by Eric Idle, by the way it is impossible for me to imagine Rincewind sounding like anyone else now. Most of the book takes place on The (unnamed) Continent, and introduces you to the twin cities of Ankh and Morpork. Twoflower, a tourist from the Counter-weight Continent, hires a wizard guide, Rincewind. It also introduced arguably one of the most iconic characters in the Discworld series, The Luggage, a living chest that carries Twoflower's belongings.

The thing about the early Discworld novels, they had great characters, and amazing jokes, but some of the time the plots weren't as good as the later ones. They're really good compared to some authors, but for Pratchett, they aren't his best. Well some of them, a few of them are great. Mort, for example is still one of my favorite Discworld novels, but Equal Rights is my least favorite. Once you get to Guards! Guards! The series becomes more consistent in it's quality.

I realized Terry Pratchett was my favorite living author, when I noticed that I dropped whatever else I was reading to pick up the new Pratchett novel. There have been times where I left a book mid-chapter to pick up the new Discworld book and read the whole thing before coming back to where I left off. I spent years of my life with a Discworld novel, in a bag or in my pocket, just for any moment I might get to sit down and read it. Sitting was always optional, all I really needed was people to ignore me enough that I could read without being bothered. I never once felt that time was wasted.

Normally, I feel about now would be the time where I addressed how him developing Alzheimer's effected me. Truth is that it didn't, not really. The first few books after I found out, there was trepidation as to whether they'd be as good as the ones before. When it turned out they were just as good I didn't think about it and at times forgot that he even was afflicted. I would later find out, interviews after his passing, that his daughter, Rhianna, helped him when he had trouble. It was comforting to know he was in good hands before he went.

I became familiar with Rhianna's work starting with the game Overlord, which she worked on. Playing it, I could tell the writer had a knowledge of Pratchett's work, it didn't feel like he wrote it, but it was familiar to me, like it was written by someone who got his humor. It wasn't until I caught her name in the credits, and immediately went through my Discworld collection to find the dedication page in Mort, that I realized why it felt familiar.

Let's wrap up. I've often tried to convince friends to pick up a Pratchett book, I believe only a few ever have, but I've always made the attempt. Pratchett was an author, I felt, everyone who's ever picked up a book should at some point read. Not really sure what else I can even say about Pratchett. So, I think will end this with a list of Pratchett books you might be wanting to look into. As well as a link to a cause he supported.

http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/