Terry Pratchett Knighted 366
ackthpt writes "Headlines have been popping up on Google News: 'Terry Pratchett declared himself "flabbergasted" to receive a knighthood as he led a group of writers, actors and performers honoured today.' The Discworld author and stalwart adversary of Alzheimers Disease has been a member of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) for Services to Literature since 1998. He will be entering the new year as Knight Commander. Well done and Oook, Sir Terry."
Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congratulations (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.paulkidby.com/news/index.html [paulkidby.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That would be "Sir Terence".
Re:Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)
Sir Pterrence, if you're an aged AFP graduate.
Congratulations, Sir Terry! (Score:5, Funny)
Never seen a knighthood I've been happier about. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. Well, no offense to Mr. Pratchett -- he's written a lot of books and they've been very popular and I know a lot of people enjoy them, so I'm sure the honor is well deserved -- but I, for one, could never read more than one or two before moving on to something else. It seems to me there's a whole universe of letters out there waiting to be read, rather than just revisiting the same thing over and over again. But I guess it's no worse than TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Trollope,Proust and Powell (Score:5, Informative)
Someone above has written about a world of literature out there. I've read (more than once) Trollope, Powell, Proust, along with all the usual stuff including the Russians in translation and the easier French and German classics, and I find it possible to appreciate them all. On the other hand, I couldn't get into Rowling.
DNA, there I agree with you. I read the books with pleasure but they are comparatively froth. Good froth, but not arise sir Douglas froth even had he not died young.
Re:Never seen a knighthood I've been happier about (Score:5, Insightful)
Objectively, he's also very good. His handling of multiple cultures is excellent, his political satire is brilliant, his ability to link human themes such as sexism, aging, outrage at injustice, poverty, fondness of pets, bureaucracy, and courage into plots that are fun for both children and sophisticated adults who appreciate more of the subtlety is amazing. His characters are very human, often very warm, and he successfully captures the attitudes of both heroes and villains.
'Jingo' should have been required reading for the Bush Administration before the recent mid-easter mess, just as 'Making Money' should have been required reading for the loan officers of the USA before the housing credit crunch. The man captures important themes about all sorts of aspects of life.
Wow! (Score:4, Interesting)
I just read this and a big smile spread across my face. I've been a fan of Pratchett's books for many years now (mid 1980s I think) and it's surprising how well he is known around the world. Isn't he something like he sells the third most books of any British author? His work is fantastic, though sometimes slated by critics - undeservedly IMHO because his books can be so original and funny and still be insightful.
Just as an example, when a very close relative of mine was undergoing major high-risk surgery, the only way I could pass the time other than biting my nails was by reading one of his books.
Congrats Sir Terry! And thank you very much for all your work.
The full regalia? (Score:2)
He doesn't need to wear the tights, feathers, and shiny breastplate now does he?
Not a Knight Commander, a Knight Bachelor (Score:5, Informative)
Sir Pterry isn't a Knight Commander (which is a title within various British Orders), but a Knight Bachelor (which is a title outside the Order system). Formally, there are no initials he can add to his name as a Knight Bachelor, but many add Kt. So he could be styled "Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE" (Officer of the Order of the British Empire), but not "Sir Terry Pratchet, KBE" (Knight Commander...).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a shame ... (Score:5, Funny)
There really needs to be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely.
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet it doesn't stop you coming over in large numbers to hang around outside Buckingham Palace taking photos of the Changing of the Guard.
and how (Score:2)
The amount of film shot on those days before digital cameras must have been astounding.
Anyway, I was there on October 2nd this year, and while there, the Queen's Guard band played a Star Wars medley (including the Cantina music!) John Williams might be an O.B.E. by now too (heck, John Barry is), except he's American.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a little FYI. Sorry if we republican (small r) Americans find the whole royalty thing anachronistic, not to mention flying in the face of the concepts of equality and consent of the governed. Who really does care what these inbred people think?
There are many monarchies in Europe, most are stable, democratic countries where individual rights are very well protected... There is nothing anachronistic about keeping traditions...
I've never been a huge fan of the French
What kind of dumb remark is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, keeping around government-supported, government-entwined birthright positions and riches is what equality is all about. And not only that, but there's something inherently magical about the queen that she, or the people she delegates these matters to, get the power to suddenly make someone "special" enough that they deserve a special title. Is it just me, or does the left sometimes slobber over authority as much as the right tends to do?
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:5, Insightful)
In all honesty, I find the idea of a society where everyone is so equal that they can't even be told "hey, you've written some really good books, well done" an appalling idea. I'll keep my birthright based head of state, or even some guy a moistened bint threw a scimitar at over that.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchy, with a bit more power than the British do. It seems to me there's some merits when you have a decent Royal line that needs to think on a much longer scale than election cycles
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is also a large chunk of the reason we have (had) a House of Lords. Blair and his vile mob did their best to wreck all that though and rip out a perfectly functional line of sanity that allowed him to shove through laws that would never have got passed otherwise. Of course, he used his usual campaign of disinformation and whipping up a frenzy of stupidity in large swathes of the people via the Daily Mail etc.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not opposing people being told they did a good job--you made that up because you don't have an argument. No, what I said is that the queen isn't (or shouldn't be) any more special as you or I, and her awards SHOULDN'T be treated as though they are.
When you view the queen's honors as being worth more than your own, when the queen has her position due to birth and not due to personal ability or bravery or somesuch, then you devalue yourself and inflate the worth of someone who hasn't earned it.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The Queen doesn't choose who gets the honours, the government does.
Re: (Score:2)
One doesn't have anything to do with the other. There's nothing wrong with praising people for their achievements, yet there's no need for a monarch to do it.
In fact, being praised only by a monarch is rather sad for
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, at least if you have an idiot as the head of the state, at least said idiot was born into it, so you don't have to suffer through the collective self-blaming for having elected him. Or her. Or it, in case of tentacles.
Whatever Mr Vimes may say, kings are useful in that regard. They are born into it, so fuck'em and get on with your life.
Besides, revolutions are more... interesting than elections.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:4, Informative)
Service to the Arts has always been a valid category for honours to be awarded. Note that it's not enough to write a lot of books yourself (or songs, or paint a bunch of pictures, etc); it's also necessary to actively inspire and help others.
It also reflects a solid career in doing so, not merely a flash-in-the-pan fad star.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, maybe I'm missing something - how does writing funny books actively inspire and help others?
You'd be amazed. A friend of mine has two kids (teenage boys) who had no interest in books before I introduced them to Pratchett. Now they read much more, and have whole worlds available to them that they didn't before.
I like Pratchett's work a lot, but my real appreciation for it comes from seeing how it works as a gateway drug for people who might otherwise never walk through the doors of the imagination. Th
Re: (Score:2)
So earning a personal fortune of forty million pounds sterling is not reward enough?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:5, Insightful)
A sad day when a bigoted comment like this is modded up. The American south is home to most of America's black population, and a slur against them is merely a reflection of your [and moderators] tiny-minded ignorance and fear.
When they shoot at light entertainment TV personalities [google.com] I think that they can be called inbred. Though I note that note of the (self proclaimed) "hicks" in that episode were black.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does all this US loathing of the French come from? Perhaps you should send back the statue of liberty to teach them a lesson.
We've always had a reputation for hating the French but I've never seen the foaming at the mouth loathing shown by quite a few Americans, despite the UK having been involved in quite a few wars against the French. Including a little spat that ended in 1776.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does all this US loathing of the French come from?
Their refusal to play ball.
Re:Their ingratitude? (Score:4, Informative)
You mean, that Iraq war which was started to find weapons of mass destruction that never existed, and were known by the US government not to exist?
Got to point out that the French supported the invasion of Afghanistan, which was a legitimate response to 9/11. Invading Iraq was merely Bush and Cheney's way of beating their chest.
I personally think that the French only tried to claim the moral middle ground; it just looked high from where the US was looking.
As for 600,000 people: I call bullshit. The US lost 416,800 total in WWII, of which 183,588 were in the European theatre. By contrast the Soviet Union - who were responsible for the fall of the Third Reich - lost over 10 million, nearly all in Europe. The US/British invasion was timed to take advantage of weakened defences due to the fighting in the Eastern front, and had the goal, not of freeing Europe, but of stopping Russia. Without the US, the French would be speaking, well, French (the USSR never forced their satellite nations to adopt Russian), but would have been aligned with the USSR. Wait, that's how they spent the 70s anyway!
Want to bring World War I into the picture as well? Then add another 116,708 - more than half of which died from the flu due to poor sanitation in US training camps (both in the US and in Europe). Total number of US deaths that could be attributed to "saving France": 300,296 - about half the figure you named. I'm sorry about your grandfather and all; my own grandfather flew with the Australian volunteers in the RAF. But get your figures straight. By contrast, the Commonwealth nations (Great Britain and related countries) lost over 1.7 million between WWI and WWI, most in the European conflict.
Excluding the US civil war, the US military has claimed 447,137 combat deaths since the start of the War of Independence - well short of your 600,000 total.
(figures [wikipedia.org] sourced [wikipedia.org] from [wikipedia.org] wikipedia)
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe we could instead have a Senate, and sell seats in it. Imagine the revenue it would bring in.
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the Queen has a whole lot of power in the UK. She has for example the power to say "oi, parliament, fuck off, I'm in charge now". It's only through choice that she delegates power to democracy, not through any lack of power.
Having said that, a large riot would tear her limb from limb if she ever tried that.
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:5, Insightful)
The monarchy is sort of like the 2nd amendment; if things just get totally and completely screwed up beyond any hope of repair, The 2nd amendment, and the Monarchy, are the built-in reset switches.
And, just like the 2nd amendment, a bunch of idiots don't realize what a blessing it is that they have that reset switch.
Re:2nd amendment very different to a monarchy (Score:5, Funny)
And a couple of hundred years before that, England had a revolution as well. Having put in a ruthless military dictator and El-Presidente-For-Life, they waited for him to die, put the monarchy back in, and dug Cromwell up from his grave so that they could execute him posthumously! (Well, points for effort, guys, but as the assignment was handed in late...)
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, a large riot would tear her limb from limb if she ever tried that.
Oddly enough that didn't happen in Australia in 1975 [wikipedia.org]. Her local deputy took the blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually she doesn't. The supremacy of parliament and law are enshrined in our constutution.
OTOH she is the head of the army - they swear alliegance to her not the government - so she could order them to bring down an opressive government, if they wouldn't allow themselves to be dismissed.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Britain doesn't have a constitution, so you're talking out of your ass.
Re:Just for the record, only UK subjects (Score:4, Informative)
The UK doesn't have a written constitution, but it does nonetheless have a means of administration prescribed by parliament - a constitution.
Some laws are held to be 'constitutional'. The Bill of Rights 1688 for example (on which the American Constitution was partially based if I recall correctly), which limits the power of the monarchy. The Human Rights Act 1998 is another example.
It is of course possible for parliament to abolish any one of these laws - and I believe the same is the case in America, although a special majority of some sort is required to ammend the constitution. Beyond that somewhat technical difference, it's a similar system.
By convention, the Queen is said to have the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn. Technically she has a right to veto legislation, but this last occurred in 1709 and if she attempted it today, I suspect there would be a constitutional crisis leading either to a general election or a referendum on the monarchy.
As it happens, the current monarch is noted for having been reasonably good at her job. She has experience of eleven Prime Ministers and the events of half a century - whether or not you agree with her constitutional position, she is currently an extremely useful resource to the government.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bah. Speak for yourself, peon. I'm a direct descendant of William I, King of England in 1066. :-P
You do realise that being a direct descendant of the Normans makes you French... ;p
PS. Unlike one of the posts above I'm British, and therefore have earned the right to make fun of them.
Wars lasting more than a century with a nation grants that type of right.
Re:flabbergasted?! (Score:5, Funny)
How exactly can one be a "stalwart adversary of Alzheimers Disease"?
I mean, other than the classic "I will die young, thus depriving it of another victim."...
Re:flabbergasted?! (Score:5, Interesting)
By throwing money at Alzheimers reserach and on a more personal level by doing all he can to remain as mentally active as possible.
It is worth noting that many believe the cause is now identified and that large pharma companies are working on getting treatments through trials.
I seem to recall a headline on /. linking high blood sugar to the memory loss effect. Hopefully this shows that more research is shedding more light on the condition.
Re:flabbergasted?! (Score:5, Informative)
it was actually a reference to witches abroad
"'Der flabberghast,' muttered Nanny. 'What's that?' said Magrat. 'It's foreign for bat.'"
Re:flabbergasted?! (Score:5, Insightful)
What 'depriving it of a victim'? Terry *has* Alzheimer's. It's a tremendous loss to the literary world, and to the world at large, that his mental faculties are slipping. I've also met him, he's sharper than Harlan Ellison and a lot more fun to chat with
He's pouring his resources into fighting it out of enlightened self-interest, but he's doing a pretty good job of it, much like Chris Reeve did for spinal injuries after breaking his neck. I'm sure it's why a lot of his most recent work has been collaborative, rather than personally authored from start to finish.
Good omens (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to harp too strongly on this, but reading Rowling, or Tolkien, actually doesn't do much. Reading Pratchett exposes people to all kinds of religious, philosophical, psychological and sociological ideas. He actually manages, not only to make political correctness and liberal tolerance funny, but also attractive. Just compare his ueber-policeman, Vimes, to Jack Bauer, and you see what I mean. Although they're both cardboard, Vimes has depth. He is a middle aged man who has accidentally married into high society and learns to adapt to it, even as marriage to a woman who understands powerful men opens opportunities to him he would otherwise not have had.
Another thing about Pratchett which may reflect his collaborationism: he can view his characters from outside. For instance, Vimes appears in books in which he is not the central character, and then we see him quite differently. Even minor characters do this: we see Cheery Littlebottom as a dwarf coming out as a woman in a gender-averse society, with all the conflicts that causes, but in another book we see her from outside the police force just as another faceless instance of authority. It's depth like this that justifies a knighthood.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, my yes, Cheery Littlebottom is a character to prize. So was Vimes's reaction to her name: that was priceless, and the sort of thing that does not get taught in a normal management class because very few people could pull it off.
But my point was not that Pratchett did not collaborate before, but that he is collaborating a lot more _now_. I think it's a wonderful defense against losing focus and against loss of creativity as he fights Alzheimer's: I understand that Alzheimer's can lead to a serious flatte
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sir Terry, Sir Terence, Sir Terry Pratchett, but never 'Sir Pratchett' - this form is not correct.
Sir Pterry?
Re:Good omens (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to harp too strongly on this, but reading Rowling, or Tolkien, actually doesn't do much. Reading Pratchett exposes people to all kinds of religious, philosophical, psychological and sociological ideas.
Well, now: reading Tolkien certainly does expose people to all kinds of religious, philosophical, and sociological ideas, it's just that they all date back to around the 11th century...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe he never claimed to be creating a world out of nothing, rather on the basis of the Norse, English and German tales on which he was an acknowledged expert. What he did try to avoid though was the attribution of LOTR to WW2 but some of th points about warfare in general from WW1 definitely influenced it.
Re: (Score:3)
What's more, collaborative writing is very enjoyable. I've started alot of writing projects, and all I've started by myself died within 20 pages, whereas the collaborative projects have all either reached completion or are still being worked on. I find I write better collaboratively, if for no other reason than to impress the girls I'm working with.
Re:Services to literature since 1998? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Services to literature since 1998? (Score:5, Funny)
You checked her vagina?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Services to literature since 1998? (Score:5, Funny)
Why not, we all know she's a dirty old woman anyway: http://bash.org/?111338 [bash.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm.. That should make her a Damsel me thinks, for a Dame is a lady Lord.
Now I'm gender confused for what a Lady knight should be termed.
Re:Services to literature since 1998? (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm.. That should make her a Damsel me thinks, for a Dame is a lady Lord. Now I'm gender confused for what a Lady knight should be termed.
No, a Dame is the female equivalent to knight. The female equivalent to a Lord is Lady.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? That's knightable? Sir JK Rowling? Sir Alan Dean Foster?
JK Rowling also has an OBE, from 2001 [bbc.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Really? That's knightable? Sir JK Rowling? Sir Alan Dean Foster?
Are you kidding? JK Rowling will get made Queen at least.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Real honor (Score:4, Interesting)
Why should any governing body, or something affiliated with a governing body, decide for people what moral causes are worth awarding shiny medals and titles for, instead of simply popular consensus? Why is that not good enough? Perhaps we should have President Bush award medals to anti-abortion groups, for "fighting for the sanctity of life", or anti-gay groups, "fighting for the sanctity of marriage?" Or for culture, how about giving Mel Gibson a medal for Passion of the Christ? Or, is it only OK when you agree with the cause or media?
And why does ANYONE need to hand out trinkets for these accomplishments? The honor, the REASON behind these awards are given almost always after such reasoning is evident to most people. Trophies and titles do not make peoples actions more or less great.
You know what? You want someone handing out blue ribbons so badly, why not you do it? What? You mean nobody cares about what you think? Well, why should I care about what the government thinks, or the queen, for that matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, why should I care about what the government thinks, or the queen, for that matter?
Well, why do you care? You seem to be getting very angry over something that apparently doesn't matter to you at all. Nobody is forcing to care.
To answer your other points - firstly, if you're so concerned with the monarchy 'leeching off the state', conveniently ignoring the benefits they bring to the country in terms of tourism, diplomatic relationships and the income from their holdings (which is fully taxable, you may note), please send me your address and I will send you the sixty-six pence it costs per
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't care what the British do. People who want to winge about the Monarchy in Britain should say the same about Holland, Sweeden, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
We do, if I remember right It's the Presidential Medal of the Arts or some such - too tired to look it up. It's just that it generally takes place, and is covered in a one paragraph story on the Presidential Press release, and gets released as a short wire story, which no one picks up
Re: (Score:2)
You post would be modded a troll because it is a troll. If Britain wants to have a monarch, who are you to tell them they shouldn't be able to have one?
I've been to England several times and the Queen is very popular there. Heck, a few centuries back the country brought back the monarchy after being a republic for a few decades, so the situation is obviously one that's right for them.
Aside from the democratic questions, I can see the appeal, I really wouldn't want a corrupt political swine like Bush awardin
Re:Real honor (Score:4, Insightful)
"Britain" is not a monolithic entity. Many people there also think the royalty should be abolished, and as far as I'm concerned, everyone who doesn't agree with the presence of the royal family is being leeched upon. I don't care about your shallow excuses of democracy, democracy can justify anything so long as the mob agrees to it.
You might as well state that because Bush won the election, that Europeans shouldn't criticize our elections! Sorry, but that's not how it works, I'll criticize my government, I'll criticize your government, and I'll let other people do the same. Governments are not the people, and your flag does not represent you or who you are.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tradition is something that holds us back from progress. Mindless repetition of things done for the sake of doing what was done before. Instead of wasting time and energy avoiding stepping on cracks so we don't break our mother's backs, let's just get on with the show and not waste time, eh?
And yes, I agree with your assessment of the unnecessary "pomp", as you put it, over our president and military. And especially our president-to-be, I'm particularly frightened of his cult status, although he's obviou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One does not get knighted for doing the exact same thing as his or her predecessors.
Tradition can be great for some things, and not-so-great for others.
Most Brits are very happy with the current arrangement, where the royal family play a strong role in the cultural development of the nation, while having a relatively minor role in the government.
"Tradition is bad, progress is good" is a terrible philosophy to live by. Don't fix what isn't broken!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a difference between "being broken" and "being an unnecessary usage of time and resources." Much like how organisms lose organs or features that, over time, become more and more useless, so too I think people are best served by removing the cruft from their lives.
Re:Real honor (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the QUEEN so special that she can give people special titles?
You're correct of course. Another way of looking at it, though, is that this whole thing is not about the queen of England at all; it's about honouring Terry Pratchett.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And why is the POTUS so special that he can award the various Presidential Medals, or Congress so special that it can award the various congerssional medals?
Almost every country has some kind of honours system, the British system just has rather more levels to it than most.
Paul
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
titles have an associated meaning to them, typically, you could call yourself MindlessAutomata ruler of the ants! and nobody would give two hoots, to be given a title from the british monarch means something.
Maybe not to you, but it isn't a typically easy thing to get, and most people would agree it takes some level of skill/achievement.
You seem to be under the impression that being a monarch would be an easy job, I propose it would not, to be a horrible monarch may be easy, but being the example of manners
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but she's damn wealthy to boot. Where'd she get that money? Through hard work or her family's toil and labor? HAH! I wish I were royalty for the sole purpose of being the one person who could abolish it.
Re:Real honor (Score:5, Informative)
The king doesn't have power to abolish his seat. The most you could do was abdicate, after which a successor would be found according to a well-defined modified primogeniture succession order. No approval from you would be needed for the coronation -- in fact, you would be in no position to approve or disapprove, having abdicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Read a bit of history damn it! Their families fought wars of conquest and won. Then they created empires with massive economic, social and industrial might That's how they got the money. It's called 'Old Money' and lots of the rich=titled people in the Old World have lots of it floating about.
And to see who owned who, check out the flag of the British East India company and compare it the to Stars and Stripes.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is really so special about Her Majesty. You can award people titles too if you wish.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because being knighted by some alcoholic bum on the corner named Steve means fuck all, you amazing twit.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple, she's better than you are. What have you done for the world, or the UK?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She's the head of state. But she doesn't choose those on the honour roll: there is a lengthy nomination process (which is how so many local councillors wind up with small honours). You can nominate anyone for an honour; the paperwork is extensive and putting together a case is hard work.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He will be on the Western side of the pond in Tempe, Arizona at the first North American Discworld Convention, September 4-7, 2009. Get in line now!
Sadly, due to his condition, this will probably be the last American convention that he attends.
http://www.nadwcon.org/ [nadwcon.org]
Re:Who? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. We wouldn't want a high signal to noise ratio on Slashdot.
And don't forget Robert Plant! (Score:2)
You know, that singer guy? From the 70s?
Try reading the books (Score:3, Informative)
Second, he has made his attitude quite clear as regards honours in his books. They're fine so long as they are earned. His Prince Charles character goes from jester to king. Vimes goes from the gutter to a dukedom - but you have to earn the right to call him "mister". Witches get paid in the "solid coin of respect"; Magrat goes from witch to Queen but the witches think she has settled for second best. Obvio