What are the fundamental differences between Pratchett and Tolkien?

Tolkien builds a secondary world with internal consistency, linguistic depth, and mythological weight. He creates the impression that the world existed before the story — the appendices, the languages, the history. The point is immersion. You are meant to believe in Middle-earth.

Pratchett builds a secondary world specifically to examine the primary one. Discworld isn't an escape from human concerns — it's a laboratory for examining them. Every fantasy convention Tolkien used earnestly (the quest, the hero, the ancient evil) Pratchett interrogates. What does "the quest" do to the people undertaking it? What makes a hero a hero?

Did Pratchett admire Tolkien?

Yes, and was frustrated by him. He loved the depth of subcreation. He was skeptical of what he called the "standard fantasy setting" that Tolkien's imitators produced — endless derivative Middle-earths without the underlying scholarship and commitment. He distinguished sharply between Tolkien (worth reading carefully) and Tolkienism (a genre he was demolishing).

What is Pratchett's critique of high fantasy?

That it tends to import unexamined assumptions: that kings are naturally noble, that good and evil are clearly separated, that the people who matter in epic stories are the ones with swords and prophecies. Pratchett's books are full of the people high fantasy ignores — the palace cleaning staff, the trolls trying to work out property law, the Post Office clerk.

What does each author give readers that the other doesn't?

Tolkien gives depth and the feeling of reality expanding beyond the page. Pratchett gives laughter and the feeling of recognizing your own world in the invented one. Tolkien makes you want to go to Middle-earth. Pratchett makes you see Ankh-Morpork in your own city.

Which is more relevant today?

Both, for different reasons. Tolkien's influence on worldbuilding remains foundational. Pratchett's satirical approach — specifically the technique of using fantasy to examine real institutions — is more directly applicable to current concerns. His books feel more urgently necessary in a moment when large institutions are failing ordinary people.