Terry Pratchett...over-rated?

DublinWriter

I put off reading Terry Pratchett for many years in the same way I put off reading Ulysses, generally because I got sick of everyone telling me how brilliant he was and how I must read him.

I've been working my way through the Discworld books at the moment and it's starting to become quite tedious. A lot of the humour is quite juvenile and the characters particularly one-dimensional.

A trend in the later Discworld novels seems to be taking themes from the 'real' world and transposing them rather laboriously onto the Discworld trope - Moving Pictures, Soul Music and The Last Contenent being particular examples. It's although Pratchett was running out of ideas and started chucking in existing real-world constructs to ensue 'hilarious and eventful' results.

Don't get me wrong, I think Pratchett's a very talented writer, I particularly loved Small Gods and the Bromeliad Trilogy, but I think he fell into a trap that a lot of authors find themselves in, which is something I call 'sequelitius', in which the author sets out to at most create a triology, but instead develops a lucrative franchise.

Other examples of this include Michael Moorcock (churning out nearly 40 volumes in the Eternal Champion series) and Bernard Cornwell with the Sharpe books.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I personally think that the Discworld books cointain a maximum of about half-a-dozen original works that should be read while the rest are mere album-fillers, or have I completely missed the point?

Somnus

I think he is a very talented writer, who has a great way of describing things that you can't properly imagine :P

But I wouldn't be able to just read through the Discworld series. That would put me off completely. I prefer to read one of his occasionally. Something light and fun in between serious stuff I guess.

apsalar

:eek: Sacriledge!!!....:p

I know what you mean though...I started reading him at 11. My favourite books have to be Guards! Guards! and Small Gods is his best (imh).

The books you've mentioned are not the best..and I particularly find the Rincewind books very tedious. You really do have to read them every now and again. I couldn't imagine plodding through the lot. yikes! I also think they're probably best read in teen years....

As for Micheal Moorcock..gosh I know what you mean. I read Hawkmoon many many years ago at 14 and thought it was the. best. thing. ever.:rolleyes: I can still read the occasional book but I find as I matured along the way I found his writing style somewhat stilted and stiff. I also kind of thought he tries a bit too hard, but I may be wrong. Apologies to major fans.

Terry Goodkind is another that has probably fallen into the never-ending book deal trap. I thought he peaked at Temple of the Winds but it's been a bit slow thereafter. I have NEVER read and T. Brooks. and I doubt I will!

Shryke

I can't say he's over-rated. I've read most of the Discworld series and enjoyed the majority. There are some lesser books in there and character isn't his strongest point but overall and considering the output he has I think he's a fantastic author.
If you've read a few of his books already then you know exactly what you're getting and even the poorer ones are entertaining, a lot better than most pulp novels you could pick up. Men At Arms and Small Gods are fantastic though. He really out did himself with them.
Sometimes they can grate not usually. I tend to only read them when I feel like something light hearted and disposable and for that they're perfect.

pH

DublinWriter wrote: »

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I personally think that the Discworld books cointain a maximum of about half-a-dozen original works that should be read while the rest are mere album-fillers, or have I completely missed the point?

It's possible for something to be good, and for you still not to like it, personal taste and all that, there's plenty of things in this world I'm not impressed by, but I accept I'm not this universe's arbiter of "good", and that these are things that "I just aren't that fond of".

The jump from "I'm not liking this" to "This is overrated - no one should like it - agree with me lads" strikes me as incredibly arrogant. There are millions of books out there, I suggest you read the ones you do like, and if you're finding a series of books not to your liking, how about stopping reading them and moving on to something else?

ixoy

Pratchett is a very good writer but I've found I can't read too many of his books. The DiscWorld is well realised and all but, after a point, I get a little worn with it all. The same would probably happen with any world I visit just a little too often. His success though is pretty deserved.

The jump from "I'm not liking this" to "This is overrated - no one should like it - agree with me lads" strikes me as incredibly arrogant.

He said it was a personal opinion. He's allowed to think that.

DublinWriter

pH wrote: »

The jump from "I'm not liking this" to "This is overrated - no one should like it - agree with me lads" strikes me as incredibly arrogant. There are millions of books out there,

I'm sorry if I come across as being arrogant. I guess I was asking the opposite of what you think - I wanted people to disagree with me, or to put it another way was is there something I'm missing in the Discworld series?

For example, I love James Joyce's work, but Finnegan's Wake is just beyond me. I don't get it and I always ask those who say it's a work of genius to explain why to me.

pH wrote: »

I suggest you read the ones you do like, and if you're finding a series of books not to your liking, how about stopping reading them and moving on to something else?

Well, that's the OCD in me - once I start something, I can't stop.

DublinWriter

apsalar wrote: »

As for Micheal Moorcock..gosh I know what you mean. I read Hawkmoon many many years ago at 14 and thought it was the. best. thing. ever.:rolleyes: I can still read the occasional book but I find as I matured along the way I found his writing style somewhat stilted and stiff. I also kind of thought he tries a bit too hard, but I may be wrong. Apologies to major fans.

Have you read any of Moorcock's non-fantasy stuff? I liked Mother London a lot, although I think it borrows a little too heavily from Joyce's Ulysses.

nesf

Pratchett is decent as an occasional treat but I don't think his work should be read serially if you know what I mean. There's some excellent comedic work in some of the books mentioned above (Small Gods is my favourite for what it's worth) but I don't think I could stomach chain reading his books, I'd just get sick of his comedic style too quickly.

Some of his later stuff is well dodgy but the earlier Discworld novels are definitely worth a look.


The thing about his one dimensional characters is that, well, it's pulp genre comedy not literary fiction a la Joyce et al. His work is good for a laugh but don't go into it expecting fascinating usage of language or exceptional psychological portrayals.

Blackhorse Slim

I pretty much agree with what's been said, Discworld novels are great to read occasionally, but reading them all one after the other would be too much.

I think the world and characters are great for what they are, light comedy written with wit and imagination, but Terry's plots are not a strongpoint imo. And I agree about taking real-world stuff and transposing it to Discworld, it can be irritating, although it often works well. I thought The Truth, Soul Music and Going Postal worked well, but Moving Pictures and The Last Continent, for example, didn't.

Of course there are exceptions, some of the later books like Thud! or Monstrous Regiment actually transcend what Discworld had become, with better plotting and some depth and character development.

Somnus

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

Of course there are exceptions, some of the later books like Thud!

Definitely agree. I remember reading Thud! and being pleasantly surprised at it seeming a bit more... I don't know focused? serious? Like it had more of a point.

Blackhorse Slim

If you liked Thud!, try Monstrous Regiment. Apart from a few cameos at the start, the characters and setting are new (Borogravia, near Uberwald).

Unfortunately Unseen Academicals was a bit of step backwards, imo.

Mark Hamill

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I pretty much agree with what's been said, Discworld novels are great to read occasionally, but reading them all one after the other would be too much.

I read all the books (up to The Truth, I think), one after the other, taking them 5 or 6 at a time from the library, and then when I finished, I bought them all and read them again. I then got everything else he ever read, I could read Pratchett for ever . I can understand people not liking them though. Pratchett has a very definite style, and if you dont like it, you wont last long with his books.

johnnyskeleton

DublinWriter wrote: »

I personally think that the Discworld books cointain a maximum of about half-a-dozen original works that should be read while the rest are mere album-fillers, or have I completely missed the point?

Why not say that over 'ere: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=338

You might get more discworld hardcore fans wanting to set you straight.

Can I also suggest you read Good Omens which was co-authored with Neil Gaiman? It's not a discworld book so you might find it more appealing and/or a good way to get into Pratchett's mindset.

DublinWriter

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You might get more discworld hardcore fans wanting to set you straight.

By setting me straight, do you really mean more than willing to start an internet flame war?

Honestly, I have tried. I've abandoned my Pratchett quest at book 22 - Carpe Jugulum. I'm now reading Elman's seminal biography of Joyce and it's like being let out into an open pasture after 22 years of solitary confinement.

As I think I've said, Pratchett followed the money rather than the art. I loved the Bromeliad Trilogy, but I think like Moorock, Cornwell et al, he unwittingly stumbled upon what was to be a very lucrative franchise and milked it for all it was worth. Who can blame him in all honesty?

I think he forfeited his claim as a serious writer of fantasy in the neverending quest of the quick-buck. I think even J.K. Rowling has more going as an author than Pratchett because at least she had a far better sense of character development.

Sir Ophiuchus

DublinWriter wrote: »

As I think I've said, Pratchett followed the money rather than the art.

...

I think he forfeited his claim as a serious writer of fantasy in the neverending quest of the quick-buck. I think even J.K. Rowling has more going as an author than Pratchett because at least she had a far better sense of character development.

Okay, there are so many things wrong with this.

First of all, you've moved from "Eh, I don't really like it" to "Pratchett only wrote them for the money". Why would you make that assumption? Personally, I find the later Discworld books much deeper and involving much more interesting characterisation.

Secondly, Rowling's character development? Yes, her characterisation improved as she went along, but frankly when you start with such blank slates as characters any development is a relatively massive improvement.

Thirdly, Pratchett has never claimed to be a serious writer ("serious writer of fantasy" is unnecessarily specific). Other people, such as literary critics, academics, and the British public, have claimed that of him.

Like all texts, everyone gets different things from Pratchett. Don't use the fact that you didn't enjoy his work to denigrate him. Or at least, if you do, argue it a bit better.

Daith

Night Watch is probably the last Discworld I really enjoyed. Or was it "The Truth"? Anyway if I look at the Watch there compared to Guards! Guards! I think there's a fair bit of character development. Its also an excellent read and actually abit light on the comedic stuff.

My non Discworld loving brother also greatly enjoyed Nation which I;ve yet to read.

Cavehill Red

DublinWriter wrote: »

I put off reading Terry Pratchett for many years in the same way I put off reading Ulysses, generally because I got sick of everyone telling me how brilliant he was and how I must read him.

I've been working my way through the Discworld books at the moment and it's starting to become quite tedious. A lot of the humour is quite juvenile and the characters particularly one-dimensional.

A trend in the later Discworld novels seems to be taking themes from the 'real' world and transposing them rather laboriously onto the Discworld trope - Moving Pictures, Soul Music and The Last Contenent being particular examples. It's although Pratchett was running out of ideas and started chucking in existing real-world constructs to ensue 'hilarious and eventful' results.

Don't get me wrong, I think Pratchett's a very talented writer, I particularly loved Small Gods and the Bromeliad Trilogy, but I think he fell into a trap that a lot of authors find themselves in, which is something I call 'sequelitius', in which the author sets out to at most create a triology, but instead develops a lucrative franchise.

Other examples of this include Michael Moorcock (churning out nearly 40 volumes in the Eternal Champion series) and Bernard Cornwell with the Sharpe books.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I personally think that the Discworld books cointain a maximum of about half-a-dozen original works that should be read while the rest are mere album-fillers, or have I completely missed the point?

Great. Someone finally said it.
I appreciate it's hard to argue with the popularity of X million books sold (though Jordan manages 500K and that Harry Potter **** is second only to the Bible at this stage) and that it's probably seen as downright evil to criticise someone who has been so brave in the face of a degenerative illness.
But I'm firmly with the OP on this. The books are short, poorly plotted, unfunny pastiches of fantasy literature. They consist effectively of set ups for oneliners, as if Jimmy Carr needed two pages of mise-en-scene before cracking a gag.
I don't think any of the series is original to be honest, though I freely admit to not reading all of them, given that the eight or nine I did try (at least they didn't waste much of my time given they were such short reads) were all derivative and poor.
Before I get flamed for this, I would stress that I admire the author as a human being utterly, and I appreciate others won't agree with my assessment and likely enjoy the books. But I for one found them pretty LCD and very derivative, and I'm delighted to see that at least one other person agrees.

Cavehill Red

DublinWriter wrote: »

For example, I love James Joyce's work, but Finnegan's Wake is just beyond me. I don't get it and I always ask those who say it's a work of genius to explain why to me.

I LOVE Finnegans Wake. But I'm not going to explain why it's a work of genius to you. I'd rather let a genius do that for me.
Try this: www.metaportal.com.br/jjoyce/burgess1.htm

/offtopic

Mark Hamill

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The books are short,

They are about 250/300 pages each. How long should they be?
Do you hold brevity against the likes of Isaac Asimov and Robert Matheson, predominatly short story writers?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

poorly plotted,

Whats wrong with the plots?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

unfunny pastiches of fantasy literature.

Just because you dont like the humour, doesn't make them unfunny.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They consist effectively of set ups for oneliners, as if Jimmy Carr needed two pages of mise-en-scene before cracking a gag.

I dont remember them like that at all. To me they were good fantasy stories that had, as part of their humour, some good one liners.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I don't think any of the series is original to be honest,

Depends on what you mean by original. A lot of the books are purposely satirical pastiches of generic fantasy tropes and some bring some real world ideas into the fantasy setting, so there is an undeniable sense of familiararity with some ideas, however the intimate details are original. Besides, are their many stories nowadays that are truely original?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

though I freely admit to not reading all of them, given that the eight or nine I did try (at least they didn't waste much of my time given they were such short reads) were all derivative and poor.

What did you think they were inferior copies of?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Before I get flamed for this, I would stress that I admire the author as a human being utterly, and I appreciate others won't agree with my assessment and likely enjoy the books.

You may get flamed because of how you have worded your assessment. Making objective declarations on the quality of the books, without qualifying them as purely your opinion (which, given the sales of the books, is in the minority) is going to bother some people no end.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

But I for one found them pretty LCD and very derivative, and I'm delighted to see that at least one other person agrees.

LCD?

Cavehill Red

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They are about 250/300 pages each. How long should they be?

They're very small pages, wouldn't you say? I wonder what the average word count is. I'd be guessing well under 100K, probably closer to 80. Fantasy literature is noted for its length compared to other fiction genres, and publishers regularly expect authors to write 150K words or more, compared to say, 120K max for literary fiction.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you hold brevity against the likes of Isaac Asimov and Robert Matheson, predominatly short story writers?

Different format.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Whats wrong with the plots?

They don't exist. It's one action after another to set up one punchline after another. Jimmy Carr with exposition.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just because you dont like the humour, doesn't make them unfunny.

It makes them unfunny to me, though.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont remember them like that at all. To me they were good fantasy stories that had, as part of their humour, some good one liners.

Yes, we clearly do have different perspectives alright.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by original. A lot of the books are purposely satirical pastiches of generic fantasy tropes and some bring some real world ideas into the fantasy setting, so there is an undeniable sense of familiararity with some ideas, however the intimate details are original. Besides, are their many stories nowadays that are truely original?

Yes, there certainly are. In the fantasy genre alone, I'd suggest that the likes of China Mieville and Steph Swainston are producing highly original work that still evokes the genre without being remotely derivative at all.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What did you think they were inferior copies of?

Of the books that Pratchett sought to pastiche.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You may get flamed because of how you have worded your assessment. Making objective declarations on the quality of the books, without qualifying them as purely your opinion (which, given the sales of the books, is in the minority) is going to bother some people no end.

Well, clearly it bothers you. It's my assessment, and I don't see any need to qualify it. I found little to recommend Pratchett's output and even less to inspire me to read more or revisit those I did waste time on. Clearly, you like them. So do many other people. And that's great. It's a big world, able to accommodate many differing, even diametrically opposed, opinions.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

LCD?

Lowest common denominator.

nesf

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They're very small pages, wouldn't you say? I wonder what the average word count is. I'd be guessing well under 100K, probably closer to 80. Fantasy literature is noted for its length compared to other fiction genres, and publishers regularly expect authors to write 150K words or more, compared to say, 120K max for literary fiction.

He's not writing traditional straight fantasy fiction so really it's pointless to expect him to conform to genre norms in terms of length.


For what it's worth, The Colour of Magic is ****ing hilarious if you have any kind of background in physics.

Cavehill Red

nesf wrote: »

He's not writing traditional straight fantasy fiction so really it's pointless to expect him to conform to genre norms in terms of length.

I don't expect him to do anything.
I simply said the books were short and someone else disputed that. It's pretty clear they are very short, whether you think they're great or not.

PaoloDublin

I love the Vimes books, with Vetinari. I imagine Vimes played by a Pete Postlethwaite type ;-)

I hear the OP's point, however, Pratchett isn't regarded as a living great because every book he wrote was fantastic...but some are, and most are pretty decent!
It's the escapism he provides. His world, Discworld, seems simpler and easier to fathom sometimes than ours...that's prob why so many here like to pick up and re-read a book, from time to time?

That's why he's a special author, and will be very much missed when he's no longer around.

nesf

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I don't expect him to do anything.
I simply said the books were short and someone else disputed that. It's pretty clear they are very short, whether you think they're great or not.

But you are holding up the genre norm of length and saying his books are short because they're not 140K words or whatever when normal fiction length is 80-100K words for the most part which is the range where most of his books fall.

Nevyn

Some of the books at the start were short, but wonderfull all the same (equal rites, small gods) but night watch, wintersmith and most of the recent ones are not.

Some of the most intresting and high impacting scifi and fanasty I have read have been novelettes and short stories, epic tomes in vast spanning story arcs do not always make a good read.

Mark Hamill

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They're very small pages, wouldn't you say? I wonder what the average word count is. I'd be guessing well under 100K, probably closer to 80. Fantasy literature is noted for its length compared to other fiction genres, and publishers regularly expect authors to write 150K words or more, compared to say, 120K max for literary fiction.

Different format.

Its funny here how you try to get out of talking about Matheson and Asimov, by pointing out they are different formats, and yet you expect Pratchetts comic fantasy to follow the same rules as straight fantasy, despite them being two different formats.
Not that trying to brush away Matheson and Asimov as different formats is really acceptable. A good book is good irrespective of its length. Robert Rankins books are about the same length as Pratchetts, something wrong with them too?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They don't exist. It's one action after another to set up one punchline after another. Jimmy Carr with exposition.

I'm sorry, that is a ridiculous thing to say. How can there be no plots? That would mean nothing at all happens. Go to wikipedia and look at each discworld book there, they all have plot summaries, they must all have plots.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It makes them unfunny to me, though.

Ands that fine. But them being unfunny to you is a different thing to them being unfunny full stop.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yes, there certainly are. In the fantasy genre alone, I'd suggest that the likes of China Mieville and Steph Swainston are producing highly original work that still evokes the genre without being remotely derivative at all.

I'm not familiar with them, but looking at wikipedia, the plots and settings dont seem that original. Hell, China Miervilles Bas-Lag stories are set in somewhere thats a bit reminiscent of discworld, in Chinas own words:
"basically a secondary world fantasy with Victorian era technology. So rather than being a feudal world, it's an early industrial capitalist world of a fairly grubby, police statey kind!"
They even call magic thaumaturgy.
Besides, you are missing the point of Pratchetts work. He is trying to be derivitive, as his stories are generally humours takes on fantasy tropes or real world ideas in fantasy settings, thats the point. Criticising this would be like criticising an impressionist for being derivitive of those they making impressions of.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Of the books that Pratchett sought to pastiche.

Thats not an answer. Please try again.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, clearly it bothers you. It's my assessment, and I don't see any need to qualify it. I found little to recommend Pratchett's output and even less to inspire me to read more or revisit those I did waste time on. Clearly, you like them. So do many other people. And that's great. It's a big world, able to accommodate many differing, even diametrically opposed, opinions.

If you dont want to defend you assessment, then post it on a blog or not at all. When you post on boards, people will generally have things to say about it. Thats kind of the point of the website.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Lowest common denominator.

Ok, thanks for that, but in what way were they LCD?

Cavehill Red

Mark, I'm not inclined to back and forth with you on this.
You like the books, I think they're sh!t. Let's leave it there, ok?

Mark Hamill

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Mark, I'm not inclined to back and forth with you on this.
You like the books, I think they're sh!t. Let's leave it there, ok?

Why exactly did you post then? Remember:
Blog = Declare opinion with no input from any one else
Forum = Discuss opinion with others.

Cavehill Red

I posted to express solidarity with the opinion of the OP.
It's a free world and I am entitled to my opinion and analysis of Pratchett's work, or indeed any other topic, just as you are yours.
I feel I've already presented that opinion extensively on the thread to my satisfaction, and since we're not in a courtroom here, I'm not interested in answering your questions further, since they appear to be antagonistic rather than interested in what I might have to say. You don't seem interested in discussing so much as interrogating.
And if you're not familiar with Mieville or Swainston, you should definitely make yourself acquainted.

Mark Hamill

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I posted to express solidarity with the opinion of the OP.
It's a free world and I am entitled to my opinion and analysis of Pratchett's work, or indeed any other topic, just as you are yours.
I feel I've already presented that opinion extensively on the thread to my satisfaction, and since we're not in a courtroom here, I'm not interested in answering your questions further, since they appear to be antagonistic rather than interested in what I might have to say.

The only one being antagonistic here is you. I haven't said that you cant express your opinion, just pointed out that, on a forum, its going to be questioned. Think of this website like a big pub, with groups of people discussing different things. You cant just go up to a group, declare something, that you recognise will be antagonistic, and then declare yourself above reproach. It kind of kills the point of the webiste. If you want to declare something and dont want to be debated on it, then post a blog.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You don't seem interested in discussing so much as interrogating.

You left me with no choice. Without giving examples, your points are indsitinguishable from baseless claims, I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking for the evidence first. However, you have offered very little in the way of examples for the points you were making, going so far as to respond to the question "what do you think Pratchetts books were copies of?" with the answer "the books that Pratchett copied" (paraphrased) and have no declared yourself to be above reproach on this matter.

Your posts have been very childish and petulant. Anytime you actually want to discuss Pratchett (or anything else, for that matter), you should loose the arrogance.