Quote:
Originally Posted by doubleshuffle
I absolutely agree with this. Pratchett was brilliant in exactly the way you say, and I don't think anybody here is denying that. But the whole premise of this thread is the argument that he is (or isn't) one of the literary greats, on a level with Shakespeare, for instance.
And, I'm sorry, he simply isn't. He is amazing in what he does: telling very funny tales with a deeply humanist message and dazzling philosophical and cultural allusions and references.
But having just finished The Shepherd's Crown, I couldn't help but notice Pratchett's repetetiveness in the plot department. The vast majority of his books follows the same pattern: The Discworld is threatened by a dark force, which is overcome by hero/heroine, who experiences personal growth in the process; also, usually, another group of mythical creatures is integrated into Discworld society .
How Pratchett tells these stories, what he weaves into them, the depth he gives some of his characters, is absolutely brilliant; but there is also something missing that I expect from great literature: real newness, real surprise. Sorry, but that's missing from Pratchett after you've read a few of his books. Pratchett found a formula that worked and brought it to perfection. I recommend him to anybody who asks for a good book to read. But picking up a Discworld book I know what to expect and, after a few pages, where the story will be going. Nothing wrong about that, but there is a thrill missing, and a challenge.
Let me give you a counterexample, an author I consider to be a writer of great literature, Salman Rushdie. His new novel will be out in a few days, and I can't wait to get it on my reader. A chapter from the book was published in advance on the New Yorker website, and since I read it I've been waiting for the book because I want to know where Rushdie is going to take the story. Of course, there is a certain sound in his prose that is familiar from his other books, but in the end I have no idea what I can expect.
And that's the difference: After the first pages of a Discworld novel, I know exactly what to expect. |
You make an excellent point, and I completely agree with you. Pratchett found a winning formula, and stuck to it (highly successfully). His novels are wonderful, but predictable. Compare him to (sorry to be repetitive, but it is a valid comparison here) authors like Austen or Dickens, each of whose novels is completely different from all the others. "Pride and Prejudice" has nothing in common with "Emma" or "Mansfield Park"; "Bleak House" is different to "David Copperfield" or "Oliver Twist". That has pros and cons, of course. Because Dickens changed his style for every novel, some were a lot more commercially successful than others. Pick up any Pratchett novel, on the other hand, and you know exactly what to expect.
Of course, exactly the same is true of Agatha Christie, the most successful novelist of all time in terms of number of books sold. Christie found a winning formula, and stuck to it. Read any "Miss Marple" book and you know what to expect from the next one. Christie churned out two books a year for 40+ years and knew exactly what would sell. She was an astoundingly successful author, but not a "great" author in terms of literary innovation.
I agree with you about Rushdie. He is a "great" author in the literary sense.