Discworld Reading Order

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

It seems to me that publication order can never be wrong. It might not be the "best" order to read something in, usually because the first-written books are weaker, but the people telling you that probably read them (or wrote them) in that order.

Is this Jon I hear?
Careful with those absolutisms of yours...

It can be wrong, at least in situations where it happens to be wrong, that is.

Now, I actually did not start with the first book. Take that as you will...


(I must admit I would've read them anyway, even if I had read the first books first and gotten the wrong impression.)

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

[...] As soon as I read the first para or two of book 1, I said, aha, Frfhard and the Grey Mouser...

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by issybird

I'm not going to extend an author that much latitude. If I'm not hooked with the first book, I'll move on.

This rule doesn't leave any room for context. Discworld is 40+ book series, yet the first 2 books are barely over 200 pages. And the rest of them hover around 200-300 pages. You could read both of them and it would still make only an average size 400 page book. Just saying you give up on the first book is understandable if we are talking about a bigger book, but 200 pages? Come on.
It's totally reasonable if you lets say read 700-800+ page first book in a trilogy or a 5-6 book series like ASOIAF or Malazan or Wheel of Time, and say ok this is not for me. But 200 pages? Again, come on, give it a little room for context.

Also on topic, OP read in publishing order. You wont get confused with orders and it's the most natural way. You would have read them that way if you have been following the series from the first print.
I've read the first two books and they are fun, simple parody of fantasy tropes. If you like parody and fantasy you will enjoy them. I also recommend the movie if you like the books.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1079959

[BenG]

I liked the books but didn't care for The Color of Magic movie.

I loved the Hogfather and Going Postal movies though.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Geralt

This rule doesn't leave any room for context. Discworld is 40+ book series, yet the first 2 books are barely over 200 pages. And the rest of them hover around 200-300 pages. You could read both of them and it would still make only an average size 400 page book. Just saying you give up on the first book is understandable if we are talking about a bigger book, but 200 pages? Come on.
It's totally reasonable if you lets say read 700-800+ page first book in a trilogy or a 5-6 book series like ASOIAF or Malazan or Wheel of Time, and say ok this is not for me. But 200 pages? Again, come on, give it a little room for context.

These days I don't care how long a series or even a single book is. If I'm not really enjoying the book after about 100 pages I let it go. Too many other books with the possibility of more enjoyment for me to waste time forcing myself to read something I'm not really enjoying much.

[latepaul]

How to read them? Spiralling from the centre outwards. No wait that's something else.

Anyhow, IMHO, books one and two are fine, they are funny, but they are a series of parodies of typical fantasy tropes. Book three - which is relatively weak, again IMHO - is the first which calms down and actually becomes a real novel. Book four is still one of my favourites.

So, if you were to read book 1 or 2 and didn't like it because the story was a mess then maybe try Mort, or Guards Guards. If you didn't like the jokes then, maybe Discworld is not for you because the sense of humour is the same.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Is this Jon I hear?
Careful with those absolutisms of yours...

It can be wrong, at least in situations where it happens to be wrong, that is.

Now, I actually did not start with the first book. Take that as you will...


(I must admit I would've read them anyway, even if I had read the first books first and gotten the wrong impression.)

I didn't mean to sound quite so definitive. I merely meant that the published order will definitely make sense and won't spoil any of the other books. (Actually, in the case of Discworld, the published order might even be in internal chronological order. I'd never really thought of that before, but I can't think of any counter-examples.)

I have read and enjoyed series in internal chronological order where it doesn't match published order - Sharpe, Vorkosigan - and I have read and enjoyed series where my first book was just a random book from the middle - Sharpe again, Honor Harrington. I have also abandoned series which I'm assured are great but have a weak first book - Malazan, Dresden. Maybe I should worry less about possible spoilers and more about what's a good representative starter.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I didn't mean to sound quite so definitive. I merely meant that the published order will definitely make sense and won't spoil any of the other books. (Actually, in the case of Discworld, the published order might even be in internal chronological order. I'd never really thought of that before, but I can't think of any counter-examples.)

Well, OK then.

But keep in mind, that while published order will almost certainly not have spoilers, if a lot of people keep saying that not-published-order also doesn't spoil things, that might be true too.

I am less concerned about the internal chronology in a series where the books are only loosely connected, if at all. Where do you put Pyramids, for example -- and does it matter?

And Small Gods certainly happened long before any of the other books, with the theological exception of Pyramids (of course )... but does that one actually matter?
Night Watch really happens about thirty years ago, of course, which I think predates The Color of Magic but certainly predates most of the books "before" it.
Barring those notable exceptions, I can't think of anything that was explicitly out of chronological order, but I still don't see why that is a reason to stick to the chronology.

Because once again, if the books follow completely different sets of characters, set in the same world, who gives a fig if it's in chronological order?

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

These days I don't care how long a series or even a single book is. If I'm not really enjoying the book after about 100 pages I let it go. Too many other books with the possibility of more enjoyment for me to waste time forcing myself to read something I'm not really enjoying much.

What genre do you primarily read? It's kind of important.
If you read romance/crime/mysteries or something like that 100 pages can be 1/3 of a book most of the time.
I read epic fantasy primarily and 100 pages is more like 1/8, 1/9/ or 1/10 or less most of the time. I don't really expect from the writer to bedazzle me in what is basically introduction to the world and characters. Sometimes they do but usually I give them more leeway and I have more patience.

And I don't buy this argument of there is always so much more to read. Yes, but at what price? It's not even the case of money, it's too many choices (which scientists proved lead people to being miserable) and not being able to really get lost in the book, because maybe a better read is right around the corner. Besides, there will always be more books to read than we have years on this planet. That doesn't mean much. Giving up after 100 pages is just gonna leave you with bunch of unread books.

I personally know my taste so well, that for example this year, I've read 4 two star books out of 50 titles, and no one star books. That's 8% which is pretty good imo. And no DNFs either. I choose what I know there is a high chance of me enjoying it.
I don't really get people who constantly DNF their books, or give low ratings most of the time. It's like they don't really know themselves or what they like and want.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Geralt

What genre do you primarily read? It's kind of important.
If you read romance/crime/mysteries or something like that 100 pages can be 1/3 of a book most of the time.
I read epic fantasy primarily and 100 pages is more like 1/8, 1/9/ or 1/10 or less most of the time. I don't really expect from the writer to bedazzle me in what is basically introduction to the world and characters. Sometimes they do but usually I give them more leeway and I have more patience.

I read all sorts of stuff.

Epic fantasy, sword and sorcery fluff, hard and soft sci-fi, post apoc, YA, horror, indie authors, biographies, crime, thriller, whatever.

My Calibre collection has about 90 different authors and 12 or 13 different genres in it.

Originally Posted by Geralt

And I don't buy this argument of there is always so much more to read. Yes, but at what price? It's not even the case of money, it's too many choices (which scientists proved lead people to being miserable) and not being able to really get lost in the book, because maybe a better read is right around the corner. Besides, there will always be more books to read than we have years on this planet. That doesn't mean much. Giving up after 100 pages is just gonna leave you with bunch of unread books.

It's not a matter of not being able to get lost in a book "because maybe a better read is right around the corner." It's also not about trying to read as many books as possible. Obviously there will always be more books than I can possibly read no matter how many I give up on after 100 pages.

I judge each book on it's own. If I'm liking the book I keep reading, if I'm not I stop. My point about other stuff to read is simply to illustrate the waste of continuing with something I'm not really enjoying.

I just don't get the point of continuing with a book if you are not really enjoying it just to see if it gets better. That to me is sort of like continuing to hit yourself on the head with a hammer even though it is painful just to see if it gets less painful or at all enjoyable. Sure, maybe it will become enjoyable but why not stop hitting yourself on the head with the hammer and try some other activity that might prove more enjoyable from the start?

Originally Posted by Geralt

I personally know my taste so well, that for example this year, I've read 4 two star books out of 50 titles, and no one star books. That's 8% which is pretty good imo. And no DNFs either. I choose what I know there is a high chance of me enjoying it.
I don't really get people who constantly DNF their books, or give low ratings most of the time. It's like they don't really know themselves or what they like and want.

I have a group of authors I know I will like pretty much anything they write. I prefer certain genres, sub-genres and styles over others and I know I will generally like things that fall into those groups.

Having said that, I like to try new authors, genres and styles. I'll happily give lots of different stuff a go. If I like something, say a genre I've not read or haven't read in a long time, this will often lead to a mini gorging on that new genre. For a while I will seek out anything that sounds interesting in that genre and give it a go. This in turn will often lead to starting things that sound good but just are not. So I drop them and move on.

So this year, I've only been able to read 28 books for enjoyment. Too much studying and work for more. 2 DNFed, a few 2 star books, majority were high 2 to low 4ish star and probably about 3 or 4 were high 4 or 5 star. To be frank, this has been a below average year. Other years, for example when most or all of the authors I like publish something, I might read many more books and not DNF a single book and mostly read high 3 to 5 star books.

ETA: To give some examples I often look through the reading recommendations board here and MR and will try new things that sound interesting. I'm going to try a couple from the Chinese fantasy and International Conspiracy Thrillers threads. I've just finished the Matt Damon Bourne Identity movies so have decided to try the books even though I've heard they are totally different, because why not?

[JSWolf]

This series does not recap. Jokes sometimes don't make sense if you've not read the books that help the jokes make sense. Terry does not recap. Characters to crossover. Places are as much a character as some of the characters. Places and background characters evolve even in different stories so if you read out of order, you very much spoil this natural progression.

These are all very good reasons to read in published order. The naysayers are 100% WRONG!

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

These are all very good reasons to read in published order. The naysayers are 100% WRONG!

Ok... We can all go home now. The final word has been said.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

This series does not recap. Jokes sometimes don't make sense if you've not read the books that help the jokes make sense. Terry does not recap. Characters to crossover. Places are as much a character as some of the characters. Places and background characters evolve even in different stories so if you read out of order, you very much spoil this natural progression.

These are all very good reasons to read in published order. The naysayers are 100% WRONG!

Terry recaps all the time. Some footnotes are nearly the same in multiple books. Some jokes are repeated. This gets less with the newer books, but the older ones are all perfectly fine on their own. You don't need to understand or know everything about a world, to enjoy reading about it (heck, who understands our world?) Pratchett makes it extremely easy to just read his books. As he would say: where does a story begin? Do you get all the references all the time? I don't think so. And yet you understand and enjoy him nonetheless. Do you need to have read Shakespeare to enjoy the witches books? No. But you may take more out of them, if you did. But maybe it inspires you to read some Shakespeare, if you hadn't before.

[mpeg2]

I started reading Pratchett books before they were readily available in the US (I picked one up on a whim in a bookstore in London). For a good while, I bought whichever ones I could find in British bookstores and read them in the order that I found them. Once they became available in the US, I read them in publication order.

I have to say that I enjoyed all that I read, no matter what order I read them in.

Rich

[BenG]

There's No Wrong Place To Start Reading Pratchett