Introducing my kids to Pratchett: which book first?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

When the author's judgment agrees with everyone else's assessment, then I feel justified in saying the author is correct.



Clearly you are.

Well, when he wrote them he probably thought they were good because we authors rarely let the public (or even friends) look at stuff we already know is bad. Writing involves a lot of growth. Those books may have been the best he could write at the time (either because of distractions, youth, lack of experience, whatever) and he probably liked them and believed in the stories. It may have been after criticism that he saw their flaws...

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Well, when he wrote them he probably thought they were good because we authors rarely let the public (or even friends) look at stuff we already know is bad. Writing involves a lot of growth. Those books may have been the best he could write at the time (either because of distractions, youth, lack of experience, whatever) and he probably liked them and believed in the stories. It may have been after criticism that he saw their flaws...

Doubtless.

But we are discussing the case now.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Clearly you are.

They're pleasant, funny little books. I enjoyed them first time I read them (they *were* the first Pratchett books I read), but the quality of his writing improved, his character development improved and he found his voice in the later novels. And having read a large proportion of the novels I would *never* start a new reader on the first two. You can always go back and enjoy Rincewind, Twoflower and the Box.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

They're pleasant, funny little books. I enjoyed them first time I read them (they *were* the first Pratchett books I read), but the quality of his writing improved, his character development improved and he found his voice in the later novels. And having read a large proportion of the novels I would *never* start a new reader on the first two. You can always go back and enjoy Rincewind, Twoflower and the Box.

And therein lies the difficulty in helping another reader. Readers develop over time too--their tastes become more defined or defined by life events. There are cozy readers who used to read thrillers, but who will not touch them now. It doesn't mean that thrillers have all suddenly become garbage. It's quite possible that a younger reader might be delighted in the simpler prose of those two early books. Or they might be even more particular than us old foggies. It's hard to say.

I went back and read Nancy Drew as an adult. I couldn't understand what happened to the delightfully COMPLICATED mysteries I had read. And character development? Goodness. I remembered Nancy as so much richer and more complex! Writers change. Readers change. There's enough stories to go around.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

They're pleasant, funny little books. I enjoyed them first time I read them (they *were* the first Pratchett books I read), but the quality of his writing improved, his character development improved and he found his voice in the later novels. And having read a large proportion of the novels I would *never* start a new reader on the first two. You can always go back and enjoy Rincewind, Twoflower and the Box.

Why go back when you can start at the beginning? Knowing that other books in the series might be better, you read the first two because you get a lot of information that come sin handy in later books. Skipping them is like starting The Lord of the Rings at The Two Towers.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

They're pleasant, funny little books. I enjoyed them first time I read them (they *were* the first Pratchett books I read), but the quality of his writing improved, his character development improved and he found his voice in the later novels. And having read a large proportion of the novels I would *never* start a new reader on the first two. You can always go back and enjoy Rincewind, Twoflower and the Box.

I enjoyed them the first time I read them too -- but they weren't the first of his books that I read, and I didn't enjoy them quote as much as his later books.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Why go back when you can start at the beginning? Knowing that other books in the series might be better, you read the first two because you get a lot of information that come sin handy in later books. Skipping them is like starting The Lord of the Rings at The Two Towers.

The Lord of the Rings is one book that was later split into three parts. Could you have possibly chosen a worse example???

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Why go back when you can start at the beginning? Knowing that other books in the series might be better, you read the first two because you get a lot of information that come sin handy in later books. Skipping them is like starting The Lord of the Rings at The Two Towers.

You just don't give up. The author of Discworld asks his readers to not start the series at the first two books. And yet here you are telling folks that the author doesn't know what he's talking about and the only way to read the series is from the first published book.

You've got one heck on an ego.

And since the Lord of the Rings was written as a single book and then chopped up by the publisher, your example is meaningless. Apples and Oranges.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Rizla

! Am I only the only one here who found them the best? They are the first explosive creation, the inspirational start. Guards, Guards, for example, seems labored to me. TBH, the joke got old for me quite quickly. I am not a Pratchett aficionado or completionist. I take what I find to be the best in any area, and leave the rest.

It depends on whether you read Pratchett for "the joke", or whether you find more in them than just the humour. The first two books are essentially a series of connected short stories, which is one of the things that can make them - I think - more easily accessible to some readers. The first books are also almost entirely about "the joke" - a dig at fantasy cliches. As he progresses, Pratchett's books have more layers to them and the characters get more interesting and the stories better put together.

But they're not for everyone. Some people, I suspect, find them excessively moralising - and without the humour it's possible I would agree.

[ubuntu]

Wyrd Sisters is what I always recommend to friends who haven't read Pratchett before. It'll get you hooked.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

When the author's judgment agrees with everyone else's assessment, then I feel justified in saying the author is correct.

Clearly you are.

Except I'm not the only one.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Except I'm not the only one.

Well, if you are bringing JSWolf as your proof, that is worse than no proof at all. The histrionics are simply way too blatantly obvious.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ubuntu

Wyrd Sisters is what I always recommend to friends who haven't read Pratchett before. It'll get you hooked.

No, no, no! You can't possibly read this until you've read the books before it, and you'll never get all the humour if you haven't also read Macbeth, which probably means reading everything that Shakespeare wrote before Macbeth.

Actually, I think this is a very good suggestion.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Well, yes -- for series' that have one long storyline, you should read in the right order. To do otherwise is just silly.

Outside that... eh, the whole thing is just silly. [...]

As far as I can tell, JSWolf represents one extreme (you must read in publication order), and you represent the other ("outside that... eh, the whole thing is just silly.") I fall somewhere in between, but tending toward JSWolf - because I do think the optimal experience is gained by reading in publication order. (Obviously this is only optimal if the earlier books don't put you off wanting to read more when there is better ahead.)

But that opinion requires a small elaboration: I am one of those obsessive people that tend to read most authors' works in publication order, if I can, even when the books aren't in even a loose series. I may relax that on re-reads, skipping books I don't enjoy so much, but otherwise I like to follow each author's progress as a writer.

When books are in a loose series, it is not "silly" to read in publication order. Pedantic, maybe. Silly, no. There is a limit to the amount of back-filling it is practical to do in a book, so the writer gives enough so that you don't feel lost, but it is far from the full picture. Many of the Pratchett books make this clear, but one of the most obvious is Monstrous Regiment, where missing the city watch books, and The Truth, from your reading will leave you with a much shallower view of many characters. Is it crucial that you've read the previous? No, the characters in question aren't central to the story. But is it better? Yes, I definitely think it is.

[DuaneAA]

After reading the first part of this thread, I decided to give one a try. If I have read any of these Pratchett books, it has been like a 1000 years ago and I have no recollection. These days I prefer audiobooks, so I went to my library's overdrive site. They currently only had 3-4 available and of these I chose Monstrous Regiment. I really enjoyed listening to it. I doubt I would have made it through it if I had been reading it, but I have discovered my taste in audiobooks is different than regular books. The person reading this book was very good at giving distinct voices to the many different characters and handled the humor very well.

I can definitely see myself listening to one of these books every six months or so, the same way I slowly worked through the 'Royal Spyness' Series of murder mysteries by Rhys Bowen until I was caught up.

Duane