The Guardian click-bait - Get real. Terry Pratchett is not a literary genius

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

For the sake of argument here, let's say that the Bible is all fiction. What type of book would you call it. It's not a history text. It's what?

Why, a falsified history text of course. Ether way it is still indisputably a history text.

Perhaps the Wikipedia definition of a "novel" can help you resolve your confusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

To me personally, the mark of a great novel is that I can get something new from it every time I re-read it. I've read both "Pride and Prejudice" and "The Lord of the Rings" half a dozen times, and I will continue to get something new and fresh from them even if I re-read each of them a dozen more times. That for me makes them great novels. Much as I enjoy reading Pratchett's "Discworld" books, in all honesty I don't think I could say the same about any of them.

I'm OK with that.
I was addressing your implication that literary significance is primarily based on longevity and being taught.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Why, a falsified history text of course. Ether way it is still indisputably a history text.

Perhaps the Wikipedia definition of a "novel" can help you resolve your confusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel

We aren't calling it a history text. We are calling it a plain old work of fiction. What type of book is it?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm OK with that.
I was addressing your implication that literary significance is primarily based on longevity and being taught.

Fair comment. I do think that longevity has a lot to do with it, although certainly not everything.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The fact that you've read it many times would seem to suggest that you get something new from it on re-reading it, and that would be my main criterion for what makes a novel "great" for me personally.

No, I re-read it for a repeat of a very nice experience. I also repeat myself by eating stuff I like more than once. There are books I might re-read because they can contain layers and things I have missed. But I usually re-read to get the same experience.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We aren't calling it a history text. We are calling it a plain old work of fiction. What type of book is it?

It isn't "a book". The Bible is a collection of all sorts of different types of text collected together by historical circumstance in a pretty arbitrary fashion. As such it can't be classified as any one "type" of literature. It ranges from legal rules to biography to erotic poetry, and a lot more besides.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It isn't "a book". The Bible is a collection of all sorts of different types of text collected together by historical circumstance in a pretty arbitrary fashion. As such it can't be classified as any one "type" of literature. It ranges from legal rules to biography to erotic poetry, and a lot more besides.

The thing is, because it's fiction and is not historical fiction, being historical is out. So what does it make the Bible as a book that has no historical content and is totally fiction?

[ekbell]

Do we have to put down Chaucer (provider of bawdy humor, fart jokes and plenty of insight into plain ordinary earthy folks) and Jane Austen (who's books I love for their commentary on the society of her day) to pump up Terry Pratchett?

Terry Pratchett himself read broadly and was not shy in making allusions in his own writing (my favorite is the boarding school goat sacrificing scene in Pyramids which nicely refers to and subverts a similar scene in Tom Brown's School Days -both scenes are about pious little mummy's boys named Arthur but the differences in religion leads to some interesting changes).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, I re-read it for a repeat of a very nice experience. I also repeat myself by eating stuff I like more than once. There are books I might re-read because they can contain layers and things I have missed. But I usually re-read to get the same experience.

I find, though, that most of the books I read I don't re-read because I'd get very little enjoyment from them in doing so. Giving the reader pleasure on re-reading is, I think, a mark of good writing. Austen has that, as does Christie, Tolkien, and even David Eddings. Pratchett for me personally does not. I enjoy his books, but I don't re-read them.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The thing is, because it's fiction and is not historical fiction, being historical is out. So what does it make the Bible as a book that has no historical content and is totally fiction?

What do you feel the need to categorise it? It is what it is. It doesn't need a label putting on it to tell you that.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What do you feel the need to categorise it? It is what it is. It doesn't need a label putting on it to tell you that.

Of course it does because when the day finally comes that people realize the Bible is fiction, it will have to be reshelved in the bookstores and where would it be put?

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Having never read Austen, I don't feel qualified to talk about any depth or messages in her works.

But I do know that many people deride anything non-"literary" as lacking sufficient messages and depth for whatever desperate urge they have to receive messages/depth.

I hope you aren't one of those people. And equally, I hope you realize or will come to discover, that Pterry was in fact quite skilled in that regard.

...and then the zombie had the hiccups, 'cause the brains went down the wrong way!

No: But I know good literature when I read it.

Now: Back to my story, see! ...and then the little space craft sailed into the byways of the galaxy's uttermost regions, the only thing visible the little flicker of the engines [sic] turbo jets as it wnet [sic] into hyperdrive...."

That Austen gal never wrote like that!


First person: That's all I'm saying.

Second person: But you didn't say anything.

First person: That's what I'm saying! [cue laugh track.]

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We aren't calling it a history text. We are calling it a plain old work of fiction. What type of book is it?

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The thing is, because it's fiction and is not historical fiction, being historical is out. So what does it make the Bible as a book that has no historical content and is totally fiction?

What if we are calling it a pineapple? What type of book is it then?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I find, though, that most of the books I read I don't re-read because I'd get very little enjoyment from them in doing so. Giving the reader pleasure on re-reading is, I think, a mark of good writing. Austen has that, as does Christie, Tolkien, and even David Eddings. Pratchett for me personally does not. I enjoy his books, but I don't re-read them.

Well, a book that do not give pleasure when re-reading I would say is badly written and not worth reading the first time.

I also think that re-readability in some sense is orthogonal to good writing. The books I find have highest re-readability score for me is not the book I consider to be best written. They are not badly written but they would just not be considered to be very good writing (e.g. all the Modesty Blaise book which I did re-read many times).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Of course it does because when the day finally comes that people realize the Bible is fiction, it will have to be reshelved in the bookstores and where would it be put?

Where it is at the moment: under "religion".