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

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, what is true of Pratchett also?

The following:

, although they're about as far as you can possibly get from the typical "Mills and Boone" romance in terms of the sophistication of the writing.

[HarryT]

I honestly wouldn't classify Pratchett as a romance writer. There may be occasional romance in his books, but that doesn't make it romance fiction, to my mind.

[doubleshuffle]

Harry, you do know what Tommy wants to say, don't you? Karma for entertainment value, though.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I honestly wouldn't classify Pratchett as a romance writer. There may be occasional romance in his books, but that doesn't make it romance fiction, to my mind.

Read more carefully. The statement do not assume that Pratchett is a romance writer. It is just a statement of the sophistication of the writing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Read more carefully. The statement do not assume that Pratchett is a romance writer. It is just a statement of the sophistication of the writing.

Sorry, I see what you're saying now. I thought you were saying that Pratchett was a writer of romance genre fiction, like Austen .

I really don't agree with you that Pratchett's writing is in the same league as Austen's, but that's just my personal opinion, albeit one shared by a lot of people.

[DiapDealer]

I think he meant that; similar to how you've lifted Austin above the typical fare of the genre she could generally be classified as (in terms of sophistication), so could Prachett be elevated above the typical fare of his genre. Same same. Goose gander. Prachett does't have to be in Austin's league (in your opinion) for that to be true.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think he meant that; similar to how you've lifted Austin above the typical fare of the genre she could generally be classified as (in terms of sophistication), so could Prachett be elevated above the typical fare of his genre. Same same. Goose gander.

You certainly could say that, and you'd be perfectly entitled to think that, of course. Whether many people would agree with you is a different question, but not one that would change your opinion of the author, of course. I could say that L. Ron Hubbard was the greatest ever exponent of SF writing, but it doesn't make it true .

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Apparently this person only reads real "Literature" and, though he has not read a single book, Pratchett doesn't qualify. Pretentious.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...iterary-genius

You know, the VERY least they can do is read at least PART of one before panning it. They sound like a little kid who has never tried his peas.

[tompe]

Christopher Priest on the subject of what becomes classics and Pratchett:

http://www.christopher-priest.co.uk/...-mister-jones/

But I would say that of all the writers I have ever known, or the books I have ever read, Terry Pratchett’s seem to be a dead cert for long-term classic status. They are written for a popular audience, so fulfilling the first condition. They have been commercially successful, not just in Britain and the USA, but in languages and countries all around the world. The books are not liked by many: they are loved and admired by millions. Uniquely, in the profession of writing, where commercial success often turns a writer’s head and (to mix a metaphor) turns him or her into an asshole, Terry Pratchett remained approachable, unpretentious, sane and generous. His immensely popular appearances at Discworld conventions were marked by his geniality, openness and amusing manner, and a shared respect between author and audiences. His premature death was a cause of sincere mourning to all those readers, most of who never had the chance to meet him.

His work is written well – no matter what Jones says about ‘very ordinary’ prose, Terry Pratchett’s novels are stylistically adept: good muscular prose, not mucked around with for effect (except sometimes!), enlivened by wit, sharp observation, a unique take on the world at large and whatever the subject of social satire might be for the time being, a brimming sense of fun and the ridiculous, and overall an approach to the reader that feels inclusive, a letting in on the joke, an amused welcome to the world he is writing about. All his books contain bizarre cultural cross-references – part of the fun is spotting them. Some of his jokes are genuinely original – I always liked the one about the Australian bush hats with the corks, and the other one about the vampire photographer who used a flashgun on his camera. Millions of people – not the appalling Mr Jones, a spectacular scorer of own goals – will recognize these references with a sense of remembered joy.

[HarryT]

Thanks for quoting that, Tommy. All very valid points.

I do see Pratchett's books becoming well-loved classics in the same way as, to pick a random example, C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" books are, and J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books are almost certainly destined to be. There is, however, (to my mind at least) a clear distinction between a popular classic such as Narnia, Harry Potter, or Discworld, and a recognition that the author of such books is a "great writer", in the sense that Dickens, Shakespeare, or Austen are recognised as great writers. Would you not recognise that distinction yourself?

[Rizla]

I think some of his first few books did contain flashes of brilliance and were great fun. I could see his literary brilliance spilling out and breaking all the rules. But after the first few they became pedestrian.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks for quoting that, Tommy. All very valid points.

I do see Pratchett's books becoming well-loved classics in the same way as, to pick a random example, C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" books are, and J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books are almost certainly destined to be. There is, however, (to my mind at least) a clear distinction between a popular classic such as Narnia, Harry Potter, or Discworld, and a recognition that the author of such books is a "great writer", in the sense that Dickens, Shakespeare, or Austen are recognised as great writers. Would you not recognise that distinction yourself?

You're stacking the deck a bit there Harry, you have picked children's books as popular classics there to go up against your "great writer" list, so I'd like to switch Lewis and Rowling for Tolkien and Orwell as popular classic's.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by tompe

Christopher Priest on the subject of what becomes classics and Pratchett:

http://www.christopher-priest.co.uk/...-mister-jones/

On his blog, Priest recently called The Martian (or at least the first sentences) s**t. Kinda funny, though I don't agree. Priest has written some great stuff, and some not-so-great stuff too.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by tompe

Brandon Sanderson:

http://www.tor.com/2013/04/27/terry-...on-the-planet/

Thanks for that link, tompe; he says it well.

One quote from that link:

One of these is conscious use of language. Pratchett has that—boy does he. Each and every word is chosen with precision [...].

makes me think of Terry Pratchett's Bromeliad trilogy (Truckers, Diggers and Wings). Every time I re-read those three small books (meant for kids, I think, but I don't care), I am simply amazed at how much he packs in without seeming to try. It's like a miniature epic.

I fairly recently read Pratchett's short story "Rincemangle, the Gnome of Even Moor" (in the collection "A Blink of the Screen"). This story was apparently written in 1973 and is obviously the start of the idea that became Truckers - published in 1989. So the apparent effortlessness of the Bromeliad books was 16 years in the making.

He allowed himself more room in his Discworld novels, but he still didn't waste words. There is a skill in such writing that tends to be overlooked, probably because Pratchett makes it look easy, and yet the clarity and accessibility of his style is something that was hard-earned and deserves to be admired.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I could say that L. Ron Hubbard was the greatest ever exponent of SF writing, but it doesn't make it true .

Of course not. What makes it "true" is when scads of people say it. In Prachett's case; sufficient numbers of people point to the significance of his writing ... so his writing IS significant. That's how it works.

And before anyone anyone "50 Shades of Grey"s my comment, there is no large group of people extolling the brilliance of that author's writing. There's just scads buying it. There's a difference.