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

[tompe]

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?

If you read the whole article you see:

From the plays of William Shakespeare, through the novels of the Bronte sisters, the social novels of Charles Dickens, the scientific romances of H. G. Wells, virtually every work of literature that becomes recognized as a classic was conceived and written in the first place for a popular audience. The only exception to this that I can think of is the work of James Joyce, which has achieved classic status without a groundswell of popular support.

Dickens, Shakespear and Austen were popular authors that wrote popular books. And I see no distinction between Dickens, Austen and Pratchett here.

[tuskin]

There's been a lot of talk about the pleasures of reading (or re-reading) but what about the (forbidden) pleasures of not reading. Dan Piebenbring in The Paris Review, using the article from which this whole discussion began as a starting point:
http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2...f-not-reading/

tuskin

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Dickens, Shakespear and Austen were popular authors that wrote popular books. And I see no distinction between Dickens, Austen and Pratchett here.

History will make that judgement. Personally I very much doubt that future generations will speak about Rowling or Pratchett in the same breath as Dickens or Austen, but I may be wrong; I won't be around to know .

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by meeera

I suggest that combustion is quite a lot quicker than ingestion or decomposition.

I have the e version.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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 .

L. Ron Hubbard was a hack and a very poor hack at that. His writing is awful. He has no idea when to stop a book. Battlefield Earth just never stopped when it could have in many different places. His Invaders Plan series is atrocious.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

L. Ron Hubbard was a hack and a very poor hack at that. His writing is awful. He has no idea when to stop a book. Battlefield Earth just never stopped when it could have in many different places. His Invaders Plan series is atrocious.

What - you don't support my proposal that L. Ron Hubbard is the greatest ever SF author? Shame on you, Jon . Anyone would think that different people liked different authors .

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I honestly don't recall anyone ever suggesting that he was a literary genius. He was an extremely good and commercially-successful author (and one whose books I very much enjoy reading), but one should, I think, be wary of throwing around words like "genius", don't you think?

Literary genius no. But he was a genius. There are many types of geniuses out there. On an IQ scale, I am a genius, but Terry is far past me on being a human genius.

[HarryT]

Can you define what you mean by "a human genius"? It's an expression I've not come across before.

[jackie_w]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you define what you mean by "a human genius"? It's an expression I've not come across before.

An IQ score of 160+, according to this link.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Can anyone tell me how to get through Atlas Shrugged? Interesting book but all that dialog gets boring rather quickly.

Don't bother

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you define what you mean by "a human genius"? It's an expression I've not come across before.

It is my invention and defined by convenience.

A human genius is one that is learned in the quirks and foibles of humans.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

It is my invention and defined by convenience.

A human genius is one that is learned in the quirks and foibles of humans.

So a psychologist? Or maybe a sociologist? (depending on whether you're talking about humans as a group or as individuals)

Shari

[HomeInMyShoes]

Perhaps even an anthropologist if we talk about past humans.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

L. Ron Hubbard was a hack and a very poor hack at that. His writing is awful. He has no idea when to stop a book. Battlefield Earth just never stopped when it could have in many different places. His Invaders Plan series is atrocious.

On the other hand, Final Blackout was a pulp S/F "classic"...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

History will make that judgement. Personally I very much doubt that future generations will speak about Rowling or Pratchett in the same breath as Dickens or Austen, but I may be wrong; I won't be around to know .

Harry, the 20th century classics will be the popular classics, not the Literary great books.

Hemmingway, Hammett, Chandler, Tolkien, Heinlein, Zane Grey, Louis L'Amour, Pratchett, et. al..

Who remembers, other than a rare few, Cabell, Sinclair, or Dreiser?

I suspect that Pratchett will end up in a similar place in the world "Literature" as Balzac...

(Of course, nobody teaches Balzac in school...)