The Guardian click-bait - Get real. Terry Pratchett is not a literary genius - Page 17

gmw · 09-23-2015, 02:56 AM

I am quite sympathetic to the view offered by JSWolf, I enjoy the Discworld books so much that I don't want to miss a word of it, even if some of the words are less perfectly chosen than others. And JSWolf is right to the extent that there is a richness in even the walk-on parts like CMOT Dibbler (the ubiquitous nature, the default fallback after trying and failing at bigger ventures are not progressive, but knowing the number of times he has tried and failed all add depth to a part that might otherwise seem entirely superficial).

But I'm not so hard-core that I can't see that there are potential problems with new readers starting at the first books. The early books are weaker books, and the fact is that most of the books can be read in isolation and still enjoyed. There maybe some small cost to the total experience, but it is a cost that can be regained by further reading - so where's the downside?

tompe, the Dresden books seem like they may be a good additional example of this problem. I too read the first, and while I found it okay, it was just okay, it didn't inspire me to rush out and buy more. I do intend to read a later book in the series that the thread here on MR recommended to me, and see how I go with that - eventually. Time will tell whether that experience will make me a big enough fan to go back and read the earlier ones.

MikeB1972 · 09-23-2015, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I feel sorry for you for not getting what is. This is not a shared universe. This is the same universe. These places and characters are all part of the same universe. Discworld is Discworld. It's not some other place in the Discworld universe.

Well, unless you go down the wrong leg of the trousers of time, or accidentally create a new universe

eschwartz · 09-24-2015, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmw

I am quite sympathetic to the view offered by JSWolf, I enjoy the Discworld books so much that I don't want to miss a word of it, even if some of the words are less perfectly chosen than others. And JSWolf is right to the extent that there is a richness in even the walk-on parts like CMOT Dibbler (the ubiquitous nature, the default fallback after trying and failing at bigger ventures are not progressive, but knowing the number of times he has tried and failed all add depth to a part that might otherwise seem entirely superficial).

But I'm not so hard-core that I can't see that there are potential problems with new readers starting at the first books. The early books are weaker books, and the fact is that most of the books can be read in isolation and still enjoyed. There maybe some small cost to the total experience, but it is a cost that can be regained by further reading - so where's the downside?

I don't understand where you are coming from.

I (and I assume everyone else who doesn't demand an order

) have never tried to imply that one should skip the first books entirely -- just that maybe one shouldn't start there...

And CMOT Dibbler has the same depth in every book, depending on whether you have read the entire series before.

I fail to see why it matters which particular books have that depth, during the first comprehensive read-through of the series.
In a purely numerical sense.

You won't regain the cost by further reading -- there is no cost.

gmw · 09-24-2015, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschwartz

[...]You won't regain the cost by further reading -- there is no cost.

I seem to have expressed myself badly, because my second paragraph was intended to be mostly in agreement with you. I can only say "mostly" because there IS a cost to not reading in order on first time through: some details will pass you by. Details that are offered in passing, or characters that you know well from previous books who make a cameo in a subsequent book, where the few words offered mean something more to the reader who is familiar with them and mean less to the first time visitor.

Pratchett is very good at this sort of subtle allusion, not just to things like Shakespeare and so on, as already noted, but also back to his own books. He is so good at it that most readers won't even notice what they've missed by not being familiar with the reference - they won't see the cost, but the cost still exists.

Just as you don't have to have read Shakespeare to enjoy "Wyrd Sisters", having even a passing familiarity with Hamlet, Macbeth and King Lear etc. adds some extra spice to your reading.

QuantumIguana · 09-29-2015, 11:14 PM

Quote:

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.

Does anyone really read L. Ron Hubbard anymore? If it wasn't for a certain organization he created which shall remain nameless, would we even remember his name?

QuantumIguana · 09-29-2015, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Most artists who paint pictures sell their work, don't they? If you want to paint for money, you paint houses, not pictures

.

You're not familiar with the new work House in Blue Latex? It's on display right now.

QuantumIguana · 09-29-2015, 11:31 PM

Quote:

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

He doesn't merely state that Pratchett isn't a "literary genius", he goes much farther than this. "Mediocre", "I would have to live a million years before getting round to him" and "trash."

I don't know if Pratchett will be remembered and studied in the distant future. But he will be remembered far longer than this person. He wouldn't know depth it it bit him. But he sure knows how to see the Emperor's New Clothes.

HarryT · 10-06-2015, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Does anyone really read L. Ron Hubbard anymore? If it wasn't for a certain organization he created which shall remain nameless, would we even remember his name?

"Battlefield Earth" is actually one of my favourite SF books. Great "space opera". So yes, at least one person still reads him: me

.

JSWolf · 10-06-2015, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Battlefield Earth" is actually one of my favourite SF books. Great "space opera". So yes, at least one person still reads him: me

.

I found Battlefield Earth to be rubbish. It was way too wordy, could have stopped in a number of different places and the story felt like it was written by a hack (well, it was).

HarryT · 10-06-2015, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I found Battlefield Earth to be rubbish. It was way too wordy, could have stopped in a number of different places and the story felt like it was written by a hack (well, it was).

Forgive me, Jon, but the fact that you dislike it in no way alters my enjoyment of it. We don't all have to like the same books

.

Hubbard may have had strange views about many things, but he was also a competent (not great, but competent) writer of SF.

JSWolf · 10-06-2015, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Forgive me, Jon, but the fact that you dislike it in no way alters my enjoyment of it. We don't all have to like the same books

.

Hubbard may have had strange views about many things, but he was also a competent (not great, but competent) writer of SF.

We will have to agree to disagree. I find him rubbish while you enjoy him.

tompe · 10-06-2015, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I found Battlefield Earth to be rubbish. It was way too wordy, could have stopped in a number of different places and the story felt like it was written by a hack (well, it was).

That was my take also. I failed to finish it

JSWolf · 10-06-2015, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

That was my take also. I failed to finish it

I did finish Battlefield Earth. It was a mistake to do so.

gmw · 10-07-2015, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I did finish Battlefield Earth. It was a mistake to do so.

Nah, I'm with Harry on this one. Battlefield Earth was fun. Nothing you could take seriously, but I assumed that was the point.

timebug · 10-07-2015, 04:58 AM

I finished Battlefield Earth and enjoyed it FOR
WHAT IT WAS, which (IMO) was a simple little
'pulp' style chunk of good ol' fashioned Sci-Fi!
In fact I think I have read it three times, over
the years since it was published!
Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, I tried several
times and just could NOT get into them. But I think
it's very shallow to suggest that one author is more
'worthy' than another? I never got on with the Agatha
Christie novels either, but hey, millions like them (Nay,
Love them) so what do I know?
The value of any book you read is to YOU alone,never
mind what anyone else thinks/says/does!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
GNU Terry Pratchett?	doubleshuffle	Feedback	17	03-20-2015 03:25 PM
Terry Pratchett	glenlyan	Introduce Yourself	3	01-25-2012 09:20 PM
Looking for a Terry Pratchett fan	Crusader	Reading Recommendations	0	11-07-2011 10:38 AM
Terry Pratchett knighted	ShortNCuddlyAm	Lounge	6	12-31-2008 11:00 AM
Sad news about Terry Pratchett	Alisa	Reading Recommendations	77	05-21-2008 12:25 AM

09-23-2015, 02:56 AM	#241
gmw cacoethes scribendi Posts: 5,818 Karma: 137770742 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650	I am quite sympathetic to the view offered by JSWolf, I enjoy the Discworld books so much that I don't want to miss a word of it, even if some of the words are less perfectly chosen than others. And JSWolf is right to the extent that there is a richness in even the walk-on parts like CMOT Dibbler (the ubiquitous nature, the default fallback after trying and failing at bigger ventures are not progressive, but knowing the number of times he has tried and failed all add depth to a part that might otherwise seem entirely superficial). But I'm not so hard-core that I can't see that there are potential problems with new readers starting at the first books. The early books are weaker books, and the fact is that most of the books can be read in isolation and still enjoyed. There maybe some small cost to the total experience, but it is a cost that can be regained by further reading - so where's the downside? tompe, the Dresden books seem like they may be a good additional example of this problem. I too read the first, and while I found it okay, it was just okay, it didn't inspire me to rush out and buy more. I do intend to read a later book in the series that the thread here on MR recommended to me, and see how I go with that - eventually. Time will tell whether that experience will make me a big enough fan to go back and read the earlier ones.

10-07-2015, 04:58 AM	#255
timebug Ancient Sage Posts: 14,585 Karma: 15493448 Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: Derby U.K. Device: Kobo Reader	I finished Battlefield Earth and enjoyed it FOR WHAT IT WAS, which (IMO) was a simple little 'pulp' style chunk of good ol' fashioned Sci-Fi! In fact I think I have read it three times, over the years since it was published! Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, I tried several times and just could NOT get into them. But I think it's very shallow to suggest that one author is more 'worthy' than another? I never got on with the Agatha Christie novels either, but hey, millions like them (Nay, Love them) so what do I know? The value of any book you read is to YOU alone,never mind what anyone else thinks/says/does!