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

[Bilbo1967]

I personally like the first two as a primer for the Discworld universe. They are definitely not as rich or complex as some of the others mentioned, but I think that they do stand up in their own right and introduce some of the basics of Discworld you need to know (magic's real; wizards are powerful; what Ankh Morpork is like etc..).

It's akin to not starting to learn about physics by picking up a book on quantum mechanics I think.

[eschwartz]

My success in getting people addicted to Discworld is directly related to whether I made the unfortunate oversight of giving them the first two books to start with.

Discworld is one of those series' that doesn't really have a set order. You can learn the basics from any book -- although I agree that everyone should eventually have read all the books.


The important thing to start with is to not scare people off.
People expecting a book by "that humorous Fantasy writer" I recommended get the wrong expectations from the first books, and decide it isn't that interesting.

[Bilbo1967]

I've had the exact opposite experience.

Ain't life weird

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I've had the exact opposite experience.

Ain't life weird

Indeed!

Maybe this is the cause of that highly-divisive-UK-vs.-US-cultural-gap-appreciating-Pratchett thingy!!

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Indeed!

Maybe this is the cause of that highly-divisive-UK-vs.-US-cultural-gap-appreciating-Pratchett thingy!!

Possibly. Although it's also possible that my friends just aren't as sophisticated as yours!

(I won't tell them if you don't)

[eschwartz]

And I won't tell my friends they aren't as patient about jumping to conclusions as yours.

[dickloraine]

The first few discworld books are very much parodies of fantasy clichés. I think someone who has read some fantasy will find them more amusing than someone who has never read any trash fantasy. Later books change the view more and more on our world.
I personally like the witch books very much (not equal rites and the vampire book was abysmal). Of course it helps if one has read Shakespeare and fairy tales.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Discworld is one of those series' that doesn't really have a set order.

Actually, Discworld does have a set order. That order is the order written.

What a lot of people don't get is that the setting and the background characters are also part of the story. As we read in written order, we do have differing main characters based on the book in hand, but we do get a lot of the same settings, the same background characters and as we progress in the stories, so do the settings and the background characters. We see them change and grow. You change the reading order, you spoil this. Discworld is not just the main characters and their stories. It's also about the settings and other characters.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Actually, Discworld does have a set order. That order is the order written.

What a lot of people don't get is that the setting and the background characters are also part of the story. As we read in written order, we do have differing main characters based on the book in hand, but we do get a lot of the same settings, the same background characters and as we progress in the stories, so do the settings and the background characters. We see them change and grow. You change the reading order, you spoil this. Discworld is not just the main characters and their stories. It's also about the settings and other characters.

Your random, drive-by assertion of a controversial opinion has been duly noted and rejected as WONTFIX/OPINION-BASED.


And I for one am beginning to get really tired of the way you are constantly claiming to all and sundry that your personal opinions and preferences should be binding as a universal fact.

...

No, I lie.
I got tired of it a couple years ago. But I think I will begin pointing out the differences more often.

[doubleshuffle]

Well, Jon has a point of course. There is a development in Discworld that progresses in the order the books were written.

OTOH, I don't think it is necessary to read the books in the "correct" order to appreciate that. I started somewhere in the middle, and it is perfectly possible to understand each book on its own terms. Sometimes you realize that there must be a bit of backstory that you don't know - the greater the delight to come across it reading an earlier volume later.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Well, Jon has a point of course. There is a development in Discworld that progresses in the order the books were written.

OTOH, I don't think it is necessary to read the books in the "correct" order to appreciate that. I started somewhere in the middle, and it is perfectly possible to understand each book on its own terms. Sometimes you realize that there must be a bit of backstory that you don't know - the greater the delight to come across it reading an earlier volume later.

As you yourself point out, that isn't necessary to appreciate the story and it merely serves to add additional interest.

I can assure you, everyone who has ever disagreed with Jon's drive-by assertion is well aware that there is "a development", and that was factored into their decision.


EDIT:
I have absolutely no problem with Jon having "a point".
He doesn't have "a point", though -- he has an assertion he is trying to force on people regardless of whether they value the point or not.

This argument is a fundamental philosophical back-and-forth within the concept of reading, and in the right circles it is as divisive as the emacs vs. vi wars. And for just as much (non-)purpose.

[eschwartz]

I would like to end this train of thought (and bury its deceased and rotting corpse) with the observation:

"Aren't opinions nice?"

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Your random, drive-by assertion of a controversial opinion has been duly noted and rejected as WONTFIX/OPINION-BASED.

It's not an opinion. if you read Discworld in order and pay attention to what's going on with the characters who are not the main characters of the story and you also pay attention to the places, then you would notice these things. This is a fact that they do progress. You miss this progression when you read willy-nilly. Try reading in order from Book 1 and you'll see this is what Terry does.

[doubleshuffle]

Well, Jon, it is a fact, not an opinion, that there is the progress you mention. But it is an opinion, not a fact, that you miss this progress if you don't read in order. (I, for instance, have never read Discworld in the "correct" order, and have managed to pick up on that progress anyway. But perhaps that's just because I'm a genius. )

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's not an opinion. if you read Discworld in order and pay attention to what's going on with the characters who are not the main characters of the story and you also pay attention to the places, then you would notice these things. This is a fact that they do progress. You miss this progression when you read willy-nilly. Try reading in order from Book 1 and you'll see this is what Terry does.

We aren't disagreeing with your assertion that characters in the background appear and change as the books progress in publication order.

We disagree that that matters when introducing someone to the series. The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic are for hard-core fantasy/SF fans, who will recognise (most of) the references to other series. A different starting point s (IMO) best for other people.