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

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by 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).

Are we putting them down?

I haven't read either of them, but I have read Pratchett. As a result, I can conclude... that Pratchett is an excellent writer.

And I haven't read lots of books. Many of which I am sure I would enjoy immensely, if I had only heard of them. Some of which I have heard of but didn't have time to investigate further, to determine if I would enjoy them. Some of which I intend to read. And some of which I might end up reading.

...

Some people have made the observation that literary greathood is determined by arbitrary statistics that do not actually tell you whether the book is of lasting value, but I do not take that to mean any specific book isn't worth it.

For instance, there are books that I feel were elevated to the lofty heights of "literature" for entirely frivolous reasons, and are coincidentally deserving of it!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

...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.

But that was not the issue. The issue was the comparison of message/depth. So what is the message/depth/influence on a modern reader from Austen?

For Pratchett it is very easy to enumerate a lot of things people get from the books and I can think of much more things than I can think of from Austen.

[eschwartz]

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.

I, and perhaps many others here, gain enjoyment from rereading any book that I enjoyed reading the first time.

If I don't have any interest in rereading a book, it is probably because I felt, after reading it, that it was kind of meh, and I shouldn't have bothered in the first place.
You win some, you lose some.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Authors like Austen get kids to read less or not at all.

I read Pride and Prejudice when I was 11 and I was enchanted. And this was before Austen was "popular." Yrs, I'm dating myself. But then, I was already a reader.

I like Trollope better than Dickens, but I acknowledge that Dickens is the greater writer. I think some are not using their powers of discrimination here. You can like something, even a lot, without thinking it's great, just as you can admittedly not care for indisputably great book.

Wodehouse is only significant in the UK. Not so much outside the UK.

I love Wodehouse. Speak for yourself.

[DiapDealer]

Most of my favorite books of all time, I've only read once. Not because they're not re-read worthy, but because doing so might cause me to miss out on reading something that's even better in the limited time I have before shuffling off. "Never straight, but forward" is my motto.

Now before we rehash the "re-listening to music" analogy, songs don't have the same time-debt that books do; so there's no real comparison (not to mention that one can hear music without really listening to it). And yes, much of my old favorite music has been abandoned in favor of new favorite music. I'm evolutionary like that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Now before we rehash the "re-listening to music" analogy, songs don't have the same time-debt that books do; so there's no real comparison

That depends what you listen to. My favourite composer is Richard Wagner. Wagner's "Ring Cycle" takes 16h to listen to, which is longer than most books take to read.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

Religious books are not supposed to be fiction. And because nobody has labeled them as such, they stay in the religion section. But once the Bible gets labeled as fiction, it no longer fits/belongs in religion.

[HarryT]

Take it to the P&R forum, Jon.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That depends what you listen to. My favourite composer is Richard Wagner. Wagner's "Ring Cycle" takes 16h to listen to, which is longer than most books take to read.

Which is why I would probably only ever listen to it once.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Most of my favorite books of all time, I've only read once. Not because they're not worthy, but because doing so might cause me to miss out on reading something that's even better in the limited time I have before shuffling off. "Never straight, but forward" is my motto.

That is entirely different from saying you would only ever want to read it once, because after that it loses its ability to be interesting to you.

I prefer reading new books to rereading old ones, too. Nevertheless, given an old book, and no new book readily available, I gain just as much satisfaction the second time around.
(I may be disappointed at the missed opportunity to grow the category of "equally great books I have read". )

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Nevertheless, given an old book, and no new book readily available, I gain just as much satisfaction the second time around.

What is this "no new book readily available" of which you speak?
The wonderful world of ebooks guarantees that only minutes (or usually only seconds) stand between my eyes and millions of books they've never had in front of them.

[eschwartz]

Well, I cannot use my Kindle on Shabbos.

And I don't always have money to budget for a new book.

There are times (gasp) when I don't have internet.

And sometimes I just get struck by an urge to read an old favorite. Or reread a series in order to be prepared for the next book's release.

[DiapDealer]

I'll grant you the first in your list.
But there's millions of free books I've never read seconds away from my eyes, too. And I can't remember the last time I had no network coverage (at the same time I was ready for a new book anyway).

I understand wanting/liking to re-read books. But having to re-read isn't something someone with an ereader and an internet connection can realistically claim anymore. Which is why my re-reading stopped almost completely when I bought into ereading. I've just never found myself "in between books" since.

[latepaul]

I kind of miss re-reading. I do it so rarely now because I feel like I'm missing the opportunity to read something new.

On the main topic of the thread: <sigh> this is one of those arguments that run and run - debating the value of high versus low culture, trying to even define the difference. Whether it's classical music versus pop, art movies versus soap operas or Great Literature versus popular fiction.

Here's my conclusion, gathered over hearing, reading and participating in many such arguments - in the end you like what you like.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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

You can get through that book with a power drill. Preferably numerous times.