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

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

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..

I agree with you entirely, but that's not what I was talking about. I wasn't asking whether Pratchett's books will remain popular (they almost certainly will), but whether Pratchett will be regarded by future generations as an author with the same importance to English Literature as Dickens or Austen, as some in this thread have claimed.

[eschwartz]

And as for that, we can all have our opinions, but no one's opinion is worth nearly as much as a working time machine so we can collect actual facts.

FWIW I think Pratchett has what it takes, whether future generations agree with me I cannot say...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And as for that, we can all have our opinions, but no one's opinion is worth nearly as much as a working time machine so we can collect actual facts.

FWIW I think Pratchett has what it takes, whether future generations agree with me I cannot say...

What specific contribution do you believe Pratchett made to English literature (or specifically to the fantasy genre, if you prefer) that will change the way that future generations of authors write books? Ie, what literary innovation did he introduce? You can read a detective novel today and say "she was clearly influenced by Agatha Christie"; Christie pretty much defined the "English Country House" murder mystery. Similarly you can read a fantasy novel and say "this author was influenced by Tolkien". What do you think will be the characteristics of an author who was influenced by Pratchett?

[dickloraine]

The way he comments on our world in a funny and wise way, without his stories just being analogies. It is a special way, how he does this and that he don't use humor in the way most other authors use it. For example, he normally didn't use it in a negative way.

And there isn't just one "category" of writers. Why always compare him to Austin etc.? Why not authors like Raabe, Tucholsky, Jean Paul, Caroll etc? The literary discurse is wider than just classic novels.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Similarly you can read a fantasy novel and say "this author was influenced by Tolkien".

You can do that now, but could you do that in the late 50's / early 60's?

Thinking about it, can you do it now? Without quoting the author as saying he was influenced by Tolkien. Bet we can come up with other sources that may have influenced a book instead

OK, except the Sword of Shanarra

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

The way he comments on our world in a funny and wise way, without his stories just being analogies. It is a special way, how he does this and that he don't use humor in the way most other authors use it. For example, he normally didn't use it in a negative way.

I absolutely agree with this. Pratchett was brilliant in exactly the way you say, and I don't think anybody here is denying that. But the whole premise of this thread is the argument that he is (or isn't) one of the literary greats, on a level with Shakespeare, for instance.

And, I'm sorry, he simply isn't. He is amazing in what he does: telling very funny tales with a deeply humanist message and dazzling philosophical and cultural allusions and references.

But having just finished The Shepherd's Crown, I couldn't help but notice Pratchett's repetetiveness in the plot department. The vast majority of his books follows the same pattern: The Discworld is threatened by a dark force, which is overcome by hero/heroine, who experiences personal growth in the process; also, usually, another group of mythical creatures is integrated into Discworld society

Spoiler:

(or at least an attempt is made...)

.

How Pratchett tells these stories, what he weaves into them, the depth he gives some of his characters, is absolutely brilliant; but there is also something missing that I expect from great literature: real newness, real surprise. Sorry, but that's missing from Pratchett after you've read a few of his books. Pratchett found a formula that worked and brought it to perfection. I recommend him to anybody who asks for a good book to read. But picking up a Discworld book I know what to expect and, after a few pages, where the story will be going. Nothing wrong about that, but there is a thrill missing, and a challenge.

Let me give you a counterexample, an author I consider to be a writer of great literature, Salman Rushdie. His new novel will be out in a few days, and I can't wait to get it onto my reader. A chapter from the book was published in advance on the New Yorker website, and since I read it I've been waiting for the novel to come out because I want to know where Rushdie is going to take the story. Of course, there is a certain sound in his prose that is familiar from his other books, but in the end I have no idea what I can expect.

And that's the difference: After the first pages of a Discworld novel, I know exactly what to expect.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I absolutely agree with this. Pratchett was brilliant in exactly the way you say, and I don't think anybody here is denying that. But the whole premise of this thread is the argument that he is (or isn't) one of the literary greats, on a level with Shakespeare, for instance.

And, I'm sorry, he simply isn't. He is amazing in what he does: telling very funny tales with a deeply humanist message and dazzling philosophical and cultural allusions and references.

But having just finished The Shepherd's Crown, I couldn't help but notice Pratchett's repetetiveness in the plot department. The vast majority of his books follows the same pattern: The Discworld is threatened by a dark force, which is overcome by hero/heroine, who experiences personal growth in the process; also, usually, another group of mythical creatures is integrated into Discworld society

Spoiler:

(or at least an attempt is made...)

.

How Pratchett tells these stories, what he weaves into them, the depth he gives some of his characters, is absolutely brilliant; but there is also something missing that I expect from great literature: real newness, real surprise. Sorry, but that's missing from Pratchett after you've read a few of his books. Pratchett found a formula that worked and brought it to perfection. I recommend him to anybody who asks for a good book to read. But picking up a Discworld book I know what to expect and, after a few pages, where the story will be going. Nothing wrong about that, but there is a thrill missing, and a challenge.

Let me give you a counterexample, an author I consider to be a writer of great literature, Salman Rushdie. His new novel will be out in a few days, and I can't wait to get it on my reader. A chapter from the book was published in advance on the New Yorker website, and since I read it I've been waiting for the book because I want to know where Rushdie is going to take the story. Of course, there is a certain sound in his prose that is familiar from his other books, but in the end I have no idea what I can expect.

And that's the difference: After the first pages of a Discworld novel, I know exactly what to expect.

You make an excellent point, and I completely agree with you. Pratchett found a winning formula, and stuck to it (highly successfully). His novels are wonderful, but predictable. Compare him to (sorry to be repetitive, but it is a valid comparison here) authors like Austen or Dickens, each of whose novels is completely different from all the others. "Pride and Prejudice" has nothing in common with "Emma" or "Mansfield Park"; "Bleak House" is different to "David Copperfield" or "Oliver Twist". That has pros and cons, of course. Because Dickens changed his style for every novel, some were a lot more commercially successful than others. Pick up any Pratchett novel, on the other hand, and you know exactly what to expect.

Of course, exactly the same is true of Agatha Christie, the most successful novelist of all time in terms of number of books sold. Christie found a winning formula, and stuck to it. Read any "Miss Marple" book and you know what to expect from the next one. Christie churned out two books a year for 40+ years and knew exactly what would sell. She was an astoundingly successful author, but not a "great" author in terms of literary innovation.

I agree with you about Rushdie. He is a "great" author in the literary sense.

[latepaul]

Make all the quality judgements you like but if the issue is repetition and diversity of ideas then Austen-Pratchett is an unfair comparison. Austen only wrote 6 novels. Pratchett has at least that many distinct stories. I'll concede he gets a bit repetitive later on. Having said that I can't say I can predict his plots so much as his jokes follow a similar pattern and so often only raise a smile where once I'd've LOL'd.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Make all the quality judgements you like but if the issue is repetition and diversity of ideas then Austen-Pratchett is an unfair comparison. Austen only wrote 6 novels. Pratchett has at least that many distinct stories. I'll concede he gets a bit repetitive later on. Having said that I can't say I can predict his plots so much as his jokes follow a similar pattern and so often only raise a smile where once I'd've LOL'd.

Comparing Pratchett to Agatha Christie is a fairer comparison, I think. Both produced very large numbers of somewhat formulaic novels.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Make all the quality judgements you like but if the issue is repetition and diversity of ideas then Austen-Pratchett is an unfair comparison. Austen only wrote 6 novels. Pratchett has at least that many distinct stories. I'll concede he gets a bit repetitive later on.

Agreed.
Also, the idea that works need to be innovative to qualify as capital L literary doesn't even really jive with who the past has already labeled as Literary.

The problem has always been the word itself. Most people tend to use the L word as a means of excluding works/authors they don't personally think qualify--rendering conversations where multiple people's personal definitions of Literary collide, rather pointless.

It's quite simple: a literary genius is someone who writes things that move/inspire a significant number of people. History only gets to decide if someone's work was "classic."

Also note that I've never read anything by Pratchett. One doesn't have to in order to recognize his literary impact.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Also, the idea that works need to be innovative to qualify as capital L literary doesn't even really jive with who the past has already labeled as Literary.

Can you give an example of an author who you'd regard as having been labelled "literary", but not "innovative"?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you give an example of an author who you'd regard as having been labelled "literary", but not "innovative"?

To be honest, I don't know any authors who have been labeled as "literary." I don't recognize the validity of any such label that tries to use "literature" in a high-brow, genre-like manner (i.e. this author is romance, and this author is literary). Calling a book/author "literary" is a redundantly pointless distinction in my opinion. Therefore, I use what the past has decided is a "literary classic" as my (very loose) definition. Which is why I have no qualms claiming that Classic Literature is rife with uninnovative, but still beloved, works. Name your own. You can easily do so, if you divorce yourself from your preconceived notions that "Literary" is somehow inexorably tied to academia. Me naming something that you then dismiss as un-literary (with personal criteria) would be quite pointless.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

To be honest, I don't know any authors who have been labeled as "literary." I don't recognize the validity of any such label that tries to use "literature" in a high-brow, genre-like manner (i.e. this author is romance, and this author is literary).

My personal definition (and others may well disagree) is that a "literary" author is one who writes as an art form, rather than to entertain the reader. Two examples would be James Joyce and Virginia Woolfe, neither of whom wrote for the entertainment of the public, but considered writing to be a form of art for the "intelligentsia" (however you choose to interpret that word). Which explains why most people don't find their books to be an entertaining read: they weren't intended to be.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My personal definition (and others may well disagree) is that a "literary" author is one who writes as an art form, rather than to entertain the reader. Two examples would be James Joyce and Virginia Woolfe, neither of whom wrote for the entertainment of the public, but considered writing to be a form of art for the "intelligentsia" (however you choose to interpret that word). Which explains why most people don't find their books to be an entertaining read: they weren't intended to be.

Harry, why is that more "valuable", more "important", or more "respectable" than writing for entertainment? It seems to me that being a master of writing for entertainment is every bit as difficult, and required every bit as much skill, as writing for the "intelligentsia". Different skills, but skills nonetheless.

My view is the difference is snobbery. I have the ability to enjoy these "rarefied" works, because I am superior. Personally, I don't buy the snobbery..

It's like claiming Van Gogh was a better artist than Maxfield Parrish...

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What specific contribution do you believe Pratchett made to English literature (or specifically to the fantasy genre, if you prefer) that will change the way that future generations of authors write books? Ie, what literary innovation did he introduce? You can read a detective novel today and say "she was clearly influenced by Agatha Christie"; Christie pretty much defined the "English Country House" murder mystery. Similarly you can read a fantasy novel and say "this author was influenced by Tolkien". What do you think will be the characteristics of an author who was influenced by Pratchett?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Comparing Pratchett to Agatha Christie is a fairer comparison, I think. Both produced very large numbers of somewhat formulaic novels.

I'm confused. In the first post that I've quoted, you hold Agatha Christie up as an example of an author who made a significant contribution. In the second quote, you dismiss her as the writer of "somewhat formulaic novels".

Which is it?

Shari