• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Terry Pratchett Thread

Voicing heresy here -- picking up stuff about Pratchett for many years second-hand, I had the strong feeling that his books wouldn't be for me: too much of an impression got, that for my tastes, his humour would feel heavy-handed and leaden and too suffused with an authorial self-satisified attitude of "aren't I just the funniest and most original writer ever?".

This gut-feeling so intense, that I never wanted even to try a Pratchett book, to see whether it was warranted. A few years ago, someone directly challenged me to make the experiment. I did so ("Guards ! Guards !" IIRC): and while I found a few elements in it, laughter-provoking; in the main, what I read, reinforced the impression which I had formed "sight unseen". Decided, with a certain amount of regret, that TP is just "not my bag".

Very many people whose tastes in reading matter and the good things of life in general, I respect, love Pratchett's works. Feel that I must conclude that the fault lies with me, rather than with him -- but accept that he just doesn't work for me. As with many authors -- perhaps another chance in the next life, should there prove to be such...
 
Last edited:
fleabeetle said:
Voicing heresy here -- picking up stuff about Pratchett for many years second-hand, I had the strong feeling that his books wouldn't be for me: too much of an impression got, that for my tastes, his humour would feel heavy-handed and leaden and too suffused with an authorial self-satisified attitude of "aren't I just the funniest and most original writer ever?".
Click to expand...
As much as I really enjoy Pratchett, I think I see where you're coming from, at least in regards to the early books. They are, for the most part, "gag" books, and I personally believe it to be a result of Pratchett being a tad too influenced by Douglas Adams. Except that Adams was being much better than Pratchett (or just about any writer in the world) at simply playing with language for language's sake, and make it fun for the reader as much as for himself.

I think that Pratchett's books have for the most part improved as he's given more time to plot and character depth (things that Adams was rather less adept at compared to being funny). And some of the things I like the most these days are for example the parts in "Carpe Jugulum" where Granny Weatherwax is alone, and those parts actually doesn't contain a single gag or pun. Or the fact that the first Tiffany book is dealing with death in a far more serious manner than the rest of the Discworld books (interesting really, considering the Tiffany series are supposed to be for younger readers).

This change has of course been gradual, but I would say that around books 12-14 or so (like "Small Gods") are where you can see that he's starting to find the balance between gag/plot/characters.

Somewhere earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that s/he considered some of the books "dark books", which might be more to your liking. Perhaps "Carpe Jugulum" would be a nice place for you to retry reading the series. Or "Night Watch". Or maybe not. The style has most definitely turned more balanced, but it's still fairly recognisable as Pratchett style. So take my post with as many pinches of salt that you feel necessary.

-------------------------------------------------------
Oh, was that too serious and polite a response? Well then, unless you promise to worship Pratchett in all his glory, I shall give Nanny Ogg - undisputed matiarch of the Ogg clan - a hint that you might have insulted one of her relatives. -THEN- you'll definitely be sorry, you heathen!!!!
 
I think on balance, you'd best pass that info to Nanny, and "have done" ! Suspect that I'm too old and set in my ways -- and with so very much else as yet unread, that I positively want to read -- ever to become a Pratchett convert. (By the way, I think Adams ["mostly"] brilliant -- with a splendidly light and subtle touch -- I don't blanket-dislike everything in this genre.)

As said -- with so many people whom I respect, loving Pratchett's works: I can't just merrily write said works off as rubbish. Must conclude that the necessary "whatever" for appreciating his stuff, was simply omitted from my make-up.

Off at a "famous people known at a couple of removes" tangent: a friend of mine (like me, not a fan of Mr. P.'s books) once -- many years back -- had a slight personal acquaintance with the guy, before he hit the big time writing-wise, and was working in a clerical capacity for the same employer for which my friend worked. T.P. made no particular personal impression on my friend "for good or ill" -- friend just remembers that he was there, and definitely the same person of that name.
 
Last edited:
a gem from unseen academicals

''Juliet's version of cleanliness was next to godliness , which was to say it was erratic,
past all understanding and seldom seen "
 
I really enjoyed the book. Not one of the absolute best all-time discworld books, but very enjoyable. Those who are thinking of not reading it because it's about football, don't let that put you off. It's really not much about sports per se. There's a lot of other things going on. It's sort of like not reading Going Postal because you aren't interested in the mail. If you're a Pratchett fan, don't skip this one.
 
All the books are good. Some better than others. I'd say the later ones are better than the earlier ones, but that's to be expected. I sometimes wish Tolkien had played with language more, in a humorous way. The only joke I really remember was that "Speak friend and enter" thing. Could have done with more humor.
 
I just picked up "The Colour of Magic" on DVD, and am busily comparing it to the book. Not too bad, although huge swaths are skipped over.
 
I am currently halfway through his discworld homage to football "Unseen Academicals"
I have to say, either I have got a lot older and less fun lately or his alzheimer's is starting to show
:(
 
Marduk said:
I am currently halfway through his discworld homage to football "Unseen Academicals"
I have to say, either I have got a lot older and less fun lately or his alzheimer's is starting to show
:(
Click to expand...

It's you.
 
Marduk said:
I am currently halfway through his discworld homage to football "Unseen Academicals"
I have to say, either I have got a lot older and less fun lately or his alzheimer's is starting to show
:(
Click to expand...

I felt that is was one of his less funny and less well written books, but not his least funny nor his least well written by a long stretch- I think it's too early to put it down to the Alzheimer's.
 
Pratchett's most compelling main characters (in my opinion) Granny Weatherwax and Sam Vimes, both come off - to me - as very principled and moral (for their own value of moral).

Is Pratchett a moralist writer?
 
whatthebutlersaw said:
Is Pratchett a moralist writer?
Click to expand...

More than anything, Pratchett is a humanist writer.

He cares about people; not personally I mean, but the value of people, without romanticisation or idealism. Among his defining abilities as a writer is his perceptiveness of the way people think and behave. Not special, dramatic people that make for great protagonists, but all people. Ordinary people living ordinary lives.

It's clear from enough Discworld that what grieves Pratchett most is wasted life. There are a number of speeches and rants to that effect from various characters.

So in the process of writing about the value of people, I think a certain kind of morality becomes clear. But I've never had the impression Pratchett is wagging his finger condescendingly and trying to tell people what to think; rather the uncompromising morality of Granny and Vimes emerges from his straining to convince people not to waste their lives.

I believe it is not a coincidence that Pratchett left school and joined a newspaper, seeing his first dead body ( as the old biography blurb on the early Discworld novels said ) at the age of seventeen and that the only one of his huge array of charcaters to appear in all the Discworld books is Death.

The upcoming Dimbleby lecture should be interesting for that.
 
I'm not talking about moralist as in "finger-wagger". I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but sans finger - the books still hold a lot of life lessons/advice, and - to my mind, a lot of discussions about responsibility.

I took to Unseen Academicals (although my absolute favourites remain Masquerade, Carpe Jugulum, Thud and The Fifth Elephant) more than I expected to. The crabs in a bucket visual is very prominent in my own life. I nearly forgot it was about football.

I spend a lot of time thinking about responsibility, so I may read more into Pratchett's view on responsibility than he ever intended. But I am often very touched bythe very real and very human situations that Pratchett's characters find themselves in.

The reason I raised the question is because I have realized, since some time, that I actually take my moral cues from Pratchett.
 
whatthebutlersaw said:
I'm not talking about moralist as in "finger-wagger". I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but sans finger - the books still hold a lot of life lessons/advice, and - to my mind, a lot of discussions about responsibility.

I took to Unseen Academicals (although my absolute favourites remain Masquerade, Carpe Jugulum, Thud and The Fifth Elephant) more than I expected to. The crabs in a bucket visual is very prominent in my own life. I nearly forgot it was about football.

I spend a lot of time thinking about responsibility, so I may read more into Pratchett's view on responsibility than he ever intended. But I am often very touched bythe very real and very human situations that Pratchett's characters find themselves in.

The reason I raised the question is because I have realized, since some time, that I actually take my moral cues from Pratchett.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with your take. It's often been remarked that Pratchett has heroes that are regular characters, but the villains are all transient. I always have the feeling that he saves his condemnation for small-minded people that are too close to real-life people to be made into likable characters.

And even so, the condemnation is usually directed at the deplorable things they're doing rather than the person.
 
I just finished reading Monstrous Regiment (again), and have to say that I think it's one of his darkest novels.
Not much puns, hardly any (homurous) footnotes, and a lot about mistreated women.
Good book though.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think I agree with your take. It's often been remarked that Pratchett has heroes that are regular characters, but the villains are all transient. I always have the feeling that he saves his condemnation for small-minded people that are too close to real-life people to be made into likable characters.

And even so, the condemnation is usually directed at the deplorable things they're doing rather than the person.
Click to expand...

And people whose actions would be condemned in "our" moralverse, are kind of forgiven in Pratchett-verse, if they are consistent within their own principles and have a sense of fair play. I.e. Cohen the Barbarian, The Patrician, The Assassins Guild.

The old count in Carpe Jugulum illustrates the idea of fair play very well, and the self constraint of the Black Ribboners is both funny and touching at the same time. Maybe a willingness to accept responsibility is what makes you "moral" in the Pratchett moral-verse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom