Pratchett's books (new thread).

[snaw]

I agree about Pratchett: I read one book and thought it quite amusing. Then I started to read another, and stopped because of the strong feeling that I had already been there.

I don't see Adams in such a bad light: I think the number and depth of thoughts/jokes/etc in his books is higher, and the number of books is so much lower (not just because he died); it's not spread out nearly so thin. With Pratchett I just couldn't face the idea that he could seemingly churn it out as fast as I could stand reading it.

Shouldn't really have to choose, but Pratchett get the nod - Adams himself said he was lazy. Pratchett isn't. In simple terms he set out to more or less write two books a year (Not exactly onorous) - I'm happy he did, he's been doing it since I was 13 years old, and they're generally some of the literary highlights of my year and have been for 25 years.

The volume of books 'churned' out means nothing imo. Some great authors only ever write one book. Some great authors write many great books, some write one or two and a whole heap of rubbish as well. The number of bad books written, or indeed number of total books has no bearing on a book being good or not.

And stopping on the 2nd cause you'd 'been there', while entirely your own choice equally gives you no insight whatsover to him as an author or the ability to compare him to other authors.

Personally I think he's one of the true great authors this country has produced.

[snaw]

From the other thread



Fantasy writing at its best isn't about the fantasy world; it's used as vehicle to say something about ours. I don't care what the genre is - I like a good story. ( Which is why I read Dickens, Wilkie Collins, Pratchett, Niven, Asimov, Dostoyevsky, Victor Hugo... )

Adding to that, why do people assume that because you read fantasy you don't read 'serious' fiction. I devour books of all genres, including most of the classics (I made a point of it), and I'll read at least a couple off the booker shortlist every year. There's an incredible amount of snobbery in literature when it comes to sci fi and fantasy which I never quite understood, a fair bit of it stands comparison with any other genre on any level you wish to compare.

[bogeyman]

Which is why I read Dickens, Wilkie Collins, Pratchett, Niven, Asimov, Dostoyevsky, Victor Hugo... )

Niven?

Pratchett?

The rest I respect but Larry Niven (used to write ignorant puff pieces for BYTE in the 1980s) and Pratchett, are not even remotely in the same ballpark as Dickens, Hugo et al.

That's just farking laughable.

[snaw]

Niven?

Pratchett?

The rest I respect but Larry Niven (used to write ignorant puff pieces for BYTE in the 1980s) and Pratchett, are not even remotely in the same ballpark as Dickens, Hugo et al.

That's just farking laughable.

Scratch Niven, but it's a not totally unreasonable to compare Pratchett and Dickens for example - but pointless since they they write in different genres, in different era's. But I'll say one thing they both have in common - they're superlative storytellers. Actually I'll some more - the volume of work they both produced is comparible, and equally you can pick fault with Dickens - he wasn't writing fantasy, but he wasn't exactly writing true to life characters or plausible real world stories either, gritty and grim as his social commentary might have been.

[d000hg]

There's nothing that remarkable about the storylines in Dicken's books.

[NotAllThere]

Niven?

Pratchett?

The rest I respect but Larry Niven (used to write ignorant puff pieces for BYTE in the 1980s) and Pratchett, are not even remotely in the same ballpark as Dickens, Hugo et al.

That's just farking laughable.

You've taken the list out of context I wasn't suggesting that these authors are all the same calibre or even great literature. My point was I like to read books that have a good story. There's a difference between a "thundering good read" and "great literature". Niven, Asimov, Pratchett are in the former camp, Hugo et al are in both. ( For their best novels ). About half of Wilkie Collins books, for example, really aren't very good.

( And later Niven deteriorates - he used to write decent hard sci-fi, now his plots aren't easy to follow. Lazy writing. Has some good ideas then loosely tries to connect it all together ).

I doubt Niven or Pratchett will be considered great literature in a hundred years. Mervin Peake possibly. Rowling - never. Frank Herbert's Dune... maybe.

I've had to read modern English literature, as my kids have had to start reading at school. So far, I'm unimpressed. They seem to concentrate more on having a clever style than having a decent plot.

[NotAllThere]

There's nothing that remarkable about the storylines in Dicken's books.

Most of it is soap opera in book form. But he does use words beautifully!

I read Jane Eyre recently. That really was good. Though again, to modern eyes, the story line seems contrived.

[expat]

From the other thread



Fantasy writing at its best isn't about the fantasy world; it's used as vehicle to say something about ours. I don't care what the genre is - I like a good story. ( Which is why I read Dickens, Wilkie Collins, Pratchett, Niven, Asimov, Dostoyevsky, Victor Hugo... )

Agree there. I've always thought that "High Noon" would make a good Startrek episode (possibly has for all I know); and Shatner once commented that playing Capt Kirk was very much like playing a king in Shakespeare. The genre is only the medium (and the medium is not the message).

[NotAllThere]

...possibly has for all I know...

Yes, quite probably!

[thelace]

Love both Pratchett and Adams

The only writers that have made me laugh out loud whilst reading.