|
|
| Author |
Message |
snib
|
|
Terry Pratchett
| 
Aug 2 22:50 UTC 2000 |
Discussion for anyone into Terry Pratchett books, esp. Discworld series
|
| 10 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 1 of 10:
|
Aug 3 22:20 UTC 2000 |
I've read and enjoyed several of Pratchett's books, but his style seems
to get tired after a while -- I think I probably read four or five of his
books a few years ago and at this point I could barely begin to guess
which characters and events came from which books; they all blur together
in one big discworld muddle..
He does, in fact, have decent comic style, but there's not enough variation
between his books to keep me interested in reading more..
|
snib
|
|
response 2 of 10:
|
Aug 4 11:44 UTC 2000 |
If you haven't read any in the past few years, then you won't realise how much
his style has matured over the books. The first 4 or 5 boks are rather
repetetive, but after that he really diversifies, whilst at the same time
keeping certain characters or themes constant. I suggest you try reading the
City Watch books - "Guards, Guards", "Men at Arms", "Feet of Clay", "Jingo",
and "The Fifth Elephant" - all incorporate a mixture of DW humour and
whodunnit styles. Also, have u read the Nomes trilogy? Completely different
setting from DW, you might prefer it. Go on, give it a go!
|
jazz
|
|
response 3 of 10:
|
Aug 4 13:29 UTC 2000 |
I loved Pratchett and Gaiman's work together (which, to judge from
Gaiman's books, is primarily Gaiman's influence) but I've not really been
taken with Pratchett's work alone. _Good Omens_ was hillarious; nothing
forthcoming from Pratchett has left me rolling half as often.
|
snib
|
|
response 4 of 10:
|
Aug 4 14:36 UTC 2000 |
re #3: What are the most recent Pratchett books you've read?
|
jazz
|
|
response 5 of 10:
|
Aug 4 15:02 UTC 2000 |
_Feet of Clay_. Wasn't too memorable.
|
snib
|
|
response 6 of 10:
|
Aug 4 15:45 UTC 2000 |
I thought it was one of the best! The way he interlinks different plot lines
at the end is brilliant. Try Soul Music or Moving Pictures.
|
jazz
|
|
response 7 of 10:
|
Aug 4 16:28 UTC 2000 |
It wasn't *funny* though. And the plot construction wasn't
particularly deep for a comedy, let alone a mystery or thriller, though it
did involve more than one plot line. Compare anything Gaiman's written -
say _Neverwhere_ for an idea fo who was doing the work in the duo.
|
snib
|
|
response 8 of 10:
|
Aug 5 18:41 UTC 2000 |
It's not the *plot* that's meant to be the funny bit, it's the phrases and
nuances that he uses in thetext and the footnotes, and the way he manipulates
the characters.
|
jazz
|
|
response 9 of 10:
|
Aug 6 14:47 UTC 2000 |
No, you're missing my critique. I didn't say that the plot wasn't
particularly funny, I said the books weren't particularly funny. To me.
Whether an individual really gets a kick out of reading a set of comdey novels
is going to have a raterlarge influence in their review of the set.
|
snib
|
|
response 10 of 10:
|
Aug 6 21:37 UTC 2000 |
Ok, I accept the fact that different people have different likes and dislikes
when it comes to novels.
|