> "richard e white" <chiph...@cox.net> wrote in message > news:4ADBAE61.50A4CF5D@cox.net... >>> Its by a chap called Oian Colfer (i have almost certainly spelt that >>> wrong). >>> Its called "And another thing" and it got approval from Douglas' >>> widow. >> Didn't he write the artamus fowl books? >> I rather liked them.
> No clue, I'd never heard of the guy before they announced him as > descrating Dougs work by trying to write the new book. > The day they announced that I decided that very second I hated him. > Having never heard of him or seen ANY of his work. > The mere fact he was trying to replace Douglas Adams was reason enough > to hate him.
> I know Dougs missus said it was cool but I wonder how much of that was > down to the publishers waving HUGE wads of money at her to sod off and > be quiet while they wrang a little bit more money out of the Adams > name.
What silly publishers. Giving someone "HUGE wads of money" in order to get "a little bit more money". It doesn't seem economically viable to me.
Personally, I wouldn't approve of, say, a Discworld book written by other hands because I know Pterry is opposed to the idea, and I think that counts for something. I don't know if Adams (or Milne, or any of the other late writers with new books out) ever expressed an opinion one way or the other[1], so I'll give those responsible the benefit of the doubt.
I also know Adams *wanted* to write another HHGG book where it turns out our heroes aren't dead, he just never got round to it. And I'm pleased Colfer uses the same method to save them that I came up with when I first read Mostly Harmless, and not the one in the radio series (which *shouldn't have worked*).
Of course *proper* Hitchhiker's Guide is the first two radio series, and nothing else, anyway...
[1]And I have looked. Well I've searched the internet, which is like research for the lazy.
-- Dave "All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand." The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
>On Oct 19, 8:38 am, Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchened...@aol.com> wrote: > Personally, I wouldn't approve of, say, a Discworld book written by other > hands because I know Pterry is opposed to the idea, and I think that > counts for something. I don't know if Adams (or Milne, or any of the > other late writers with new books out) ever expressed an opinion one way > or the other[1], so I'll give those responsible the benefit of the doubt.
Adams did more or less give Terry Jones the reins on the actual writing of the Starship Titanic novel, best I can remember. I think the foreword indicated he only handed the rough concept over and Jones did the heavy lifting of writing it.
Not quite the same thing, as Adams was very definitely not pining for the fjords at the time, but it might be a point in favor of him not minding a different author taking his ideas, concepts, outline, universe and characters out for a spin.
And in Colfer's favor, at least to my mind, he says he didn't exactly try to channel Douglas Adams, he did it in his own style. So that at least sounds more promising than an "Oh, V.C. Andrews kicked off, let's bring in that and do a Replace... All on the main female character's name, change the locations up a bit, get ourselves a new cover image and churn out another fourteen or so books..." approach.
One of these eons when I get caught up with the books I've already purchased, I may have to check it out. I've only read the first Artemis book so far, but I did enjoy it.
>> It's probably easier to >> say the ones I don't like to be honest, there are a lot less of them. >> They >> are: Small Gods, Night Watch, Nation (I regard Nation as his worst >> ever, >> I couldn't even get beyond page 51 in the hardback edition) and, to a >> lesser >> degree, Thud, The Fifth Elephant, Hat Full of Sky and Wee Free Men.
> I am trying to figure out what these have in common. The first three > don't bring the funny to the same degree. They also concentrate on the > development of a personal philosophy and way of interacting with the > world. They are more concentrated on a single person.
> The ones I love the least:
> Color of Magic/Light Fantastic, Reaper Man, and maybe Eric and The Last > Hero. I am pretty sure I know why: they don't have the coherent sense > of story that the later works all do. Things happen, one after the > other, often funny, but not mattering much to the narrative or building > to something bigger.
I tend to read books of a certain type dependent, a lot, on my mood. I have a job which can be quite stressful and at those times I used to read DW books or, maybe, Niven. They are, or were, light, humorous, insightful, and an "easy read". If I was in the mood for something more dark and intense then I would choose an author that wrote that type of book, Peter Hamilton or Stephen Baxter for instance.
This used to work pretty well, Small Gods was a minor blip and the only one that really stood out as being "not as good" until Night Watch. From then on the whole "feel" of the series, for me, has changed and I cannot rely on the latter DW books satisfy my need need for an "easy read" any more. I guess it maybe time to, metaphorically, move on, although none of the "humorous" writers I've tried are a patch on TP at his (using my criteria) best.
> Bought it today, advise those wanting it to buy sooner than later as the > inserted collectable cards may not be in it by the time you come to buy > it. > I forsee people nicking them. I'll start reading the book later tonight.
> And I was most annoyed that the new Hitch hiker book wasn't on the shelves > yet despite it being release date today.
I've read 22 pages and I'm already in love with UU. :)
"Patrician" <ghj...@gmail.com> wrote, in alt.books.pratchett:
> What makes a "good Pratchett"? For me that would be a book that had all >the elements that have always been a part of DW books. Internal monologues, >multi-character view points, highlighting absurdities and so forth.
Certainly that last. I'm intrigued that you mention it, however, because it suggests that you find it lacking in some of the books, whereas I would see a sense of the absurd as intrinsic to all of them - to Pterry's world view. Perhaps, however, it's less explicit and more implicit in some of your betes-noire?
I'm less aware of the structural elements you mention - they probably do contribute to my feelings about a book, but not in such a way that I'm conscious of them. (Re. multi-character viewpoints, I think sometimes they enhance the narrative flow of a story, and sometimes chop it up. Whether they consistently do one or the other in Pterry's writing, I would have to pay more attention than I do to find out.)
>(probably not very clear but I've only just got back from walking the dog >and my brains not in gear yet). My favorites are, Last Continent, Soul >Music, Reaper Man, Guards, Guards, Weird Sisters, Mort, Jingo, Witches >Abroad, Lords and Ladies, Hogfather, and Moving Pictures amongst others (not >necessarily in this order and not exclusively). It's probably easier to >say the ones I don't like to be honest, there are a lot less of them. They >are: Small Gods, Night Watch, Nation (I regard Nation as his worst ever, >I couldn't even get beyond page 51 in the hardback edition) and, to a lesser >degree, Thud, The Fifth Elephant, Hat Full of Sky and Wee Free Men.
It's interesting that your favourites include several which I tend to pass by when reading (TLC, Jingo, SM, MP - I had to check whether I actually own MP, and its spine is tellingly uncreased), whereas your not-favourites include several which I rate very highly. It suggests that we're responding to different aspects of the books.
NW and Thud!, and probably also T5E, do have that property of being rather confused as to details of plot, which can detract from a book: in NW, the strength of the overall plot and telling was such that it didn't much trouble me, whereas in Thud!, it did somewhat. OTOH, I'd say that property is as present in some of your favourites.
One of the things which is very present in Small Gods, &c, and a great part of my enjoyment thereof, is a philosophical approach to the world; thikning about thinking, and thinking about the effects of thinking. (I'm not sure that's precisely the thing I wanted to express: perhaps only part of it.)
Pterry does silliness well and engagingly, but some of your favourites and my less-favourites seem to me to have too high a ratio of silliness to seriousness. I'm wondering whether perhaps your view might be that your non-favourites have too high a ratio of earnestness to lightheartedness?
Our lists of relative favourites overlap considerably in the middle, of course. UA strikes me as being rather in that middle territory.
> We're all different and it's good that there are so many people that can >find something in the DW series that they like.
True enough. Though there are some stubborn-hold-outs who seem determined not to appreciate it as it deserves.
Curiously, my pet stubborn hold-out compared Sir Pterry to Mark Twain (which is apposite on severallevels, including that of the book's sometimes running away with its author), before returning my latest attempt (of several) to convert him to the shelves half-read. Since he is an admirer of Twain, that comparison would suggest that he admires Pratchett - but, seemingly, doesn't enjoy reading him.
Baba Yaga -- External things are no more like the perceptions they give rise to, than wine is similar to intoxication, or opium to the delirium which it produces. - John Playfair
|
