"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
|
