Even Shakespeare has such dismal works as Titus Andronicus. Every author has a few books that just kinda fizzle. I can still hear Pratchett’s authorial voice in MOVING PICTURES, although I agree that it’s among the weakest of his works.
Every so often, he gets some kind of “morality play” ethos that permeates the work. I found MONSTROUS REGIMENT also to be pretty weak, for the same reasons. It usually happens when he gets away from his regular cast and introduces a bunch of new characters.
Although PYRAMIDS and SMALL GODS are non-regular characters, they work very well, IMHO.
Still, I’d rather read a weak Pratchett than the best Rowling… or Tim Wossname, that other guy.
Tim Holt. I agree. I Like Holt’s books, mind you, up until the last couple of pages. Then they all fall apart. He can’t write an ending to save his life!
I also found **Monsterous Regiment ** to be a bit weak. But then, I think **Nightwatch ** is one of the strongest books PTerry has written. Streaky, he is!
(no… not another sausage inna bun!!)
Foolishly I bought some Tom Holt books. Got quite far into one of them.
I enjoyed Monstrous Regiment. Not the best I’ve read but not the worst either. The best I’ve read is Nightwatch.
Although it’s not discworld, I think Good Omens is probably right up there alongside Nightwatch IMO.
Harry Potter brought me kicking and screaming into the world of those who read books. I recieved 1,2, and 3 as a gift. I was reluctant at first, but quickly got hooked.
Since, It has become obvious to me that other writers can actually do it FAR better than Rowling, But I’ve not managed to get ‘into’ a book as much as I did those three.
In fairness to Shakespeare, he was still under contract to 16 Century Fox when he wrote that, and it actually began as a sweet coming of age story about a boy and his dog until producers decided it would work better with a graphic rape scene and a bastard-baby.
I had no idea that Pratchett was so popular in U.K.- I assumed he was successful but more along the lines of Dean Coontz or Clive Barker (who, I know, don’t write remotely like Pratchett, but then nobody does).
I’ve wondered what parts of Good Omens Pratchett v. Gaiman wrote. The writing style is pure Pratchett while the esoterica and dark humor is pure Gaiman. They’ve been offered a truckload of money to write a sequel or team up again on something but as yet have declined.
Hey! Some of us like that play. Or at least the Anthony Hopkins version of; you don’t see movies much more fantasticly twisted than that.
Since this thread is full of Pratchett lovers, maybe I can ask a question. The only thing I’ve read by him so far is Good Omens, which he wrote with Neil Gainman. It’s ok, but I felt it was really uneven, kind of a rollercoaster ride from witty passage to dull as death ones. I do not like Gainman- people talked me into reading GO before giving up on him completely- so I assumed all the dull bits were his doing Is the average Pratchett book, not counting the book at issue here, more consistant from start to finish? Because if they are, they’ll probably strike me as quite funny.
I’d say so, yes. There are some uneven ones, but for the most part, if it is one of his “good” ones (understanding that even the worst Pratchett is pretty damned funny, and light-years ahead of anything else) it will be funny from start to finish. His later books are on the more serious side, and he has been accused of committing Literature! :eek:
Well, you’ll probably like Pratchett beacause… well, because he’s Pratchett. Everyone likes him. I didn’t find Good Omens to be uneven, and I don’t remember any bits that weren’t funny, so I can’t say for sure which author you were liking and which you weren’t, odds are it was Pratchett you liked. Gaiman is pretty good, but Pratchett is fantastic.
He seems to fit in a fair bit of computer game playing as well. (Sure, pterry. The three monitors are strictly for viewing pages side by side. Sure. I believe you. pat pat)
With this love fest going on, this might be a good spot to mention that Pratchett will be the Pro Guest of Honor at this year’s Worldcon, The 62nd World Science Fiction Convention to be held in Boston, Massachusetts from September 2–6, 2004.
As GoH, Pratchett will be giving the main speech, appearing on a million panels, having special autographing sessions, and generally will be worked to death like a rented mule.
If you like f&sf (and gaming, and movies, and costumes, and art, and…) and have never been to a Worldcon, attending one is a bit like arriving in Wonderland.
Or, on a lower set of expectations, at the Mended Drum.
The only thing I didn’t like about Moving Pictures is that it was rather too obviously the same plot he’d used too often before - a magical power is unwittingly unleashed, slowly builds over the course of the story, influencing some unusual actions, until it reaches a huge amount of tumoil and destruction until our heroes can quell it. Before then I hadn’t noticed how often he’d used that idea, and it bothered me.
Since then he doesn’t really use it at all, indeed he started doing murder mysteries, character studies, allegories, and good old fashioned parody. I think Moving Pictures is a turning point, the end of a particular era. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover he recognised those problems within it, and made a conscious choice to move away from that plot idea from then on.
I enjoyed Monstrous Regiment, too, but there seemed to be something missing. Frankly I feel like he’s only at his very best (at this point) when he’s working with Vimes. Nightwatch is my favorite as well.
Moving Pictures, didn’t seem too out of character to me (I don’t think, but it’s been a while). It was kind of labored, though.
I post mainly because I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned Eric. If anything had ever caused me to question the provenance of the writing, it would have been that. shudder
First of all, I am not a Pratchett fan at all. I have slogged thru 12 of his Discworld books out of sheer cussedness. And as for “Good Omens”: definitely not worth my time (to put it mildly). Don’t bother “pitting me” or anything. I just want to be upfront on this.
Yes, he is highly variable, even within books. Just about any part concerning wizards or the witches is going to drag on and on and … (snore)…
But I do like Susan…
I have noted that many of his books list the copyright in his and his wife’s name. I noticed this early on and I have always suspected that these are to some extent joint works. Terry might be listed on the cover as sole author purely for advertising reasons. I am hardly alone in this thought.
So the OP is not the only person out there that has suspected Something Is Up.
BTW: I rate “Moving Pictures” as about my 3rd or so favorite of his books, but still not saying a lot.
I suppose it’s within the realm of possibility that they really write the books together but for some strange reason have agreed to pretend that he does it all alone…but in that case why would they use a copyright that invited suspicion?
You know that’s what David Eddings did, right? It’s been less than ten years since he “confessed” that Leigh co-wrote most of his books. It’s sort of interesting, since I have copies with just his name given as author, but all the reissues and newer books say “David and Leigh Eddings.”
Bizarrely, DangerDad dislikes Pterry. I don’t know why; by all the rules, he ought to be a huge fan. Oh, well, he has many redeeming qualities that make up for this defect.
Well, not to handwave away the issue, but we are talking about Ankh-Morpork here, home to more curious wizards than Vetinari knows what to do with.
Vetinari: “And is this building built on a crack in space-time?” Goodmountain: “What?” Vetinari: “When one has been ruler of this city as long as I have, one gets to know with a sad certainty that whenever some well-meaning soul begins a novel enterprise they always, with some kind of uncanny foresight, site it at the point where it will do maximum harm to the fabric of reality.”
–The Truth
Is the average Pratchett book, not counting the book at issue here, more consistant from start to finish? Because if they are, they’ll probably strike me as quite funny.