I love the Harry Potter books and have read them all at least twice, but you just can’t compare them to the Discworld. Mostly because Terry Pratchett is THE coolest author ever (well … that I’ve read stuff from). So for me, like for many of the others, Discworld wins, hands down.
Well, if that’s wrong, I sure as hell don’t want to be right…
Too obvious for him – more likely, one of the later Discworld novels would feature a secondary plot about “Harry,” a new student at Unseen University who’s whispered to be a real talent. Ponder Stibbons would probably get involved (jealousy, probably?), while third-hand allusions to JK Rowling’s books would be mixed with sly remarks about the Harry Potter books themselves, such as:
Dean: “What’s this I hear about Harry playing a game?”
Senior Wrangler: “Something to do with flying around on broomsticks and chasing balls.”
Ridcully: “Well, it’s about time we got some lads in here on an athletic scholarship.”
Dean: “I disagree with that; galvanizing about in the great outdoors doesn’t sound very wizardly to me.”
Ridcully: “This from the man who last month asked the custodial staff to move his personal artifacts into the main dining hall.”
Dean: “All in the name of efficiency, my good sir!”
Wrangler: “I have to wonder, though, about the broomsticks. That stuff’s for witches, not wizards.”
Dean: “You don’t suppose… that Harry might be inclined that way, do you?”
Wrangler: “What way would that be?”
Dean: “Oh, you know… not interested in girls at all. Has fantasies instead about muscular, well-oiled men.”
Ridcully: “In that case, Dean, you have nothing to fear.”
The Discworld™, only if it’s prepared. [rimshot]
Pratchett’s novels were originally a parody of the Tolkien’s (sp?) work, but they are also very well written with a tight narrative. Unlike HP, it’s very clear what the plot is and every novel has something to say. You can class different novels as ‘A Rincewind Book’ or ‘A Death Book’, but the characters only serve as vessels for the main plot and theme of the novel, as good writing should.
And the use of fore-shadowing and little pop-references make them a joy to reread.
If it was a new Harry Potter book against a new Discworld book, then Id go for the Harry Potter.
I like the Discworld novels but I some of it bothers me, especially the likes of how Pratchett will describe something and then say well thats how it would be described if someone were to describe it. I know thats not what it says but its the gist of it.
Everytime I read that I just think just tell me the bloody story and quit the silly musings!
Then again if it was a Harry Potter book full of an angsty teenage HP I’d probably take the Discworld.
Aww heck I dont know, give me both!
Ook.
Sorry, but to me they’re just so different it’s like comparing apples to oranges, or Cast Away to Gilligan’s Island, or Levi’s to Huggies, or Mozart to Batman, or… gee, this is kinda fun. But I’d better get back to my point.
Discworld is satire. You’re supposed to laugh at its characters and events, and think about them, but not to believe in them. Harry Potter is more of a good old-fashioned, suspend disbelief and lose yourself in the story kind of thing.
:: pokes head in, snickers at rjung’s Discworld!Harry ::
That would be highly entertaining. However, I don’t think Pterry would do it simply because Rowling’s lawyers would promptly be after his ass. Oh well, original humor’s better anyway.
::nods:: My feelings exactly, Thudlow Boink. Fantasy is like ice cream; it comes in many flavors, most of which are good. (Unfortunately, some of them are bubble-gum… but that’s a topic for another thread.)
Yeah. I’m totally unhealthily submerged in both of these. But there are different reasons to read each.
I think Harry Potter gets a lot of criticism because although it was originally intended to be a children’s book, a lot of adults loved it. This meant that it was thrust into the arena of adult literature. It may not do well there, or as well as the many books that were intentionally prepared to compete in that arena. But it got there, which is a sign of its sophistication.
This may have put pressure on Rowling to make them increasingly fit for adult consumption. I’m not sure that this has been a good influence on them. They might have kept more of their innocent charm.
And Terry Pratchett is just awesome. But would you really want your kid reading a book that begins, “This is a book about sex”? (Equal Rites) And that is one of the books with fewer innuendoes. I read that to my little sister when we ran out of Harry Potter and The Amazing Maurice. But she’s almost a teenager.
You can’t put them head to head. Good books don’t fight. They sing in harmony within their different ranges. Would you judge the enthusiastic, loud singing of a small child against a professional opera? And yet they are both capable of producing the most marvelous enjoyment. Or annoyance, and boredom. It all depends on how you listen.
Sorry. I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I plan on getting a life soon. Either that or an English degree.
I’ve only read the first to HP books. I enjoyed them, but, as was said above, I never go back to them. On the other hand, I’m currently re-reading The Truth and loving it. And it’s not even in my top 10 Discworld books.
No question, Pratchett’s far and away the better author, but I don’t begrudge Rowling her success. The books I’ve read were good, and I know kids love them and the fact that they’re encouraging kids to read is a good thing.
I just wish Terry would get the level of recognition in the U.S. that he gets in the U.K. (and on the SDMB, obviously).
No. It’s a sign of the lack of sophisitcation of the reading audience. Nobody over ten years old has any business liking those books.
**
But then, Discworld books aren’t intended for kids (apart from TAMAHER and The Wee Free Men).
BTW, most Discworld books are fairly innuendo-free except where Nanny Ogg or Mrs Palm are present.
Also, innuendo, when done right, by its very nature is not explicit. Take, as a f’rintsance, the joke about the “tuppeny upright” in Night Watch. To one who doesn’t have a dirty mind, it’s a tossaway joke about a doughnut…
Oh, but innuendo does rear its funny head when the wizards are around, too. Particularly Ancient Runes and Mrs. Whitlow, but also the Dean, who is practically a walking innuendo…
I wouldn’t have a problem giving a ten-year-old (or older) any of the Discworld novels. It’s not like there’s excessive violence or rampant sex in any of them, after all. And pTerry’s innuendo is all lighthearted fluff anyway, certainly nothing worse than what you’d get in a PG or PG-13 movie.
The biggest risk is that the child might actually get a new idea. 
I am 38, thanks for assuming I was younger;)
I like Harry Potter. Its fun, light weight, doesn’t require me to struggle for underlying meanings. The perfect thing to unwind with after a long day or a technical book. If that makes me unsophisticated then so be it… however I am far from unintelligent. I just happen to be able to appreciate a WIDE spectrum of literary flavours.
As far as sex goes, I’d rather my son read about it than violent, racist or sexist garbage. And ya know… until he is about 13 he will probably yell “KISSING! THERE’S KISSING IN THAT BOOK EEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!” After that let him get his facts straight…
I love Nanny Ogg… she has some much enjoyment and love of life. I can only hope to pass that level of “liveliness” on to my son!
I will join the overwhelming majority by agreeing that pTerry’s by far the superior author. I haven’t read all of his work yet (Yay! There’s more fun ahead!), but I’ve enjoyed everything I’ve read tremendously.
I like the HP books, too, though. I do think it’s worth pointing out that the Potter books are not entirely without social commentary. It’s not the subtle satire of Discworld, but then, kids are often a little slow to grasp satire. They can, however, grasp that the shunning of a good person because he suffers from an incurable illness is wrong, or that insulting and mistreating people because of their ancestry is a bad thing. Every little bit helps.
Actually, there has been a bit of Harry Potter parody in Discworld, but not by Pratchett, surprisingly. Paul Kidby, the illustrator of some of Pratchett’s works, such as The Last Hero and The Science Of Discworld, has said in some occasion that he draws Ponder Stibbons to look like an adult Harry Potter.
Newsflash - Harry Potter is racist. At least, that’s what I call it when the wizards refer to non-magical folk as “niggers” - sorry, “muggles”.
But Rowling is clearly aware of how screwed up wizard society is, and I’m pretty sure she’s leading to a major shift in it by the last book.
I’d have thought that “anyone over ten years old” could see that, whether they liked the books or not. Personally I think they’re fun, and just because I can think of other books for children that are better (as well as Pratchett of course) doesn’t make them bad.
I’m forced to disagree. Even those elements of wizard society that are supportive of the non-magical world at large treat non-magicals as if they’re children.
**
Indeed. To achieve badness took mediocre writing, poor plotting - based on the first two books, the rest should never have been published - cardboard characters…
sheesh EvilDeath… someone steal your cheerios today.
My son hasn’t read HP… he is much more interested in reading about dinosaurs. Perhaps HP is racist but then maybe its just a reflection of the larger world that children live in…
Either way I don’t see that its worth wasting energy on a message board. Grind your ax elsewhere thank you.
snappy rejoiner from you or not I am not taking the bait
Certainly wizard society is racist, although I don’t consider the word “muggle” itself as a racist term. It’s not intrinsically racist to come up with a term to describe large groups of people who have one or more traits in common. That said, some wizards/witches do seem to use it in a racist sense (I believe one of the letters to Hermione in GoF used it this way). In the main, wizarding society is woefully ignorant of muggles; that inevitably leads to misconceptions. The results range from Mr. Weasley’s somewhat patronizing fascination with muggles and their works to the Malfoys’ outright hatred.
The fact that a work contains characters who are racist does not make the work racist. In fact, in this case it’s quite the opposite. The racist attitudes are clearly depicted as wrong (as I mentioned in my post above). Consider the Death Eaters, the worst offenders in this regard–am I the only one who saw the scene after the World Cup in GoF as an allegory for a KKK assault? Robed figures tormenting members of the hated group, with firelight throwing distorted shadows everywhere…perhaps Rowling didn’t precisely intend that, but the parallels are quite clear to someone who grew up in an area where the Klan is still active. These people are very clearly depicted as the bad guys, and Rowling leads us to dislike them collectively and individually (at least the ones like Mr. Malfoy, whom we’ve seen elsewhere). It seems clear to me that she is trying to include the message that it’s wrong to hate people for being different from you. Even Mr. Weasley’s ignorance has negative effects–it makes him look foolish when talking to or about muggles.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of the books, Evil Death (BTW, shouldn’t you be posting in all caps? ;)). Happily, you do not have the authority to dictate what I have any business liking, nor any special insight into my level of sophistication. I don’t have the right to determine those things for you, either, so it all works out. Isn’t diversity wonderful?