I’m sorry if I was unclear. The OP complained that the writing style (which has that humorous edge to it) became repetitive, and I was trying to address that.
IMHO, the Hitchhiker books are ONLY comedy. I mean, c’mon, he destroys a whole planet and no one sheds a tear? Because it’s funny.
Pratchett is far more than just pratfalls and puns and funny situations. Pratchett’s characters have depth, they’re not just comic relief. When characters die, there is always some pathos – even villains.
Did we read the same book, because Good Omens (the one I read) is hilarious.
I agree up until you mean Good Omens. It wasn’t as funny as an Adams book but I thought it was pretty damn funny; way funnier than any Discworld novel I’ve read so far, and Crawly is one of the best names I’ve come across in fiction :D.
I don’t want you guys to think I’m totally trashing Pratchett, I do like him, and I’m trying to like him more.
I can sorta agree with the OP, since I just started reading Monstrous Regiment and was originally throw off by the lack of introduction to the main characters. Polly’s motivations were kinda-sorta veiled for a while, which didn’t help.
On the other hand, one thing I like about Pratchett’s writing is that IMO, you can pretty much read them in any order and follow along. Yes, it’s nice to read them in order so you can catch all the background details, such as the nature of the Auditors or Angua’s hair-care secrets, but generally I think Pratchett is very good at not leaving readers behind – he’ll drop enough quick references to essential information that an attentive reader can follow along.
And the amount of humor in a Pratchett novel varies with the novel. Maskerade and The Truth have more laughs-per-page than Monstrous Regiment or Small Gods, IMO. The nice thing about Terry is that he doesn’t stick solely with the tell-goofy-jokes-in-a-wacky-fantasy-setting schtick.
It’s funny how a work of art can strike two people so very differently, because I never found Douglas Adams to be funny at all. Clever, yes. Very, very clever. I’d often read something of his and think, “Well, that was pretty witty.” But I almost never laughed.
Pratchett, on the other hand, generally has at least two moments per book where I have to stop and put it down, I’m laughing so hard. This in addition to the times where I chuckle audibly, or smile to myself, or just think, “Well, that was pretty witty.” And on top of that, he has engaging characters, fully realized plots, and something to say that’s genuinely thought-provoking, three things Douglas Adams never managed to pull off (exception: Last Chance to See was genuinely thought provoking, and had engaging characters. But then, it was non-fiction, and one of those characters was Douglas Adams himself. It was still far and away the best thing he ever wrote.)
As to the OP, I do know what you mean. Pratchett has a particular style where he’ll open a book with a scene or a character, then not return to it until half way through the novel. Personally, I like it, because it always gives me a good “A-ha!” moment. His latest, Going Postal, has three:
(Really very mild spoilers follow, but boxed just in case: )
[spoiler]The books opens with a description of “the flotillas of the dead,” an armada of sunken ships that is continuously swept through the ocean depths by a combination of deep tides and the graduated density of water as you get deeper and deeper in the ocean. He describes an anchor falling off one of these fleets and striking the ocean floor, where it’s noticed only by some mysterious fellow identified only as Anghammarad, and notes that it’s the only really interesting thing Anghammarad has seen in nine thousand years.
The next chapter describes someone working on a clacks tower (a system of semaphores) named John Dearheart, who falls to his death under mysterious circumstances.
The third chapter introduces the protagonist.
It’s not until about a quarter of the way into the book that you get the faintest idea of who Dearheart was. It’s not until half way through the book that you find out who Anghammarad is, and why he spent nine thousand years on the bottom of the ocean. The flotillas of the dead are never mentioned again, and yet they represent the central metaphor of the entire novel.[/spoiler]
Personally, I loved the way he doles out the revelations, and relies on the reader to make connections, but I can understand why others would find it frustrating.
Yeah…what he said! 
Well, I don’t agree with the OP at all, and I still didn’t read them in any established order. I started with Reaper Man, and then Lords and Ladies, and then Night Watch, and then I forget the sequence after that. So not only did I read them out of order, but apparently I was even hopping around between the different threads.
And still I found them perfectly coherent, and I was never at a loss as to who a character was or why that character was significant. There definitely were times when I read an earlier or later book and thought, “Ah, so that’s why that person, or that reference, was so significant.” (In particular, I’m thinking of the time monks from Night Watch, which I didn’t really “get” until Thief of Time).
It should be noted, for those who missed it, that they (or at least one of them) also appear in Small Gods.
While they appear in Small Gods, they don’t demonstrate the time traveling abilities they have in the other two books.
It’s hard for me to comment on the order because I mostly read them in order. I started when I bought The Colour of Magic and the Light Fantastic at the same time and then got the rest in order.
The only exception is that I didn’t like Equal Rites, so I stayed away from the Witch books for a while and then went back and read them.
However, I just finished reading Monstrous Regiment and even though it is mostly an outside book, the few scenes with Vimes, I think it really helps to know his character. In one scene, he has no dialoge and in fact it isn’t even specifically identified as him, but I know I enjoyed the scene much more knowing what was going through his head from knowing his character.
What helps is to have a familiarity with what is being parodied. The Witch books tend to parody literature (Shakespere, The Phantom of the Opera) whlie the Rincewind/Wizard books parody cultures (Asian in Interesting Times/Australia in The Last Continent).
Interesting. I wonder what the Watch books parody? Vimes is such a Clint Eastwood-esque character, I’d guess movies and/or television, but I don’t know if I could support that.
Weeellll…the motto of the Watch (carved into the Watchhouse, even), is Fabricatus Diem, Punc…
I think you mean, “Fabricatvs Diem, Pvnc.” 
Wow. I hate, I mean I really hate, hearing people say that others “just don’t get” a creative work, but. . .if you think there’s hardly any humor in the Discworld books, you’re just not getting it. If it’s a matter of taste and you really mean that you don’t enjoy the humor then that’s one thing, but I’m mystified as to how someone could read one of the books and not see that there are things on practically every page that were intended to be funny.
There’s not merely a lot of humor, there’s a lot of different kinds of humor. I’m re-reading Lords and Ladies right now, so I’ll use that as an example. (And bear in mind that this is one of the darker, bloodier books in the series.) Characters like Nanny Ogg tell actual jokes, like when she says it’s a shame Magrat will be married on Midsummer Night because it’s the shortest night of the year – a joke I must confess I completely missed until the third or fourth time I read the book! There are written “sight gags”, something I’ve never seen another writer pull off. In this book, there’s one I’m familiar with from old cartoons. A character carefully takes a spoon of sugar from the sugar pot, dumps the rest of the pot into a cup of tea, and puts the spoonfull of sugar back in the now-empty pot. There are jokes, parodies of, and references to other works, in this one most notably Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. And there are several amusing running gags, like Sean Ogg wearing so many hats at Lancre castle (and insists upon literally changing his hat for each job).
I wouldn’t call them parodies precisely, but the Watch books do contain a fair few jokes and references to police/detective movies and TV shows. Most of them went over my head, but you can read about them at the Annotated Terry Pratchett website.
One of many things I like is the way Pterry handles characterization. He just sketches the outlines, giving the odd clue here and there and lets the reader fill in the blanks. That’s good writing IMO, since that’s what any reader will do with any work of fiction. By not forcing his perception of the character down my throat, he’s making me use my imagination, so the charcter becomes more vivid.
I started with Night Watch and loved it! Of course, the choices were somewhat limited since I was looking at a tiny English-language section in a bookstore in Mexico and wasn’t even sure what kind of writing Terry Pratchett did anyway. Plus, it probably doesn’t help that I have odd taste in books.
After Night Watch I read The Color of Time, Small Gods, Pyramids, and Monstrous Regiment, and the only one I haven’t liked so far was The Color of Time.
Either you mean The Thief of Time or The Colour Of Magic.
LOL (well I would be if I wasn’t at work in a quiet office), thanks jj I’d forgotten that - which book is that in?
I don’t understand how anyone can’t get Pratchett. I stayed away from his stuff for years (decades actually) because I detest fantasy and thought it would be :::insert screams of horror::: Tolkienesqe. I finally picked up Men at Arms and “got” it straight away. I have been known to laugh at loud four times in one page. There are stronger and weaker books but I don’t recognise any as described in the OP.
After checking the Pratchett Quote File, it looks like it made a first appearance in Guards! Guards!. Which would make sense, it being the first Watch book. 
I’ve read a few Pratchett books. I find them somewhat amusing, but no where near Douglas Adams (for example). I really did enjoy the first two books (‘Color of Magic’ and ‘Light Fantastic’). I read ‘Small Gods’ and I didn’t find it as good. It was a decent story, but some of writing I found similar to the first two books. Then I picked up ‘Equal Rites’ a bit later (I picked up ‘Color of Magic’, ‘Light Fantastic’, and ‘Small Gods’ at the same time basically) and it was “eh”. The books are amusing, but I wouldn’t spend full price on another paperback… perhaps get another one at a used bookstore.
On the other hand, I find Douglas Adams to be boring as hell. I slogged all the way through all of the Hitchhiker books, and I don’t think I laughed once. The odd smile, yes. Laugh out loud, no. Pratchett makes me laugh out loud, and often. He also makes me think, just as often. The only other author that makes me do both at the same time is Spider Robinson.