Does anyone know anything about this book?
The Long Earth
Stephen Baxter (Author), Terry Pratchett (Author)
Is this part of a series or a standalone? Has anyone read anything by this Stephen Baxter guy? In short, should I buy this book?
Baxter is an ok author who has worked with Arthur Clarke, among others. My guess is this book is him writing from an outline by Pterry. It’s a stand-alone, and might be interesting. If you liked Nation you might like this one. (Not that it’s likely to be even somewhat similar - just that it isn’t Disc.)
Get it.
Baxter writes hard SF adventures. I did enjoy his Anti-Ice, and he’s considered one of the bigger names in the field in the UK.
Yeah Baxter-Pratchett is a very odd match to me. Baxter is known for his hard SF.
The only book of his I’ve read is Evolution which is more of a thought experiment than a novel, but it was interesting. I recall Baxter’s “Maniforld” series was critically well received.
Hmm… well, I like Pratchett, and I also like hard SF, so perhaps I shall get this book.
Pratchett’s written (Non-hard, mini-operatic*) SF of his own before (Strata and Dark Side of the Sun)
- Space Operetta?
Having first heard that this book was coming out in this thread I figured I’d bump it now that I have had a chance to read it.
Not very Pratchett. Oh sure there is the word “susurration” and a character named Lobsang but that is pretty much it. Overall meh. Oh alright a few of the throw-away jokes made me smile:
The major plot line involves the main character, Joshua, travelling (stepping) through multiple different versions of Earths (none of the others with humans) in a ship hired by a super-intelligent computer who may indeed actually be a reincarnated Tibetan motorcycle mechanic and who is the ship as well as manifest in an android. For their first movie night the computer suggests “2001 A Space Odyssey.”
A decent enough basic premise I guess and I did stay with it to the end hoping it would deliver some kind of interesting kick but it never came. It does seem to trying to set up a series, introducing a variety of characters who never really get fleshed out much … yet.
Anyone else read it and have thoughts?
I’ve read it (and wrote about it in the Whatya Reading threads).
Yeah, I enjoyed it, but it didn’t really resolve and some of the characters didn’t seem to actually do much. DSeid’s series set-up theory may be the explanation.
I’d call Strata hard SF; boiled down to a plot summary it wouldn’t be out of place on a list of Larry Niven’s works, for instance.
Another vote for Stephen Baxter writing the bulk of it. It matches the writing style of his other books better. And unlike “Good Omens”, you don’t see a lot of Pterry’s wit (cynical or otherwise) in the co-written novel. Based on structure, Pratchett clearly had something to do with the book but not much in the actual writing.
Also, another vote for prologue into a yet to be written series - probably mostly by Baxter. None of the major conflicts or plot threads established early in the novel get resolved in any real form and there are easily 5 or 6 plot threads and characters that could each lead to individual short stories, novellas, or novels.
It was an ok read, but I wouldn’t prioritize it over any other books you’ve been meaning to read.
I thought it was just okay. If his name had not been on the cover I honestly would not have known Terry Pratchett had anything to do with it, though. It’s not likeGood Omens, which comes across as a pretty seamless blend of Pratchett and Gaiman.
I’m a great Pratchett fan and had never read anything of Baxter’s before.
This video seems to suggest that the writing process was a lot more collaborative than people on this thread seem to think.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/video/2012/jul/09/terry-pratchett-stephen-baxter-long-earth-video
Myself, I’ve not read the book, so I wouldn’t know - but it seems to me that, just because it might not be like Discworld or have trademark humour in it, doesn’t mean to say that Pratchett is not capable of writing something in a different style.
It’s not so much the lack of humor as the complete change in writing style. It doesn’t really match even the serious bits of any of his latest books. Even his interviews read differently.
Also, Pratchett mostly writes via dictation software these days. No doubt he was involved, but odds are very good the actual act of putting word to paper (or screen, I guess) was done by Baxter.
Why does this mean that it must be mostly the other bloke though? Firstly, I think Pratchett is a decent enough writer to be able to try on different voices and write for different audiences - as has been mentioned, Strata and Dark Side are both more hard SF and he’s written for children, as well as his Discworld stuff. Secondly, for obvious (and sad) reasons, Pratchett’s writing has (IMO) changed quite significantly over recent books - it’s possible that this is part of the evolution.
I am going to take him at his word though. Paraphrasing from the video: when asked how different it was to collaborate on this book versus Good Omens, he says it was remarkably similar, with both of them writing their own pieces - so unless you’re of the view that Good Omens is mostly Gaiman, it strikes me that he is at least claiming that he wrote a good proportion of the book. When they get into the “whose idea was that?” section of the interview, both claim the idea and point out that they worked closely together enough that lines get blurred. And thirdly, towards the end of the video, they bounce ideas off each other about the remainder of the books (they are planning a trilogy of Long Earth) and it is clear that they are both working at shaping the direction of things.
Short of having actual documentary evidence of how they worked, I am going to take Pratchett at his word - just because it is a departure for him, does not mean that he was hands off.
Now, to download and read the damn thing. 
Niven and Pratchett considered writing a novel together once, but the logistics were too much of a hassle (Niven eventually took his part of the idea and made “Rainbow Mars”)
I can’t watch the video now, but I’m interested in seeing their take on their process.
I agree that Pratchett’s style has changed over the past couple of books and also put it down to his need to dictate rather than writing himself. It seems like that would have a big effect on anyone’s style.
I found it interesting that The Long Earth has a very different approach to the Discworld version of the central concept.
So, despite being a Stephen Baxter book, it doesn’t involve the destruction of the Earth?
Only inadvertently.
It’s a pretty OK book. I thought I could see Pratchett’s science background seeping through here and there and some phrases and paragraphs were obviously Pratchett, but the bulk of it feels like Baxter. Pratchett isn’t the main dish in this one, just the spice, if what interested you is his sense of humour.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear, but I was including his non-Discworld stuff. Even his recent YA novels have included a fundamental core of humanism and usually tries to impart some insight into the human condition. That’s present in “The Long Earth” but not in a significant way. It’s mostly apparent in some of the side story chapters that flesh out some minor characters and side-plots but nearly missing in the main plot thread.
If I had to compare/contrast their previous writing, I’d say Pratchett is often more concerned with characters and execution more than the originality of story elements themselves.
Baxter, on the other hand, often comes up with some very interesting concepts and ideas but his execution and characterization often leave much to be desired. That’s also true for his own novels and his collaborations with Arthur C Clarke (and I’m not sure how much of those actually involved Clarke, either, much like the Rama sequels).
My own reading of the novel was that the characterization of the main cast was weak, as was the execution. That’s more Baxter. Several of the minor characters (many who showed up only once or twice) were often better fleshed out and had more complete character arcs, which is more Pratchett.
So, call it a 70/30 split but with the main plot being more in the 70. You may disagree after reading it, but that was how the book felt to me.
I could buy Pratchett writing a book that tried to be hard SF and keeping his humor at bay but this book was not that. It even tried to be funny at points but the attempts mostly fell flat. But that wasn’t the … wrongness. I’ve not read a Pratchett book that did not have even the minor characters come off as interesting and formed even if we were only meeting them briefly. These were characters who just came off as not having more there than what were presented with and despite the fact that [spoiler]a character who is supposed to be a Tibetan motorcycle mechanic now reincarnated as a superintelligent computer who possibly controls the world’s economy and more, whose true motivations are not completely clear, should be interesting, possibly a source of tension and mystery, he was not. He wasn’t even consistently fleshed out. (For example, near omniscient but unable to “Mind the Gap”)
Did anyone get a sense of the “tearing apart of the family” that surely would have been there when one parent insists on heading out West leaving the son behind? That’s not a lack of humor, it is a lack of capturing any believable emotion.[/spoiler]It read like wet cardboard. If this had Pratchett’s hand in it for more than the outline then his illness is sadly much more advanced than it had been in his last book, and I am very sad. If this Baxter writing mostly then I know whose books to not bother reading in the future. I prefer to believe the latter.