A bit surprised that I haven’t seen a thread about this book yet, so here it is.
So there I was, browsing shops and wasting some time at the airport, when my eye fell on ‘Nation’, the latest book by Terry Pratchett. Naturally, I picked it up without a moments hesitation (you never know if those other 24 copies on display will be sold in those four seconds you hesitate) and started reading immediately.
First thing I noticed, this was no Discworld book. Mildly annoyed, but still full of hope, I continued reading. Then I noticed that this book was set in our own world, about 200 years ago. However, there was talk about some major epidemic, and an island-devouring tsunami. This did not happen 200 years ago. So, skipping to the author’s note, I found out that this book is set in an alternate past in our own world.
I’m now halfway through the book, and I’m not impressed. Sure, it is fun enough to read, but it is nowhere near the quality that Pratchett is capable of. I constantly feel that some sort of mirror is held up to me, but I’m not sure what I’m supposed to see. I think the book is a bit uninspired, I’ve read this before. The descriptions and conversations lack the usual Pratchett wit. I also think that this could’ve been a Discworld story, and I’m at a loss as to why Terry decided to set it in a very different imaginary world, which the reader has no connection with.
Still, all in all, I’ll finish the book, but I’m not sure if I’ll ever reread it again.
Same here. It was an OK book, and perhaps I would think more highly of it if it weren’t a Pratchett book, and I’d gone into it with different expectations - but then I doubt I would ever have read it. I found myself waiting for the punchline that never came.
I dunno, I found it to be along the Pratchett Continuum - early Discworld was 100% jokes and no substance, then progressively became less about the jokes and more about philosophy. Nation is 70% philosophy, 20% funny bits (and there *are *some outstanding Pratchettisms in there), 10% yammering on about how religion is obnoxious and holding us back and science is the way to go. Thanks, Captain Obvious
I don’t think it was sterling Pratchett, but it wasn’t Monstrous Regiment either. What the hell was that one about ?
I’m glad you started this. I was surprised to see it in the stores, picked it up, and then decided not to buy it. I’ve been feeling sort of guilty, but, even in current circumstances, I think I’ll pass.
I enjoyed it. As a matter of fact, last week I read it for the third time.
It’s nowhere near as funny as most of the Discworld books (although I agree- what the hell was Monstrous Regiment supposed to be?)… but it is still really well-written. One thing I liked is that it’s set in an alternate world- but he doesn’t hit you over the head with it.
I liked it too. I liked and believed in the characters, “Daphne” especially. Did those who read it and didn’t like it also read his other Young Adult books? I thought it was very similar in quality to those.
My response to it may be colored by the fact that I didn’t read the dead tree version. I ought the audio book from Audible. Stephen Brigg’s performance may have added some thing.
Oh, and Congodwarf, I really like Monstrous Regiment, but it isn’t one of my favorites. It was a little too preachy.
I like Nation. I also enjoyed Monstrous Regiment. Not all of Terry’s books are great, by any means, but I haven’t been truly disappointed by any of them.
Lords and Ladies is one of my all time favorites, along with Night Watch and Small Gods.
To clarify : it’s not that I disliked Monstrous Regiment per se. There’s lots of funny in it, and quite a bit of clever as well. I’m just really confused about what the general message of it is supposed to be, or what it’s supposed to reference. One of the characters is clearly a shout out to Joan of Arc, but the rest ? And the significance of setting it in Fantasy Balkans ? I got nothing.
