# Terry Pratchett



## Orang Utan (May 22, 2011)

I downloaded a naughty torrent for my kindle and his books were on it. I've always sneered at his writing after reading and hating The Colour Of Magic, but maybe I should give him another chance.
So, Pratchett fans, please give me some reasons not to delete all his books and free up some space.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 22, 2011)

Harry Potter for people with head injuries. Delete away.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 22, 2011)

The Colour of Magic was a spoof of the genre, of course. Once Pratchett wasn't satirising anything (except, very leadenly, the real world) the books became substantially worse.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 22, 2011)

I quite liked his books when I was about 13.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 22, 2011)

i enjoy his books  

they do tend to  have  repeating  characters  so you  might  want to start off with ones that can stand alone.    good  starting points  might  be mort or small gods


colour of magic  was  a bit specialist in taste  and   the tone of books  change over time so you may well  find yourself feeling diffrent about the later ones


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 22, 2011)

I sold all my Terry Pratchett books at the butter market so that I could buy a fiver deal.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2011)

Jingo! and Mort are good reads. When he's good, he's good. It's by no means high art or whatever that is but it is a good read. Small Gods and most of the Gaurds! series are good as well.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> I sold all my Terry Pratchett books at the butter market so that I could buy a fiver deal.


 
of butter, to slake your hideous butter habit.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 22, 2011)

pyramids is also a decent stand alone book

nowadays  he mainly seems to write  more  guards  stories.  i think he just really like  vimes


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 22, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> of butter, to slake your hideous butter habit.


 
I just love the yellow crack


----------



## boohoo (May 22, 2011)

Mort is one of my favourites - haven't read anything by him for ages - but would be happy on a beach reading one of his books.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 22, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> I just love the yellow crack


 
i wasn't asking about your simpsons cosplay perversion


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 22, 2011)

Another thumbs up for Mort. But the other few I've read always bring to mind a particular type of late-80s rock/metal fan who wears a denim tank-top over a leather jacket and thinks going down the pub in a dress is funny enough to actually soil yourself over. And whose favourite film is the Rocky Horror Show. And ALWAYS gurns with head to one side on every photograph ever taken of them. 

That's who reads Terry Pratchett books.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2011)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> pyramids is also a decent stand alone book
> 
> nowadays  he mainly seems to write  more  guards  stories.  i think he just really like  vimes



Night Watch is good stuff for Vimes forced out of the role h e has been written into. Back to three AM rollies and wrestling with thieves in the gutter where an elbow to the head is worth more than any fighters technique


----------



## boohoo (May 22, 2011)

I never really got into the guards characters - I like anything with Death in. And granny weatherwax, Nanny ogg and the librarian.... and the luggage....


----------



## strung out (May 22, 2011)

haven't read any since i was a teenager, but i really liked mort


----------



## geminisnake (May 22, 2011)

Read all the ones with Death and the witches in them, the others are variable. Mort(book) is good, Granny Weatherwax(character) is ace and the Hogfather(book) is good too.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 22, 2011)

Read everything he's written bar the 'for kids' stuff, great read, pure escapism and amusing commentary on politics and human society. Not to be taken seriously at all... Sorcery is a personal fave of mine, mainly due to the idiocy of the wizards when they find they have actual magic power at their finger tips!


----------



## ericjarvis (May 22, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> I downloaded a naughty torrent for my kindle and his books were on it. I've always sneered at his writing after reading and hating The Colour Of Magic, but maybe I should give him another chance.
> So, Pratchett fans, please give me some reasons not to delete all his books and free up some space.


 
Ignore the first four Discworld books, he was still learning to write. Keep the rest, they vary from very funny to absolutely superb. He's actually a brilliant prose stylist in the same economic and elegantly understated way as Doris Lessing, but as he also tells jokes that doesn't count for anything with the lit crit set (who basically seem to consider that actually making anyone laugh is a clear sign of low brow writing). The early books are just simply parodies of standard fantasy stuff, so unless you have read significant quantities of pulp fantasy they are a waste of time. Then he went through a spell of having some interesting retreads of classic plots along with developing some genuinely worthwhile characters. More recently he's been writing books that have almost everything you could want in what is still essentially humourous fantasy.

Of course there will inevitably a whole bunch of your mates who will treat you as being utterly uncool if you admit to reading them. This is because they are either hooked on the idea that literature must be pretentious to have any real value, they have more sense of fashion than sense of humour, or they are just dumb.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 22, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> That's who reads Terry Pratchett books.


 
No. That's who you imagine reads them and you thus completely eschew them because you aren't actually interested in reading so much as being able to claim to have read the RIGHT books for your self image.

For fucks sake. If a book is good it doesn't matter a damn who enjoys it, and if it's crap it doesn't matter who enjoys it either.


----------



## scifisam (May 23, 2011)

Woah. What's with all the Terry Pratchett hate? I must have stumbled onto the wrong site. I love the books, but the first few, like Eric says, aren't that good - he hits his stride around Witches Abroad, I'd say. The Guards books are strong from the start. and the inidividual books are too - wish I hadn't lost my copy of Pyramids. 

SI, you seem like an otherwise lovely bloke, but TBH that description of yours sounds more like you than me.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 23, 2011)

OK, so what books out of his massive oeuvre should i give a chance to?  Considering I didn't rate Colour Of Magic. I'm afraid Steel Icarus' assessment of a TP fan is almost how I imagine a typical reader. The type of person who rates Dr Who and Star Wars.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 23, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> OK, so what books out of his massive oeuvre should i give a chance to?  Considering I didn't rate Colour Of Magic. I'm afraid Steel Icarus' assessment of a TP fan is almost how I imagine a typical reader. The type of person who rates Dr Who and Star Wars.


 
The problem with stereotypes is they often don't belong in reality. You've just described three very different fan bases...I would suggest Making Money, Going Postal, Jingo, and The Truth.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 23, 2011)

Small Gods might be a good place to start. It's a fairly straightforward demolition of organised religion. Really though it very much depends on what you want from a book. For a straightforward comic romp Pyramids would do the trick, for something with some depth to it you want Night Watch, in between there's Wyrd Sisters (a twist on Macbeth from the POV of the witches), or Going Postal (comic social commentary).


----------



## ginger_syn (May 23, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Another thumbs up for Mort. But the other few I've read always bring to mind a particular type of late-80s rock/metal fan who wears a denim tank-top over a leather jacket and thinks going down the pub in a dress is funny enough to actually soil yourself over. And whose favourite film is the Rocky Horror Show. And ALWAYS gurns with head to one side on every photograph ever taken of them.
> 
> That's who reads Terry Pratchett books.


 
I really enjoy Terry Pratchetts books and I'm none of the above,well apart from liking the rocky horror show. Pratchetts books have for the most part made me laugh out loud while reading them and they have a sense of warmth and charm to them as well as cleverness and nonsense, my favourites are the guards books,particularly Night Watch its my comfort read, the witches books are also entertaining and I hope you enjoy reading them  Orang Utan and you can delete them if you don't.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 23, 2011)

The trouble with typing things on the internet is that you can still be understood no matter how firmly your tongue is wedged in your cheek.


----------



## kabbes (May 23, 2011)

I agree with everything eric has said on this thread.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 23, 2011)

I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to upset anyone. And I didn't really mean it.


----------



## Santino (May 23, 2011)

He writes entertaining books. I'd put him in the tradition of PG Wodehouse and that. I think Mort is the first really good Discworld book. It's worth looking at the publication date and reading all the Witches books (you can skip Equal Rites though), Guards books and Death books in the right order.


----------



## Greebo (May 23, 2011)

No idea which (if any) of  the books you'll enjoy, seeing as I don't know what you usually enjoy reading. 

IMHO with most of Terry Pratchett's stuff you'll probably know whether you're going to like it or not by the end of the second page.

Although the books feel like light & fast reading, the plotlines deal with serious themes, but not in a look-how-clever-I-am-by-making-a-point way.  Most of the characters are well written too.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 23, 2011)

what are the guards books?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> what are the guards books?


 
http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Category:Watch_Series

Guards guards
men at arms
feet of clay
jingo
the fifth elephant
night watch
thud
snuff (out autum)

the tone starts changing  around feet of clay  and by fifth elephant it  kinda feels like a different set of books


----------



## geminisnake (May 23, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Read everything he's written bar the 'for kids' stuff,


 
Hatful of Sky and Wee Freemen are great, but maybe you didn't understand all the lingo 

Just for the record I do like the Rocky Horror Picture Show but couldn't care less about Star Wars or Dr Who.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 23, 2011)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Category:Watch_Series
> 
> Guards guards
> men at arms
> ...


 

The tone actually gets darker and darker with each successive book.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 23, 2011)

geminisnake said:


> Hatful of Sky and Wee Freemen are great, but maybe you didn't understand all the lingo
> 
> Just for the record I do like the Rocky Horror Picture Show but couldn't care less about Star Wars or Dr Who.


 
What I meant was I haven't read them all, have read all the Jonny books. Oh yeah Good Omens, while written with Neil Gaimen and not a discworld book, is also a great read!


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

actually  "the unadulterated cat"  is  a classic  cat book


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

dark side of the sun i liked and is  a fairly good  scifi  with a discworld tone

strata is a little different and you kinda have to know  ringworld  to get it


----------



## kabbes (May 23, 2011)

Both Dark Side of the Sun and Strata have some great sci-fi ideas.  I think they both stand up as excellent sci-fi, to be honest, although neither of them are remotely like anything else he ever wrote.


----------



## Santino (May 23, 2011)

I even enjoyed The Carpet People.


----------



## ringo (May 23, 2011)

I read the first ten or so when they came out but went from really enjoying them to being bored at the formulaic nature of his writing. Did he really get much better?

OU - they don't take long to read and are quite funny so worth a punt on one just to see.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

they got different in tone

thud  is very diffrent from something  like colour of magic  or  even sorcery.

they tend to be less fantastical.  there was always an aspect  of  the  mundane in the fantastic world  but  recent books  really  seems  to emphasis that


----------



## Orang Utan (May 23, 2011)

think i will just pick one randomly. glad i have them in electronic format as his paper books are so ugly.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

the illustrations?  Josh Kirby is a bit of an acquired taste  i do prefer the work of Paul Kidby


----------



## kabbes (May 23, 2011)

I met Josh once.  He was really, really nice.  Quiet, unassuming, mostly interested in his sketch book.  He showed me his work in progress, which were sketches of pigs that would ultimately end up as the cover of _Hogfather_.  It was a really sad day when he passed on.


----------



## Mungy (May 23, 2011)

monstrous regiment is good.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 23, 2011)

The other thing about them is that the 'mise-en-scene' changes very early on from a faux-medieval one to a recognisably early modern world - and with the last few books the 'look and feel' is central Europe c.1900.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

in places it's practically steam punk


----------



## Corax (May 23, 2011)

Easy reading, nowt wrong with that and good for bedtime.  

Damn sight better than his nearest imitator Tom Holt n'all.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Both Dark Side of the Sun and Strata have some great sci-fi ideas.  I think they both stand up as excellent sci-fi, to be honest, although neither of them are remotely like anything else he ever wrote.


 

I enjoyed dark side of the sun


he co-authored the very very funny Good Omens with Niel (sandman) gasiman


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> I even enjoyed The Carpet People.


 
Lies, even I thought that was shit


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

even he thought it was shit  so  re did the whole ending


----------



## geminisnake (May 23, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> What I meant was I haven't read them all, have read all the Jonny books. Oh yeah Good Omens, while written with Neil Gaiman and not a discworld book, is also a great read!


 
Ah, I thought you meant read as in reed, not read as in red iyswim 
Dumb language really! Same word/two meanings.


----------



## weepiper (May 23, 2011)

His 'kids' ones are some of his best I thought, Nation (non-Discworld) is brilliant.


----------



## fogbat (May 23, 2011)

His early books were _about_ the wacky, magic-filled world.

They later just happened to use that world as a backdrop to tell stories, and were all the better for it.

Vimes is one of my favourite fictional characters, though he became a bit too indestructible in the latest few books.


----------



## Corax (May 23, 2011)

fogbat said:


> They later just happened to use that world as a backdrop to tell stories,


 
Some of which can quite easily be classed as modern satire.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2011)

Jingo and Small Gods definetly count. He has been compared to swift but I'm not buying that because he dosen't have swifts disgust at everything and especially bodily functions. There isn't the bitterness in pratchetts work. Some anger though- the bit in small gods where Om sees a torture chamber with a rack of mugs one to 'worlds best dad'. Good stuff.


----------



## Corax (May 23, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I enjoyed dark side of the sun
> 
> 
> he co-authored the very very funny Good Omens with Niel (sandman) gasiman


 
After Good Omens I tried reading some Gaiman thinking that he was going to be in the same kind of genre.... 

Cracking author though.  Read _Neverwhere _and _American God_s, and really enjoyed both of them.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2011)

Sandman is really really worth the time even if you don't really like comics- the spin-off Lucifer graphic novels are also good. Side note- Meivilles Un Lun Dun has a thanks bit at the start to gaiman who told him to persist with his Other London tale. Which is nice.

Avoid the BBC version of neverwhere. Despite it having patterson joseph it is of such low quality its worthless. imo.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 23, 2011)

i have some gaiman too.
it's odd this torrent i have, it's obviously an individual's book collection - you can tell a lot about someone from their book collection!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 23, 2011)

Yeah you can tell they can read.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 23, 2011)

you can tell way more than that. gender, political views, blah blah blah


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 23, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> you can tell way more than that. gender, political views, blah blah blah


 
If you read too much into it maybe, I've got books on my shelf you never think someone like me would read...


----------



## Corax (May 23, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Avoid the BBC version of neverwhere. Despite it having patterson joseph it is of such low quality its worthless. imo.


 
I watched a couple of episodes on loombo.  Criminal waste of a something that could be adapted to _brilliant_ effect from what I saw.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 23, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> If you read too much into it maybe, I've got books on my shelf you never think someone like me would read...


 
if you have loads of fantasy romance novels and diet books, would it be fair to assume that you are a lady?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2011)

you can't tell a great deal about a person from their books but you can inwardly judge them on it.


----------



## Corax (May 23, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> if you have loads of fantasy romance novels and diet books, would it be fair to assume that you are a lady?


 
Or a gay.


----------



## scifisam (May 23, 2011)

ringo said:


> I read the first ten or so when they came out but went from really enjoying them to being bored at the formulaic nature of his writing. Did he really get much better?
> 
> OU - they don't take long to read and are quite funny so worth a punt on one just to see.



Well, all writers, and I mean all, not just in genre fiction - who've written more than, say, five books start to seem formulaic. If they create a fictional world in which they set more than five books, it's unavoidable. But unless you're bored and happen to read five books by that same author within a couple of weeks, it won't bother you.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 23, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Well, all writers, and I mean all, not just in genre fiction - who've written more than, say, five books start to seem formulaic.


 not true


----------



## ringo (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> But unless you're bored and happen to read five books by that same author within a couple of weeks, it won't bother you.



I can't see the logic in that at all, it would always bother me and I wouldn't read any more of them.


----------



## Garek (May 24, 2011)

Last time I checked I had most of his Discworld books. Mort has always been a personal favourite, along with the Watch series. Oh and Soul Music. There have been some real duds though (Monstrous Regiment spring to mind).

A lot of criticism of his work seems to come from people who have never actually read his books. 

I would agree that his work can be at times very sharp satire. I also think it is cool how much of the stuff in his books is drawn from real life sources and examples.


----------



## scifisam (May 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> not true


 
True for all of the couple of thousand authors I've read. Bet you can't name an author that's not formulaic after writing five or more books. 



ringo said:


> I can't see the logic in that at all, it would always bother me and I wouldn't read any more of them.


 
Then you'd have to read no prolific writers ever.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> True for all of the couple of thousand authors I've read. Bet you can't name an author that's not formulaic after writing five or more books.


ian mcewan
simon garfield
peter carey
hilary mantel
rose tremain
michel faber
margaret atwood
john fowles

that's just from a quick glance at the bookshelves.

oh, and if you want a scifi example, adam roberts' books look pretty varied. i have eight of his books lined up and have only read one, mind!


----------



## ringo (May 24, 2011)

There are loads of great authors who don't repeat themselves, could list them all day.

William Shakespeare
Martin Amis
Graham Greene
Jonathan Lethem
George Orwell
Paul Auster


----------



## Santino (May 24, 2011)

Paul Auster has only written one book.


----------



## scifisam (May 24, 2011)

All those authors are extremely formulaic, except for the couple who haven't written enough books for a formula to be noticeable.


----------



## ringo (May 24, 2011)

Santino said:


> Paul Auster has only written one book.


 
Apart from all the others he's written?


----------



## ringo (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> All those authors are extremely formulaic, except for the couple who haven't written enough books for a formula to be noticeable.


 
Ha ha, yes all Shakespeare's writing is the same isn't it. Not a clue.


----------



## Santino (May 24, 2011)

ringo said:


> Apart from all the others he's written?


 
_Including_ all the other ones he's written.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 24, 2011)

there is a difference between having a formula  and being he same


----------



## ringo (May 24, 2011)

Santino said:


> _Including_ all the other ones he's written.


 
You have confused formula with the exploration of a theme.


----------



## scifisam (May 24, 2011)

ringo said:


> Ha ha, yes all Shakespeare's writing is the same isn't it. Not a clue.


 
My (incomplete) PhD was about Shakespeare's language. The plays are extremely formulaic in plot and character and some of the plots are ridiculous (he didn't write most of the plots himself anyway), but the language is beautiful and some of the nuances of character make them iconic.


----------



## scifisam (May 24, 2011)

ringo said:


> You have confused formula with the exploration of a theme.


 
Exploring the same theme in several books would be way worse than having a formula.


----------



## Random (May 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> So, Pratchett fans, please give me some reasons not to delete all his books and free up some space.


 Read Small Gods, Guards Guards, and if you really really liked them you'll probably get something out of the rest as well. While the trope of making fantasy characters act english and middle class gets a bit old, he's definitely a good one at jokes and enjoyable plot.


----------



## Santino (May 24, 2011)

ringo said:


> You have confused formula with the exploration of a theme.


 
Your mum has confused formula with the exploration of a theme.


----------



## Random (May 24, 2011)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> the tone starts changing  around feet of clay  and by fifth elephant it  kinda feels like a different set of books


 It's like a D&D role playing game where after a few campaigns everyone's got so many special abilities and has risen so fast in status that your original team of grimy mercenaries are now running a federation of small countries through four dimensions.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 24, 2011)

Vimes rolls natural 20s

cast daily "where's my cow"


----------



## Cid (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> My (incomplete) PhD was about Shakespeare's language. The plays are extremely formulaic in plot and character and some of the plots are ridiculous (he didn't write most of the plots himself anyway), but the language is beautiful and some of the nuances of character make them iconic.


 
Indeed, I mean a lot of it is _intentionally_ formulaic - product of the audience he was writing for. It's a pity because he completely eclipses other playwrights of the period and there are plays of his that are perhaps less worth studying than stuff like _Dr Faustus_ or _The Changeling_. Certainly worth making an effort with the language though, so many people just assume it's modern English only more florid and miss all the subtle nuances, jokes etc.

I've not read Pratchett for a while, not long before his Alzheimers I think... Very much enjoyed him when I was younger, there's some good satire in there and it's excellent casual reading.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 24, 2011)

Cid said:


> Indeed, I mean a lot of it is _intentionally_ formulaic - product of the audience he was writing for. It's a pity because he completely eclipses other playwrights of the period and there are plays of his that are perhaps less worth studying than stuff like _Dr Faustus_ or _The Changeling_. Certainly worth making an effort with the language though, so many people just assume it's modern English only more florid and miss all the subtle nuances, jokes etc.


 
What does 'acerbe to the coloquintada' mean in Othello, for example?


----------



## Cid (May 24, 2011)

As bitter as colocynth fruit. Which is also a laxative.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 24, 2011)

Cid said:


> As bitter as colocynth fruit. Which is also a laxative.


 
ah right, so there's a whole extra twist to Othello's feelings of betrayal, then?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> All those authors are extremely formulaic, except for the couple who haven't written enough books for a formula to be noticeable.


 oh yeah? in what way?


----------



## Cid (May 24, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> ah right, so there's a whole extra twist to Othello's feelings of betrayal, then?


 
Don't really know much about Othello tbh, possibly - there often is with Shakespeare.


----------



## scifisam (May 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> oh yeah? in what way?


 
Very similar character types and easily predictable resolutions to the mini-problems within the story usually by the same characters who performed extremely similar actions in the other book. 

I thought everyone knew prolific writers are formulaic. It's like claiming that writers don't also have a personal style - as if they start afresh for every book.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Very similar character types and easily predictable resolutions to the mini-problems within the story usually by the same characters who performed extremely similar actions in the other book.
> 
> I thought everyone knew prolific writers are formulaic. It's like claiming that writers don't also have a personal style - as if they start afresh for every book.


 ian mcewan's first on my list. how is he formulaic?
how are the others formulaic when they write about totally different subjects in their books?


----------



## ringo (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Very similar character types and easily predictable resolutions to the mini-problems within the story usually by the same characters who performed extremely similar actions in the other book.
> 
> I thought everyone knew prolific writers are formulaic. It's like claiming that writers don't also have a personal style - as if they start afresh for every book.


 
Too much of a generalisation. I'm sure you know much more Shakespeare than I do, but I can't see how you can apply this to all prolific authors. Loads of them have a style or follow a theme, but that doesn't make it a formula.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Very similar character types and easily predictable resolutions to the mini-problems within the story usually by the same characters who performed extremely similar actions in the other book.


 this might apply to people who write several books with the same characters in, but none of the writers i've cited have done this


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

ringo said:


> Too much of a generalisation. I'm sure you know much more Shakespeare than I do, but I can't see how you can apply this to all prolific authors. Loads of them have a style or follow a theme, but that doesn't make it a formula.


 yup, style does not equal formula


----------



## seeformiles (May 24, 2011)

I read quite a few of them (the missus is a fan) and enjoyed some more than others but his endings are pretty much always shit (i.e. some towering mass of energy that collapses in on itself turning everything back to normal - bit of a copout really). Ones that I recall enjoying were "Mort" and "Wyrd Sisters" if that's any help.


----------



## kabbes (May 24, 2011)

I certainly didn't have any trouble finding reviews of McEwan that criticised him for being formulaic in his approach.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I certainly didn't have any trouble finding reviews of McEwan that criticised him for being formulaic in his approach.


i'm surprised you were looking!


----------



## kabbes (May 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm surprised you were looking!


 
I was curious, given your claims that he wasn't so.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I was curious, given your claims that he wasn't so.


 
blimey, you're keen


----------



## kabbes (May 24, 2011)

Like a knife.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

naturally, i don't agree with that assessment of him, though i dislike him as a writer these days.


----------



## scifisam (May 24, 2011)

I don't think this is worth discussing - you don't want your favourite writers to be formulaic,  and you will never be persuaded otherwise.

If I get really bored I could also prove to you that those writers all write using the English alphabet or other such contentious issues, but I'm not there yet.


----------



## kabbes (May 24, 2011)

I've not read enough of McEwan's books (i.e. more than five) to be able to comment on whether he is formulaic or not, myself.  But clearly it isn't as open-and-shut as you were making out.

My gut feel would actually be to largely side with Sam on this on, on the grounds that I can't, off the top of my head, think of any authors that I've read a lot of that are unequivocally not formulaic in their approach.  I can think of some that push it close and that I might argue for, but I can also see that it might then come down to interpretation.

The fact is that Pratchett is enjoyable enough that people tend to read a _lot_ of his books.  I must have read thirty of them.  I can't think of any other (adult's) author that I can say that about, or even anything close.  Given that quantity of material, it's inevitable that I'm going to see more commonalities in his books than in those of other authors.  But that probably says more about my book selection than it does about his authorship!


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> I don't think this is worth discussing - you don't want your favourite writers to be formulaic,  and you will never be persuaded otherwise.
> 
> If I get really bored I could also prove to you that those writers all write using the English alphabet or other such contentious issues, but I'm not there yet.


 they're not necessarily my favourite writers. i just had a glance at my parent's bookshelves. i think plenty of writers can write several books without becoming formulaic, but if you don't want to discuss something, don't make that assertion in the first place!


----------



## scifisam (May 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> they're not necessarily my favourite writers. i just had a glance at my parent's bookshelves. i think plenty of writers can write several books without becoming formulaic, but if you don't want to discuss something, don't make that assertion in the first place!


 
I didn't put it up for discussion any more than writing 'Terry Pratchett writes books for adults and children' would be intended as a point for discussion.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2011)

So in summary, TP is good if you like him bad if you don't, and there's no way anyone can tell either way from this thread if you haven't read him?


----------



## geminisnake (May 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> if you have loads of fantasy romance novels and diet books, would it be fair to assume that you are a lady?


 
I have none of either and I am a lady.


----------



## scifisam (May 24, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> So in summary, TP is good if you like him bad if you don't, and there's no way anyone can tell either way from this thread if you haven't read him?


 
It's hard to tell if you'll like an author you haven't read. But if you like Douglas Adams, early Tom Holt (before he went crap), Jasper Fforde or comic fantasy/scifi in general then you're more likely to like him. Not that it's guaranteed - my ex didn't like Pratchett. We were doomed.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> It's hard to tell if you'll like an author you haven't read. But if you like Douglas Adams, early Tom Holt (before he went crap), Jasper Fforde or comic fantasy/scifi in general then you're more likely to like him. Not that it's guaranteed - my ex didn't like Pratchett. We were doomed.



Heh Pratchett is a funny one, years back when I first started reading him (1990 I think), I lent one mate a copy and he totally loved it. Lent another and it freaked him out and he was like 'wtf is this weird shit!?' despite liking fantasy stuff himself...you just can't tell really...


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

geminisnake said:


> I have none of either and I am a lady.


so?


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2011)

i read a few pratchett books. bit meh.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 24, 2011)

scifisam said:


> It's hard to tell if you'll like an author you haven't read. But if you like Douglas Adams, early Tom Holt (before he went crap), Jasper Fforde or comic fantasy/scifi in general then you're more likely to like him. Not that it's guaranteed - my ex didn't like Pratchett. We were doomed.


 
I thoroughly disagree. That only applies to people who like specific genres, I simply don't. I like books of any style or any genre if I like the ideas, the prose, the humour, or pretty much anything else. So whilst I enjoy books by Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams, I find Jasper Fforde sort of meh, and I consider the period before Tom Holt went crap must be before he wrote anything.

It's like saying that if you like Diane Duane or Ursula Le Guin you will enjoy the Harry Potter books. I certainly didn't, I've tried several times but I can't read an entire page of any of the Harry Potter books before creating a dynamic book-wall interaction.


----------



## Random (May 24, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I consider the period before Tom Holt went crap must be before he wrote anything.


 Well said. One of the best examples of depressing mediocrity


----------



## ericjarvis (May 24, 2011)

Sadly merely mediocre. For really depressing comic fantasy you need to attempt to read Piers Anthony or Craig Shore Gardner.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 24, 2011)

fucking piers anthony.   my ex had a load of his stuff.  it's the junk food  of   comedy fantasy  you  might almost enjoy it  when reading it  but   after a little while you feel sick as you realise  it's  just  pages more of crud.


----------



## likesfish (May 24, 2011)

piers anthony does decide to die horribly


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2011)

anyway, have you deleted them all yet? despite what some have said here, they are all crap.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2011)

not yet, i started reading the colour of magic again, but got distracted by a book on english grammar.


----------



## scifisam (May 25, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I thoroughly disagree. That only applies to people who like specific genres, I simply don't. I like books of any style or any genre if I like the ideas, the prose, the humour, or pretty much anything else. So whilst I enjoy books by Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams, I find Jasper Fforde sort of meh, and I consider the period before Tom Holt went crap must be before he wrote anything.
> 
> It's like saying that if you like Diane Duane or Ursula Le Guin you will enjoy the Harry Potter books. I certainly didn't, I've tried several times but I can't read an entire page of any of the Harry Potter books before creating a dynamic book-wall interaction.


 
Hence me saying 'more likely.' Not IF YOU LIKE THESE BOOKS THEN YOU DEFINITELY WILL LIKE PRATCHETT AND THIS IS THE FINAL WORD ON THIS, RAH!


----------



## ginger_syn (May 25, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> not yet, i started reading the colour of magic again,.


 Why? its not one of the best and if you weren't to fussed the first time I doubt it'll  get better,try Guards Guards, it's funny.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 25, 2011)

ginger_syn said:


> Why? its not one of the best and if you weren't to fussed the first time I doubt it'll  get better,try Guards Guards, it's funny.


 
I love the relationship between Captain Carrot and whatshername the werewolf.


----------



## kabbes (May 25, 2011)

After all that, he started again with Colour of Magic


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2011)

ginger_syn said:


> Why? its not one of the best and if you weren't to fussed the first time I doubt it'll  get better,try Guards Guards, it's funny.


 
cos it's the first. i felt weird about starting in the middle somewhere


----------



## scifisam (May 25, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> cos it's the first. i felt weird about starting in the middle somewhere


 
It's not really though - a lot of the details about the Discworld changed between the earliest books and the later books.


----------



## Random (May 25, 2011)

kabbes said:


> After all that, he started again with Colour of Magic


 
Some people you just can't tell


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 25, 2011)

you could start with small gods  as  i believe that is the first one in the discworld chronology


yep colour of magic is 1964 UC   small goods is 1885 UC


----------



## ginger_syn (May 26, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> cos it's the first. i felt weird about starting in the middle somewhere


 
fair enough,although Guards Guards is the first in the city watch books


----------



## kabbes (May 26, 2011)

I am bewildered why you started this thread, OU.  You clearly had no intention of paying one iota of attention to any of the responses, which unanimously told you not to reread CoM.


----------



## Greebo (May 26, 2011)

That's just OU being OU.  IMHO he did partly listen - didn't delete the lot without giving them a chance.


----------



## Corax (May 26, 2011)

geminisnake said:


> I have none of either and I am a lady.


All post boxes are red. Not everything red is a post box.



Shippou-Sensei said:


> you could start with small gods  as  i believe that is the first one in the discworld chronology


I wouldn't.  I quite enjoy Pratchett as a bit of light reading, but I found Small Gods very tedious.

Guards Guards is a good call.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 26, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I am bewildered why you started this thread, OU.  You clearly had no intention of paying one iota of attention to any of the responses, which unanimously told you not to reread CoM.


 no skin off your nose is it? the world still turns


----------



## kabbes (May 26, 2011)

An admirable attitude.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 26, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I am bewildered why you started this thread, OU.  You clearly had no intention of paying one iota of attention to any of the responses, which unanimously told you not to reread CoM.


 
Must admit I did wonder if this wasn't just a bit of trolling tbh...


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2011)

A lot of the books feature an orang utan character. He first appears in The Light Fantastic, very briefly.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 26, 2011)

i'm aware of that, santino - he's a librarian too. one of the reasons i want to like pratchett. i'm enjoying colour of magic more than i did last time round. will persevere. i'm in need of light relief cos i'm spending the next two months studying english grammar and doing a TEFL course.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 27, 2011)

I enjoyed _Small Gods_ and _Good Omens_.  I really think that some of his novels will become classics, eventually.


----------



## Santino (May 27, 2011)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I enjoyed _Small Gods_ and _Good Omens_.  I really think that some of his novels will become classics, eventually.


 
I think the Discworld books will remain popular as a series, like the Jeeves & Wooster and Sherlock Holmes books.


----------



## Corax (May 27, 2011)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I enjoyed _Small Gods_ and _Good Omens_.  I really think that some of his novels will become classics, eventually.


 
Good Omens was great (although not discworld, for the info of anyone who hasn't read it).  I really found Small Gods boring, but Shippy recommended it too so maybe I was just in the wrong frame of mind or something.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 27, 2011)

I found Small Gods boring too tbh...and Pyramids.


----------



## Random (May 27, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I found Small Gods boring too tbh...and Pyramids.


 
Which ones did you like? Sorry if you've already said, can't be bothered to trawl back.


----------



## Crispy (May 27, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> no skin off your nose is it? the world still turns


 
No, the turtle moves.


----------



## Greebo (May 27, 2011)

Enough already with the spoilers for "Small Gods"


----------



## kabbes (May 27, 2011)

Who would have thought a poster called Greebo would be a Pratchett fan?


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 27, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think the Discworld books will remain popular as a series, like the Jeeves & Wooster and Sherlock Holmes books.


Absolutely, but I think he's underrated as a writer.  Conan Doyle is too.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

Obnoxiousness said:


> Absolutely, but I think he's underrated as a writer.  Conan Doyle is too.


 
hardly


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Enough already with the spoilers for "Small Gods"


 
are you referring to crispy's post? cos it ain't


----------



## Greebo (May 27, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Who would have thought a poster called Greebo would be a Pratchett fan?


I read books by other authors as well


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 27, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> hardly


He's hardly Shakespeare but he certainly isn't Dan Brown.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

Obnoxiousness said:


> He's harldy Shakespeare but he certainly isn't Dan Brown.


 who? doyle or pratchett?
either way, the fact that neither are shakespeare or dan brown mean that they are underrated.


----------



## Greebo (May 27, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> are you referring to crispy's post? cos it ain't


 
Yes I was and yes it is - used as a password.  It's also quoted in at least one of the other Discworld books - possibly "Interesting Times".


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Yes I was and yes it is - used as a password.  It's also quoted in at least one of the other Discworld books - possibly "Interesting Times".


 
ah right, it's just that the turtle's right at the beginning of colour of magic.
hardly a spoiler then either way.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 27, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> who? doyle or pratchett?
> either way, the fact that neither are shakespeare or dan brown mean that they are underrated.


Pratchett is underrated in this thread, a comment implying that he didn't know how to write until his fourth novel, another comment about his formula approach.  I think he writes good stuff and you can call it literature or not, he's still a writer who's underrated because the humour prevents him from being taken too seriously.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 27, 2011)

Terry at the Trinity College Dublin


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

Obnoxiousness said:


> Pratchett is underrated in this thread, a comment implying that he didn't know how to write until his fourth novel, another comment about his formula approach.  I think he writes good stuff and you can call it literature or not, he's still a writer who's underrated because the humour prevents him from being taken too seriously.


 
i think he's highly rated in this thread. i think you're confused.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2011)

pratchett isn't underrated. he's just a whiny fuck because some people don't like his books.

if he stopped moaning about people not taking him seriously, no-one would say anything about it. he should be happy with his vast wealth and legions of adoring fans imo.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

judging by his sales and the kudos on the back of his books and the praise on this thread, he's certainly not underrated.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

killer b said:


> pratchett isn't underrated. he's just a whiny fuck because some people don't like his books.
> 
> if he stopped moaning about people not taking him seriously, no-one would say anything about it. he should be happy with his vast wealth and legions of adoring fans imo.


 at least he hasn't got alzheimer's



<gets coat>


----------



## kabbes (May 27, 2011)

Haven't we done this before? 

I'm having deja vu all over again.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Haven't we done this before?
> 
> I'm having deja vu all over again.


i think your morphine dose has been miscalculated


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 27, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i think you're confused.


You're not the only one who's said that this week, so I guess you could be right.  I'll re-read the thread while you're re-reading _The Colour of Magic_.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

people have criticised some of his output, but they were mainly fans who rate him. it doesn't do well to be uncritical and adoring you know.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (May 27, 2011)

Uncritical and adoring...  yes, I see what ya mean.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 28, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> people have criticised some of his output, but they were mainly fans who rate him. it doesn't do well to be uncritical and adoring you know.


 
Doesn't do well to be hyper critical or cynical either...


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Doesn't do well to be hyper critical or cynical either...


 
sure, which is why i started this thread


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

Fair enough.  Some of his books have made me laugh continuously, others raised a sporadic smile, but none of them felt like hard work to finish.  YMMV.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

YMMV?


----------



## rover07 (May 28, 2011)

Lords and Ladies is one of the best. Totally turns the concept of Elves being the Fair Folk on its head. 

The Witches are the best characters I think. I never really got the Guards thing and havent finished any of the books with them as lead characters. Always seemed a bit predictable, dumb coppers blundering around.

The Tiffany Aching series is the best he's written but you probably have to read a few of the earlier books first.


----------



## ginger_syn (May 28, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I love the relationship between Captain Carrot and whatshername the werewolf.


 Angua,though for me the Vimes and Vetinari relationship is the the more interesting.


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> YMMV?


<sigh> Your Mileage May Vary


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

rover07 said:


> The Tiffany Aching series is the best he's written but you probably have to read a few of the earlier books first.


 
Agreed, IMHO mainly because you need a bit of a better idea about what makes Granny Weatherwax tick, before understanding her behaviour & attitude in "A hat full of sky", where she's much more of a minor (but important) character.


----------



## boohoo (May 28, 2011)

dam, this thread makes me want to re-read my Pratchett books.


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

Go on then.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 28, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> people have criticised some of his output, but they were mainly fans who rate him. it doesn't do well to be uncritical and adoring you know.


 
His fans when en masse don't usually do uncritical and adoring, at least not in any usual sense of those words. Some years ago a couple of them wrote a song about wasting too much money on books, with the tag line "Terry, who the fuck is Terry?" Which, for several years was sung regularly in his presence at various gatherings.

For uncritical and adoring you need Tolkien fans.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think the Discworld books will remain popular as a series, like the Jeeves & Wooster and Sherlock Holmes books.


 
I think there's a bit more to them than that. I see them as more on a par with Sayers' Peter Wimsey books. They are more than simply funny observation (Wodehouse) or genre defining (Conan Doyle), there's some real content in there (at least after the first couple) and a definite individual elegant prose style. As well as them being quality observational comedy and classy fantasy stories.

However, my opinion is largely useless as I've been completely unable to understand the literary canon since I first became aware it existed. So far as I can see a book becomes, or doesn't become, part of the canon on the basis of how easy it is to mark essays about it. So humour is largely irrelevant. It isn't a quality that you can write effective essays about. Likewise ambiguity is generally seen as a real problem unless it is accompanied by the equivalent of large neon signs saying "this is ambiguous". It leads to writers who are fairly dogmatic being rated more highly than those who are actually writing with more depth and subtlety.

However I suffered at school from being taught English Literature by a complete moron who hadn't read as much as I had by the time I was 14. So my opinion is somewhat unfairly jaundiced.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

Greebo said:


> <sigh> Your Mileage May Vary


 what does that mean?


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

Are you being deliberately obtuse or don't you get figures of speech?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

no, i've not heard that one before. it's a bit obscure. i can only guess at its meaning - horses for courses?


----------



## Crispy (May 28, 2011)

Small text at the bottom of the bottom of car adverts. This car gets 60mph. Your mileage may vary. See also: value of your investment may go up as well as down.


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

Not "horses for courses" (which refers more to using the right thing for the right purpose), more like "you may get something different out of it to what I did, seeing as your use, expectations, and input may be different to mine".

BTW YMMV has been around on email & messageboards for over 10 years, so I'd be surprised if it's obscure.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

new to me. just looked it up on urban dictionary. i've never driven a car so it came out of leftfield for me.


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

IMHO you need to read a bit more widely then - most useful bit of advice the head of English ever gave at the start of the A level year 

It's only by reading things outside of your current comfort zone that you'll expand your command of English, and as your (in general) ability to understand or decode English improves, the same happens to the ability to do the same with other languages.  IMHO it's important to have some idea of the sort of thing which a non-native learner might struggle with, seeing as you'll be doing TEFL.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

have you any idea how patronising that sounds?
fuck right off


----------



## embree (May 28, 2011)

Never ever seen YMMV until Greebo posted it just there and no, I don't need to read more widely


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> have you any idea how patronising that sounds?



Would you like some vinegar for that chip?  Nobody else seems to have a problem with me, and I talk no differently to them than I do to you.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 28, 2011)




----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

Oh come on, OU asked for an explanation (as he has done before), and I gave it.  Then he called me patronising, like last time.  

He's done this to other posters, not just me.  IMHO OU has a bit of a sore spot, which he's reluctant to either mention or recognise.

I don't feel the need to calm down.  Any more calm and I'd be too laid back to type.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

just what is this sore spot?
I only objected to you talking down to me cos I wasn't familar with a leetspeak acronym and suddenly you're questioning my command of English and my credentials/ability to teach English?
and you have the nerve to tell me I should be more widely read? You don't know me, obviously.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Oh come on, OU asked for an explanation (as he has done before), and I gave it.  Then he called me patronising, like last time.


 what last time?


----------



## kabbes (May 28, 2011)

YMMV is as old as the hills.  It's as old as saying "it's as old as the hills".  The saying itself is ancient, well back beyond the mists of time, and I was reading the acronym on message boards at least as far back as 1999.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 28, 2011)

it is very old  but i notice it has had a popular resurgance  recently   and  has  taken over the role that used to be filled by IMHO


----------



## scifisam (May 28, 2011)

I have heard YMMV for years online but never anywhere else and I don't think the meaning is that obvious.


----------



## strung out (May 28, 2011)

your mileage may vary is well old, in real life and online.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

it's not that well used though, obviously cos I hadn't encountered it before. I tend not to venture onto boards that are heavy on the leetspeak


----------



## scifisam (May 28, 2011)

Clearly YMMV when it comes to YMMV.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)




----------



## strung out (May 28, 2011)

i'd still read some more books though if i were you


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

I read tonnes (books that is, not geek bulletin boards)! That's what I was most insulted about!


----------



## strung out (May 28, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> I read tonnes. That's what I was most insulted about!


 
nothing wrong with reading more though


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

there is if it eats into your studies. I read too much in fact.


----------



## embree (May 28, 2011)

I recommend you spend less time reading OU


----------



## strung out (May 28, 2011)

don't read a book ever again


----------



## embree (May 28, 2011)

If you feel the urge, get Greebo to read it for you


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

In a condescending manner!


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

embree said:


> I recommend you spend less time reading OU


 
less time reading about crappy four letter acronyms on the net, for sure!


----------



## Santino (May 28, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> In a condescending manner!



Condescending means talking down to someone. HTH.


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

It's not just quantity which counts, variety does too 

I'd tell you where you've called me and other urbanites patronising, but prefer to believe that you're able to use the search function - the most recent example was this year. 

BTW me, a geek?  Don't make me laugh.


----------



## embree (May 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> Condescending means talking down to someone. HTH.


 
That's only a three letter acronym though. HAND


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

Greebo said:


> It's not just quantity which counts, variety does too
> 
> I'd tell you where you've called me and other urbanites patronising, but prefer to believe that you're able to use the search function - the most recent example was this year.
> 
> BTW me, a geek?  Don't make me laugh.


i'm talking about variety as well as quantity but i don't have to prove my credentials to you. you really are a supercilious cunt. if i've called you patronising before i must have been bang on the money cos you're doing it again. fuck right off again and again.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

i take that back. i don't want to tell anyone to fuck off or call them a cunt unless they really deserve it,  but you've really wound me up with your condescension!


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2011)

quitter.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

i'm thinking of my blood pressure


----------



## embree (May 28, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i take that back. i don't want to tell anyone to fuck off or call them a cunt unless they really deserve it,  but you've really wound me up with your condescension!


 
wet liberal


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

that's not playing fair


----------



## embree (May 28, 2011)

OU just called you a cunt Greebo


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

.


----------



## Corax (May 28, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> just what is this sore spot?


 
I thought you were just one big sore spot tbh.  

Anyway, you should eat more books.


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

.


----------



## D'wards (May 28, 2011)

Can't be bothered to wade through the willy-waving, but were there any conclusions about the best Pratchetts to read?

I have read the first 5 in chronological , but rather than go in order i'd like to just pick the best ones to read.


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

Wyrd Sisters, Sourcery, Guards! Guards!, Night Watch, Equal Rites, Witches Abroad, Lords and Ladies, Carpe Jugulum, Thud!, Soul Music, Jingo, Nation, Going Postal, Mort, Reaper Man, Hogfather, Maskerade, Feet of clay, Maurice and his educated rodents, a hat full of sky, the wee free men... 

Is that enough to be going on with?


----------



## D'wards (May 28, 2011)

More than enough, thanks.

Though if you had to weed that list down to, say, 5 excluding Mort and Equal Rites, what would they be?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

D'wards said:


> More than enough, thanks.
> 
> Though if you had to weed that list down to, say, 5 excluding Mort and Equal Rites, what would they be?


 now we're getting somewhere!


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2011)

he called you a cunt again, greebo.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

stop it!


----------



## embree (May 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> he called you a cunt again, greebo.


 
and worse


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

.


----------



## Corax (May 28, 2011)

Greebo said:


> So?


 
It's totally unwarranted abuse.  You should report him.


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

Corax said:


> It's totally unwarranted abuse.  You should report him.


 
stop it!


----------



## embree (May 28, 2011)

Oh OU


----------



## Corax (May 28, 2011)

OU seriously, that's bang out of order.  You should edit pronto IMO.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 28, 2011)

i think i can credit greebo with enough intelligence to work out what's going on here


----------



## Greebo (May 28, 2011)

.


----------



## embree (May 28, 2011)

It's probably for the best Greebo. Hopefully OU will have calmed down by then


----------



## ginger_syn (May 29, 2011)

D'wards said:


> More than enough, thanks.
> 
> Though if you had to weed that list down to, say, 5 excluding Mort and Equal Rites, what would they be?


 Interesting times, Guards Guards, Lords and Ladies, The fifth elephant,and Night Watch, 
and have to say greebo your post was jaw droppingly patronizing


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 29, 2011)

Yeah I'm bored of this thread now, ta ta!


----------



## quimcunx (May 29, 2011)

They are an enjoyable read.  That is all they need to be.    I hate the rocky horror show.

/hasn't read thread]


----------



## ericjarvis (May 29, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> less time reading about crappy four letter acronyms on the net, for sure!


 
It is NOT a "four letter acronym". It can't be a four letter acronym because that would be a FLA, which is only a TLA (three letter acronym). The only correct term is ETLA (extended three letter acronym). 
HTH HAND IANALNDIPOOTV


----------



## ericjarvis (May 29, 2011)

D'wards said:


> More than enough, thanks.
> 
> Though if you had to weed that list down to, say, 5 excluding Mort and Equal Rites, what would they be?


 
You'll get different answers from different people. What do you most want from a book, story, jokes, ideas, character development, very absorbent paper?


----------



## kabbes (May 29, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It is NOT a "four letter acronym". It can't be a four letter acronym because that would be a FLA, which is only a TLA (three letter acronym). The only correct term is ETLA (extended three letter acronym).
> HTH HAND IANALNDIPOOTV


 
Strictly speaking, it's not even an acronym.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Strictly speaking, it's not even an acronym.


 
why ever not?


----------



## ericjarvis (May 29, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> why ever not?


 
IIRC (another ETLA) an acronym should actually be a pronounceable word. So IMHO ETLA is an acronym but TLA isn't.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 29, 2011)

YMMV is a pronouncable world if you use a bit of imagination and creativity.


----------



## kabbes (May 29, 2011)

Exactly.  An acronym is a word created via the initials of a sequence of words.  Such as LASER or TARDIS.  YMMV is an initialization, not an acronym.


----------



## kabbes (May 29, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> YMMV is a pronouncable world if you use a bit of imagination and creativity.


 
It's not about whether or not it is _possible_ to pronounce it as a word.  It's about whether or not it actually _does_ get pronounced as a word.  As opposed to a mere reading of the initials.


----------



## kabbes (May 29, 2011)

In fact, come to think of it, "YMMV" never even really gets pronounced even as "YMMV".  When I've heard it spoken, it's always in long form -- "your mileage may vary".


----------



## D'wards (Mar 16, 2016)

Reading Wyrd Sisters at the mo - the sixth one i've read (and the sixth he wrote - i'm a neurotic who must read them in order). This one has really clicked with me - it has made me laugh at loud a few times. I think he is a highly skilled writer, but gets dismissed as low-brow because of the subject matter.

And i know now where Greebo gets her name (and picture) from


----------



## Crispy (Mar 16, 2016)

Yeah, Wyrd Sisters is about where he hits his stride. From there, there's an unbroken chain of about a dozen superb books. After that there's the odd clunker.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 16, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Reading Wyrd Sisters at the mo - the sixth one i've read (and the sixth he wrote - i'm a neurotic who must read them in order). This one has really clicked with me - it has made me laugh at loud a few times. I think he is a highly skilled writer, but gets dismissed as low-brow because of the subject matter.
> 
> And i know now where Greebo gets her name (and picture) from



This is a very sensible approach.  With discworld and one or two other series of books I've read a selection of them but I can't accurately remember which, and reading the blurb doesn't necessarily help.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 16, 2016)

The colour of magic and the light fantastic  are in particular very different books.  I like them as well as  equal rights and  mort but they do have  a slightly  different tone.

I think the tone shifted again after feet of clay.


----------

