Be Excellent To Each Other

I went through a bit of a 'Pratchett Phase' about 10 years ago, but ultimately, I just couldn't be dealing with that meandering, verbose style of writing with those endless fucking 'footnotes' that essentially told the same joke roughly one thousand times over.

I did like The Librarian, Death of Rats and The Luggage though, and as others have noted, Good Omens is a 24-carat classic. I too have read that at least three times over. (Gotta love Crowley's Bentley with James Bond bullet stickers obtained from the petrol station, and the quote '... in Hell, they really are all out to get you'.

(I've not seen any of the TV adaptations)

Hmm don't find him meandering or verbose and I must be pretty dense because the footnotes often raise a chuckle and I don't normally laugh at a joke after I have already heard it (unless a hot lady is telling it).

Each to their own I suppose, what authors do you like? What are your opinions on Adams for example?

Meandering and verbose? Are you sure that you were reading Pratchett and not Rowling???

This. I think I felt the same way after a phase lasting for one book. I wanted to like it.. but just didn't

It's certainly not a case of being 'dense' old chap. Hey, maybe I'm just a miserable old bastard!

Seriously though, just differences in sense of humour, I guess. Too few mentions of toilet mishaps for my liking...

I am very poorly read I'm ashamed to say. Many years ago I was an avid reader of sci-fi and horror, very much enjoying the likes of Assimov, Clarke, Dick, Vonnegut, Robinson, Banks and yes, King and Herbert too, with a bit of Tom Sharpe thrown in for good measure, for laughs, not to mention such staples as Tolkien of course. I seriously can't remember the last book I read now though, suffice to say this was at least 3 years back. The joys of running a small business in a recession...

As for Adams, I love HHGTTG of course; laugh out loud funny (Slarty Bartfast... L-LOL). And the original R4 and '80s TV adaptationss of it were awesome too IMO. (I couldn't bring myself to watch the latest Hollywood offering; this was so manifestly slated over at WoS at the time, I just thought let sleeping dogs lie).

Each to his own, man.
For me, Pratchett does far too much dithering and dicking about; his books are way too 'fussy', trying to be amusing via the same old route over and over (namely his constantly drawing clumsy parallels between Discworld and our own vague history and values... we got it the 100th time, Terry), all at the expense of a compelling - and at times even coherent - storyline.

Not exactly gripping stuff for me, then, but at least quaintly amusing in parts, albeit in an entirely predictable and oft repeated manner throughout the Discworld series.

That's how I ended up feeling about Tolkien, there was a good story in there but it took too long/was too much effort to get anywhere because of all the extraneous detail, which was a shame.

He must've done something right though, enough people whose opinions I value about books liked LOTR.

Did Tolkien actually finish naming the dwarfs*? I fell asleep.

*Dwarfs? Dwarves? He makes a fussy distinction, doesn't he? Buggered if I remember which, though.

I almost prefer backstory, setting, and exposition to plot. 90% of fantasy writers are much better at creating a universe than they are at writing a story. So you all suck.

Never read any of his books. The covers look nice though.

Dear Lord, I agree about Tolkein. I got half way through the second Lord Of The Rings book and couldn't put up with any more of the characters doing nothing but walking.

See also: endless bloody poetry and Tom Bombadil. Or "Tom Fucking Bombadil" to give him his full name.

When I read LOTR I felt a bit guilty skipping the pages of bloody elvish poetry, like I might be missing something important or enlightening. I don't think I did.

Those Tolkein books are the usual 'classics' which turn out to not be so great after all once you discover how tiresome they are. The Emperor's Old Books, if you like.

T. Pratchett's books are better the older you get, with the more historical, cultural and world knowledge you have in your brain neurons. Do agree that his books could be a little 'tighter', though.

Dimrill's going to come back, read what you've all written about Tolkein, and murder you all. FYI.

Oh good.

I can live with being murdered to get an Dimrill back.

I think a virgin blood sacrifice might help actually, so cheers.

Nicely played, sir, nicely played.

Owned

*Equips Shirt of Unlifting*

Is that the opposite of Tolkien's Shirt of Lifting which has loads of tiny details that really make your outfit?

It gets worse

I know a friend with that. I read a bit. It is as bad as you might think.

/shivers

Oh my word.

Tolkien's works really are just a bottomless pit of horror.

I must say, I find it fascinating how tastes vary. For me, there's just no comparison between Pratchett and Tolkein, even though their works are (vaguely) of the same genre.

I well remember being genuinely thrilled by The Hobit when I read it as part of the school syllabus, when I was 11, and being equally thrilled by The Lord of the Rings trilogy perhaps 5 years later. Tolkein, I think, has a genuine story to tell; all that extravagant detail (a bit too extravagant perhaps?) is a bonus. With Pratchett that detail is inferior and rather more base I feel, and in terms of an actual storyline there's really no comparison at all IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I've read quite a few Discworld novels (and particularly enjoyed Mort and Reaper Man), but Tolkein's yarns remain vividly in-memory/focus for me, unlike most others I have read and despite the 30-odd years since I actually read these particular books. That for me is the acid test for a truly great book, relatively speaking of course.

I must say that I loved reading The Hobbit. Not half as meandering as LotR which I have attempted to read on several occasions and have put down after hitting the Bomberdildo.

The Hobbit was great can't say I enjoyed the adult books though.

Just started my first Discworld adventure that is aimed at children and I am really enjoying it even though so far it has been all new characters. The Wee Free Men is the book in question so thanks for this thread for pointing me in a new and wonderful direction. Tiffany Aching is already rising steadily in my all time list of Discworld inhabitants.

Blimey, are they? You're comparing epic fantasy and satire that uses fantasy as a backdrop. I'd say they were miles apart, personally.

Also, whilst it may seem something that he had in common with Pratchett, Tolkien didn't actually have Alzheimer's. It's a common misconception. He just wrote as if he did. He kept forgetting that he'd already had the characters walk for miles to [place with silly name], and so then, in what he thought was a fit of inspiration, wrote in a bit about them walking to [place with silly name but with a typo], and then forgot about that bit of walking, and wrote some more the next week after he'd had his special pills. Ad nauseam.

And he fiddled kiddies.

Or was that Lewis Carrol?

Anyway, the creator of Tom Bombadil must have been on some sort of watch list.

Nobody I've ever met has liked the Old Forest section of LotR or Tom Bomberdil.

Um, I like that bit of the book.

Sorry.

Pervert.

Miles apart...? Really?

They're both fantasy (and in fact, Pratchett borrows heavily from Tolkein in every book of his that I've ever read) - that's close enough for me, personally. I did say 'vaguely'.

I would agree that they are in no way comparable in qualitative terms though, albeit this being only my entirely subjective assessment. Having said that, I don't want to be drawn into a tedious and entirely pointless 'Tolkein ownz Pratchett' style argument here, as clearly such things are all down to personal preference. Just as there are many who wax lyrical about many films, or indeed many other art forms that I happen to think are crap (For instance, Inglorious Basterds anyone? What utter pish IMO. I love 2001, but Mrs Caveman thinks it interminable, incomprehensible rubbish etc. etc.).

I, personally, think genre is more about the meat of the subject matter and the window dressing you're talking about is "setting".

For example Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan is set in a cyberpunk dystopian world, but is actually a classic noir detective novel in the style of Raymond Chandler; complete with double-crossing femme fatales, steamy underworld characters, and a grimly determined protaganist who skirts the law to get to the bottom of the convoluted case.

So it is with Pratchett; as he matured as a writer, his work moved from slapstick farce and into pretty sophisticated satire, and to me it feels much more that that's what it's about. The fantasy aspects are just the mirror he holds up to our world. Sam Vimes, to my mind, is one of the most entertaining fictional detectives I've ever read.

Quite. I don't think they are comparable at all, either, particularly. It's like the Simpsons drunk argument between Lenny and Carl about "which is better: Mohammad Ali in his prime, or anti-lock brakes?"

Edit -- another example -- is Alien a sci-fi film or a horror film that just happens to be set in space with an alien antagonist? To my mind, it's structured like a horror film, so that's what it is. The fact it has a sci-fi setting is almost incidental to the themes of the film.

<mutters about post-modernism and Footballer's Wives>

It takes place in space, on a space ship, and has an alien in it, ergo it's sci-fi that happens to be scary.

Oh no!

Mind you, sci-fi isn't really a genre.

I tell you a film is set on a space ship and has aliens in it, you still don't know what sort of film it is. It could be funny, or scary, or a clever satire, or an action packed thriller. Whereas if I tell you it's a horror film, you know some things about what the film is likely to contain and involve.

I think if the term "genre" is going to convey any useful meaning at all, it has to be more in the latter type of decription than the former.

It's a sci-fi horror film. Or a sci-fi/horror film. Or a sci-horror-fi film. Why limit yourself to one description, unless you're a nerd who files his DVDs by genre?

Guillermo del Toro files his DVDs alphabetically by director. Now that's a nerd.

I have two big Ikea bookcases, two DVDs deep, randomly ordered. It's fun.

Wait. You mean you're not Guillermo del Toro? I'm confused. Who are you again?

Kevin Smith. Duh.

You mean they aren't the same guy either?!?! My mind: BLOWN.

Re: LotR and Pratchett being comparable because they're both 'fantasy'.

1984 and Star Wars are both science fiction. But you wouldn't lump them together very often (not least because one's a book and one's a film series... but I digress).


EDIT - Also, Lord of the Rings and Gulliver's Travels are both 'fantasy'.

If current technology is as advanced or beyond the tech described in an old Sci-Fi, does the old book/Film become a Fi?

Yes, I think the key term here is 'vaguely', as I mentioned previously... 1984 and Star Wars are much more comparable than say, two films of a completely different genre, let's say 1984 and Gone with the Wind, for example?

Anyway, I think most would agree that there are at least vague parallels between Pratchett's Discworld novels and Tolkein's works; the fact that the former tends to be satire whereas the latter is not doesn't change this fundamentally.

Ahem. Star Wars is not science fiction. It is fantasy. It has more in common with the Lord of the Rings than say, 2001.