h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Does anyone else agree that Mr Pratchett has gone downhill in recent years with the quality of his books? I mean, I find his earlier ones really enjoyable, but lately I can't pick up one of his novels and read a few pages without getting irritated with the style. Dunno what it is, can't quite put my finger on it. But his earlier style was far more enjoyable.

I've also found that people who really enjoy his later books tend to not like the earlier ones as much too. So there probably is a difference. Any ideas on what it is?

The insufferable smugness of it all?

I really noticed it in his last few books... but yet I still enjoy reading them. I think The Truth is my favourite recent one.

Smugness .. hmmm could be. How do you mean?

One thing I've noticed is the Excessive Use of Capital Letters When Describing Things. Though that is probably irritating by association by now rather than in itself.

Oh, the Excessive Use of Capitals is intentional, I don't mind that.

I don't know, there's something about the style he has developed that often grates. Perhaps it's just with the characters he's used recently, The Watch have long been my favourites (along with the Faculty), and perhaps it's just overfamiliarity with Vimes. Maybe it's all a bit too knowing. Vimes in particular always knows what to do - has already set traps for assassins, for example - and maybe that's what I am beginning to tire of. But I really can't put my finger on it yet...

I think the first time I noticed his new, irritating style was in Interesting Times, which I didn't like at all! And I haven't particularly enjoyed any of his books since then, though to be fair I've only read Maskerade, Hogfather, Jingo and The Truth.

As for books before Interesting Times .. Soul Music had tinges of it, as did Men At Arms, but nothing too bad. Small Gods, on the other hand, was fantastic - excellent characters and a lovely plot. And all the books prior to that were fine to excellent too. Perhaps it was right after that that his style started to deteriorate? Though only became noticably bad around Interesting Times.

There's a list of books here -> http://www.i-m-t.demon.co.uk/afp/biblio1.txt <- which I used to try to figure this out.

Strangely enough I didn't particularly like Small Gods. Interesting Times was enjoyable at the time... I haven't found his style particularly irritating until very recently, it may be more to do with the cumulative effect of having read every Discworld book. I used to think Feet of Clay was fantastic, as was The Truth, and Hogfather is fun to read at Christmas time.

Perhaps I am just beginning to tire of poor ol' Sam Vimes and the Watch.

Could be. What did you think of Jingo?

Do you like his earlier books as much too?

I remember enjoying reading Jingo, I enjoy reading every one of this books. Can't remember much about it though!

I remember his early books fondly, I think they had a slightly different flavour to them. Maybe it's just because I'm older, but his new books seem to be less fantastical, in a way.

I think maybe the latest book just had too many familiar elements to it, such as the rather generic bad guy who reminded me of various other 'pure evil, mad genius' types. There are certainly a lot of recurring themes in the storylines.

i know wat u mean by a different style, although personaly i found they got better as they went alone

i found that at first they were more of a generic fantasy story and as they developed became more whimsical and, for me at least funnier.

characters like Death and Granny Weatherwax developed from simple idea into solid personalities that the reader can identify with-and to do that with an metaphor (Death) is pretty damn good!

It appears that a lot of Pratchett fans are becoming disillusioned. I have re-read his books a number of times; and have noticed that the content is becoming darker.I liked the early books because they were light, and appealed to my sense of humour. i find that this no longer applies. Have recently read 'Odds & Gods' by Tom Holt, and found it more to my taste. T.H. has turned out a number of books, and my son informs me that they are equally as good.

I dappled in Tom Holt's work during my Pratchett/Adams phase, and while it was amusing in a passes-the-time kind of way, it never really grabbed me. I would describe it as, in fact, a cross between Pratchett and Adams.

But not as wonderful as that might sound.

Tom Holt, like Terry Pratchett used to be good but his recent books seem to have a kind of frantic air to them. Lots of characters, lots of threads all needing connecting. I'm not a huge fan of fantasy generally, I prefer science fiction but Terry PRatchett did something different with Discworld which lots of authors have tried to copy. His use of language, especially descriptive language, was innovative, and poetic as well in places. And funny. Perhaps he has to try too hard to retain the particular flavour of his characters and language in the face of the competition so it all seems a bit forced at times. I've also read David Eddings but that is as far into 'real' fantasy as I am prepared to go

I think that Terry is a bit the victim of his own success.

The first books were written without the pressure of coming up every year with a new book or idea. After the initial batch Terry tried to tackle with every book another subject, and satrize it. It generally works, mainly because he has now created that many characters and scenes on Discworld that he can choose from them.

The one I thought went totally overboard (and where I suspect he wasn't just drinking his daily whiskey but something stronger) was the Australia persiflage.

Altough I love his work (been a Belgian fan from book 1) I would prefer him to maybe reduce the output and indeed return slightly to the swing of language of his initial books.


Midrac
http://users.skynet.be/midrac

I prefer later books, and anyway, since when did anyone read a Discworld book to analyse the style? I read them for enjoyment, not to write an essay. The reason I prefer books after Moving Pictures is because up till then he was creating the characters, so they weren't as defined as they are now. Plus after Moving Pictures the faculty stayed stble in terms of who was in it, just the mental state deteriated!

I have to say I didn't like Small Gods particularly, but some bits were funny. I want eyes like Vorbis!

Dragonlover

You don't have to read the books you don't like.

I noticed that the first three or so Discworld books are funnier and have more action, then the next few wax introspective at times, and now the newer books have ties to all the others, but they are in some ways more like his earlier Discworld books.

i like them all although i read for the humor rather than because they are books in a series although i like some that oter ople don't like particually night watch which was funny but had quite a dark theme to it

drat ive gone all analytical i told myself not to do that

i have to agree with fallen angel girl on this one. i like all his books even though the style changes quite a lot from the first ones to the most recent. I like both styles so I suppose that's quite a good position to be in. still, if I had to pick between the two I would pick his more recent books. I think night watch is one of my favourites from all of them. Just my opinion though, I can see why people would prefer both styles.
A Random Person

wait that should have been
A Rando Person

sorry i keep forgetting not to put spaces in the smiley codes

wait that should have been
A Random Person

sorry i keep forgetting not to put spaces in the smiley codes

and i just posted twice!
sorry i'm not having a good day today, you'll have to excuse me.