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

Jack Vance, yes, very fond of him.
I certainly don't think Pratchett is daft enough to rip off someone so well known in SF circles. He's get shot to pieces in seconds by SF fandom.
You can reference all the authors in the world with regard to Pratchett-for example the Last Hurrah of the Silver Horde in Interesting Times is clearly a reference to Norman Spinrad's Jerry Cornelius story, The Last Hurrah of the Golden Horde.

Whatever the references he chooses to use, his writing style is unique, and instantly recognisable.

magrat,
>>"And Duncun. 'Cos Duncun's me mate" <<

a non-antipodean

The first Prachett book I ever saw (which happened to be the first discworld novel) had a quote from some reveiwer on the front to the effect of "like Douglass Adams, but better".

Which was clearly bleashphemy, and made me quite cross.

But I read it anyway, and while, on the whole I don't like the Rincewind books as much as all the others (in fact I bought (bought, I tell you) both the last continent and the chinese one twice and was half way through before I realised I had, which nearly made me think he'd lost it, until someone gave me the latest two to read, but I digress), I think I've read them all and rather enjoyed them.

So until last summer I hadn't read Hitchiker for a long while (look I've internalised the dratted thing, ok?) but I had been reading Pratchett steadily.

And then last summer, someone gave me the Omnibus so I read it.

Yes there is a point. I'm getting to it...

And I was quite startled to find just how dissimilar I found it to P's books (somewhere the comparison had stuck).

Partly the writing style, though I can't put my finger on it.

Partly, as has been pointed out, the lack of a very tight plot.

But mostly I found that that long ago reveiwer, who had also included words such as cynical and black to descrobe the Hitchiker series, was actually right. I did find all the books somewhat bleak. So I disagree with Hoovooloo in that I found Harmless to be extreme, but still in keeping.

Not that that's a bad thing. Both writers are clever writers. But whereas P keeps me lightly amused, Adams goes to the bone. So that, in my book, makes him better.

Anyway.

The early HH stories were huge fun and seemed like something new in the world to me. A very real breath of fresh air although they maybe did have a dark undercurrent. They were even more enjoyable on the radio though, in the form they were probably intended to be presented in. The fifth book was a huge disappointment. My only memory of it is of being really emabarressed for DNA while reading it. It seemed like he was depressed and that didn't want to write it. I think I threw it away.
Dirk Gently was very different but clever and immensely enjoyable. A great character with real plots which kept me guessing all the way.

But I am flabbergasted to read here that some people don't like Pratchett books. This is unthinkable! It has been said that "Anyone can do parody". Maybe, but few are great masters at it like Pratchett. I also love the way he slowly builds jokes up and savours them over and over again and still manages to make them funny at the nteenth time of telling.

Pratchett's stories are predictable sometimes? Maybe so, but that doesn't have to make it any less enjoyable. You can listen to Pink Floyd (or whatever stirs your soul) over and over again, you know what is coming but it still moves you.

Some people seem to be a bit put off by Pratchett the man. Well, that is a pity because they are missing some great books. Small Gods and Pyramids stand out as the best for me.

Writings by both Pratchett and Adams have made me grin, chuckle, howl with laughter to the point of nearly wetting myself and sometimes they have even made me think a bit more deeply about the world and its people.

Oh, Pratchett gets my vote cause he is consistantly better all the time than Adams sometimes was.

DON'T PANIC and remember, "It's a god-eat-god world."

Om

"But whereas P keeps me lightly amused, Adams goes to the bone. So that, in my book, makes him better." - yes, that is close to my definition of better.

I tried re-reading the HH books recently, and got about half way through the second or third, before ambling off to do something else. I am ashamed to say that up to that point he hadn't hit my bone. I do remember the concept of 'outside the asylum' though, and I guess I'll retry again soon. I am happy to accept that the failing is in myself.

Pratchett on the other hand regularly goes to my bone. Hogfather is pretty bleak, and one of his best. And Witches Abroad definitely has a stiletto in the middle of the magic wand, and Small Gods transcends the genre. Lords and Ladies and Jingo too, in their own way. (I must re-read Jingo). In fact I find a lot of pretty dark stuff underlying most of the Pratchett books.

You named two of the weakest - Interesting Times never did it for me, I simply couldn't feel the 'chineseness' of it. And The Lost Continent was cute, but not much more. Though I liked the kangaroo.

One of the problems with Pratchet is the sheer size of the backlog. I read them all in the order they were published when they were published. (I left my paperback first edition of the Light Fantastic in a Turkish Bath in '87 - well it was just zis book...) I would find the entire oevre rather daunting if I was coming on it now for the first time.

a Pratchett fan called Ben

I have to say I've never been tempted by Pratchett ... actually that's not entirely true, I have been tempted but I've never been convinced. Perhaps its the sheer number of books that TP has written or perhaps it's the covers of the books, I don't know. I've dipped in to them to see if they titivate but still no spark.

It took me a long time to get into DNA (approx. 23 years) but once in I was hooked. I read the first 5 HH books in quick succession and therefore could never empathise with the "they don't follow" line of thinking. Mostly Harmless while undoubtedly not as good as the rest doesn't stick in my mind as being as bad as some people here make it out. No that prize goes to the supposed classical brilliance of War and Peace - don't get me started ...

I'm sure I will pop a snook at TP one of these days ... just not yet.

In a similar vein, has anyone read any Tom Holt? I found his style of writing quite similar to DNA's but then again that may just have been me - I've only read his first two books (Expecting Someone Taller and Who's Afraid of Beowulf) so can't vouch for everything he's ever done. There was a distinctly Dirk Gently feel to them though ...

Just nipping in with a plug for a TP you may not have come across because it's supposed to be a children's book...

The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents.

Call me juvenile but I enjoyed it just as much as all his others.

The first Tom Holt books are definitely (a) very good and (b) better than the later ones.

The problem with Pratchett is knowing where to start.

Ben

Yep. Tom Holt is another whose books I grab whenever I see them.

Which reminds me - someone asked about Sprouts further upthread. Barry the Guardian Sprout lives in the head of Rankin's wonderful detective Laszlo Woodbine.

Strangely enough, I was given the first Duscworld book for Christmas and 'enjoyed' it enough to continue reading the series. I don't think the first few were really THAT great. They weren't really THAT funny. But as the series progressed the books got better and better. Ridcully, the Bursar and co are great charachters who weren't as great earlier on. Granny Weatherwax seemed to have a complete transformation between Equal Rites and Wyrd Sisters.
Err, Douglas Adams is good too!

Someone earlier mentioned the character development you get in the Discworld books. I think for that reason your unlikely to see a Rincewind dedicated novel anytime soon. A brief plot synopsis of many of the rincewind titles is "Go somehere---Run away from it."
The City Watch, Death & Witches novels have got far more involving since their inception. (it helps to read the discworlds in order but frankly the first 5 would have put me off.)

Two points:

"Equal Rites" took place in a parallel Discworld and featured someone else called Granny Weatherwax. It's an example of not trying to take Pratchett's early Discworld stuff, particularly the first three, TOO seriously. The books only start getting GOOD, with "Mort" - and you can only seriously trace back most of what's accepted in Discworld back as far as Mort. e.g. In "The Colour of Magic", Rincewind is an incredibly talented linguist. This is *almost* never mentioned again, and he's generally portrayed as pretty incompetent, except at running. The Librarian, one of the most popular recurring characters, is just a throwaway one line joke in "The Light Fantastic". Death, in the first book, is too busy to see to Rincewind, so he sends Scrofula instead. The Death of the later books would never neglect his duties in this way. All of which is just an author getting better and developing his characters.

The best order to read the Discworld books in is the order they were written - but don't give up until you've read "Mort", the fourth one, and feel free to skip "Equal Rites" entirely, because it's really very different and doesn't fit in to subsequent continuity.

Point two: personally, I didn't say "Mostly Harmless" was *bad*. I was just that when I finished it I was too stunned to pick it up again. In many ways it was brilliant, and very affecting. I've never read any other book before or since which I can say I liked but I didn't want to read again immediately. It was a most uncomfortable feeling. And that's all I have to say about that.

H.

Yup Hoovooloo's right.

I agree about Rincewind. Captain Vimes and Granny Weatherwax turn up places and make things happen. Rincewind turns up places, and things happen to him and around him. He's less engaging for that, I think.

And as for Jack Vance, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser (?) were very clearly ripped off as Bravd the Hublander and the Weasel, in "The Colour of Magic" - just as Hrun was quite transparently Conan. In fairness, that was the *first* Discworld novel, back when they were just being straightforward parody rather than something cleverer. They almost immediately got cleverer with the introduction of Cohen the Barbarian in The Light Fantastic, and things got less like a "ripoff" and more like clever parody with a point with every subsequent book.

H.

Hi... a few points...

there's little enough good humourous fantasy without having to work out who's best... read as much as you can... TP's so prolific because he's terrified of having to do a real job ever again... nice to see Tom Holt mentioned... try and hunt down some of the Dragonlance books involving Kenders, gully dwarves and gnomes are they're hilarious
jacko.

Mischievous observation:

In his first (Discworld) book Terry Pratchett a fantasy novel which was clearly ripping off ideas, characters and situations from other fantasy classics.

In the subsequent (Discworld) books he developed his own unique style and has become one of the best writers in the fantasy genre.

If only I could say BOTH of those things about Terry *Brooks*.

H.

Look this is all very interesting but those of us on the "other channel" are trying to discuss the life of the North Sea Brown Crab and the opinions it may (or may not) hold about certain carbon based life forms and you lot keep getting last referal. Just pay attention to things that MATTER!!!!!!!!

OMIGOD! I don't think they'll have a very good opinion of this cblf as I had a brother crab for tea.... contrite? I am now.

You're asking a guy who wants to re-name the days of the week, to take like SERIOUSLY!!?

life, not "like"

"k" and "f" are several keys apart... the must have moved them...