"Terry Pratchett is not a literary genius" - And you are? You fool.

a reply to: Revolution9

He writes parody and satire. He does it with humor and insight and, yes, genius. For someone to say he is 'mediocre' is ridiculous. In his chosen genre he is a Master. Is it "lit-er-ah-teeure?"

Jane Austin received the same criticism for her work during her lifetime. Gee. I guess we should be ashamed at calling such drivel "literature."

The critic held up Jane Austin as literature - here is just one of her detractors:

Ralph Waldo Emerson. Another writer with “American” objections to Austen. “I am at a loss to understand why people hold Miss Austen’s novels at so high a rate, which seem to me vulgar in tone, sterile in artistic invention, imprisoned in their wretched conventions of English society, without genius, wit, or knowledge of the world. Never was life so pinched and narrow. … All that interests in any character [is this]: has he (or she) the money to marry with? … Suicide is more respectable.”

Link

And HE was also a genius.


It seems that genius can go into more category than one? Mediocre, he is not.

- AB

originally posted by: eriktheawful
To me a good writer is someone who:

1) Has published more than once or twice.
2) Has sold many copies of the books they have published.
3) Has a lot of fans of their work, enough so that their books get republished again and again.
4) Is able to tell a good story.

I wholeheartly disagree.
Just like any arts, I'm convinced plenty of good writers will never publish.

Also, forget critics. Most of them have zero talent, who are they to judge other's works?

a reply to: Gemwolf

I agree 100% with you, and unfortunately you fell for some click bait from some second rate, hack journalist. Now because you shared the article here, he is going to get MORE clicks for this travesty of an article.

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: Gemwolf

Pratchett writes contemporary pulp fiction like Stephen King does. Neither are classic writers. They are commercial writers. His prose style reflects that. He writes for common people and keeps his prose simple. Yes, he has a talent, but it is certainly not high brow literature is it and to suggest that it is shows a lack of literary understanding of genres and what a classic is.

I have tried reading him, but it is like reading baby writing to me. I need the intellectual stimulus. I like to be challenged mentally. Pratchett does not do this. Imaginative, yes, but please don't try and make him out to be some classic genius. That shows an uncultured mind.

You are missing the forest for the trees. Pratchet's genius lies in his satire. By making certain subtle similarities to real life in his books, he is able to critique modern society with fantasy novels. That alone should get him tons of recognition since it goes against the grain of what that genre does, and it WORKS.

I was an avid reader of Terry's books when I was a teenager. They were very funny and full of clever quotes you could repeat to your friends.

This blogger has little right to criticise something he has not even read.

However when I have given the books to m y adult friends they have been less than impressed. In fact I myself tried reading them again and stopped shortly into the book.

The books had a target audience, the younger generations and for that audience they are fantastic.

Anyway, I have fond memories of my times reading the books.

I think its pretty pathetic to be insulted by a persons opinion about someone who isnt you.

You are like the Cumberbatch fans who attack anyone who dares say anything negative about him.
And as others have stated, TP is a very creative writer and i enjoyed many of his books when i was younger, sure, but im not sure that literarey genius is the right word for him. Sorry.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: eriktheawful
To me a good writer is someone who:

1) Has published more than once or twice.
2) Has sold many copies of the books they have published.
3) Has a lot of fans of their work, enough so that their books get republished again and again.
4) Is able to tell a good story.

I wholeheartly disagree.
Just like any arts, I'm convinced plenty of good writers will never publish.

Also, forget critics. Most of them have zero talent, who are they to judge other's works?

Does that mean that someone who cant cook at chef level has no right to critique food? Or someone who cant design is not entitled to an opinion on a brand or logo. I know im not a director, but im pretty sure that my opinion on a film is as validas a directors opinion.

What a silly argument you used.

a reply to: eriktheawful
I very much disagree with your requirements for a good writer. Many commercial authors are nothing fantastic and yet fulfill every or near every requirement you have listed. The amount of works published should not be in the equation of whether or not the writer is good. A writer may very well be unknown to anyone or a very small group of people and write some of the most beautiful images. I've read commercial books, yes some are good, but most are very simplistic with mere actions and plot which make up a story, but done in a non amazing way.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

I'd say that a guy who hasn't even read the books he is critiquing has no valid opinion on them, regardless of his experience.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: eriktheawful
To me a good writer is someone who:

1) Has published more than once or twice.
2) Has sold many copies of the books they have published.
3) Has a lot of fans of their work, enough so that their books get republished again and again.
4) Is able to tell a good story.

I wholeheartly disagree.
Just like any arts, I'm convinced plenty of good writers will never publish.

Also, forget critics. Most of them have zero talent, who are they to judge other's works?

If they've never published, then I've never read what they have written, therefore, I can't say if they are a good writer or not.

I do know that there are plenty of writers out there that are good at telling stories, who have never published. My ex-wife is one of these. I've urged her to publish over the years, but she's just too shy about. However, she's an excellent writer.

I have never been able to get into Pratchett's work either. Like the critic, I think there is just too many great books to read. I have something like 200 books on my computer right now, and I am always buying more. I have only read the first book in the discworld series. And the ideas in it were fantastic. Unlike the hack blogger. I recognize the genius of his work. I just have not had the time to read him. When I try, I am always distracted by something else.

Can someone tell me a good entry point book of his to read please.

a reply to: karmicecstasy

If you have read the first book in the Discworld series, then go ahead and read the next one... And the one after that, and then... You know what? Read the one after that too, and so on and so forth!

a reply to: TrueBrit

That is how I normally do things. I am OCD about reading and watching things in order. But when I tried the second book. I just could not get into it. So since I think the books, while a series, can be somewhat read stand alone. I was hoping someone could give me the title of a really, good one. So I can fall in love with the series and author. Ignite a passion so then maybe I can get through all the books.

Pratchett is someone I have always wanted to get into, but just haven't.

There are plenty of writers who create perfectly great art, but fail to rise to the somewhat hard to define heights of classic "Literature."

Despite the academic failings that can include the stuffy, false airs of superiority that weak minds wield to appear smart, classic literature IS unique and stands alone. It can change one's life and mental make-up, or a whole culture, or the world... profoundly.

However, there are many, many worthwhile works that will never make the big "L" list, but are amazing in effect as well as entertainment in their own manner... apples and oranges, both different ...but both nourishing as well as yummy.

So Pratchett doesn't make the big "L" list... big deal. It doesn't mean his work isn't great... just not classic Literature.

The writer-critic is both right AND wrong. Pratchett fans can relax and keep re-reading... but just because one loves something, doesn't make it great, timeless, universally astounding art... and that's fine.

OK so this thread's passionate responses have made me want to read a Terry Pratchett book. I don't want to miss out on something that has got people so riled up.

Seems like Discworld would be a good one to start with?

Scally

a reply to: karmicecstasy

Well, you could go for the Wyrd Sisters. That book, and the others which fall into the bracket of the Discworld Series which involve the Witches are legendary all on their own to be honest.

originally posted by: Scallywwagg
OK so this thread's passionate responses have made me want to read a Terry Pratchett book. I don't want to miss out on something that has got people so riled up.

Seems like Discworld would be a good one to start with?

Scally

Pick up "Good Omens" a book Sir Terry wrote with Neil Gaiman.

One of my all-time favorites!

Oops I lied when I said I only read the first Discworld book. I have also read Good Omens. But only because I have read everything Gaiman has written. So I second that as a good book.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Thank you for that recommendation. I am buying that book as soon as possible.

a reply to: beezzer

Ok will do, thanks and would love to be able to report back.