The bones of Raising Steam are Pratchett but there isn't any of the inspiration clothing the skeleton.
Most of his books have a sledgehammer, but in his earlier books it's decorated up so it looks like a rubber clown mallet.
The bones of Raising Steam are Pratchett but there isn't any of the inspiration clothing the skeleton.
Most of his books have a sledgehammer, but in his earlier books it's decorated up so it looks like a rubber clown mallet.
From memory of Rob Wilkin's book, Raising Steam as submitted to the publisher was virtually plotless, and had to be heavily reconstructed. It's pretty obvious that there wasn't a lot of TP left by then. Evil bastard disease. There's a number of points in that book that had me blubbering, one before it was even opened, in the display in Waterstones window.
I've often wondered about Snuff. In many ways it seems to exist to give Vimes amongst others, a happy ending, despite the ghastliness uncovered therein, and bury a few hatchets. I guess after all the crap he had waded through, Sam needed a valediction?
I should also mention of the Tiffany Aching books that I nearly cried reading the first, the Feegles had me in stitches. Loving (that was meant to be living, but productive toast has made such a good typo that I am leaving it in) a Scot helps, and I loved that TP claimed that the book was launched at an event in Inverness "to see if I lived".
So, I'm a relatively recent Pratchett Convert but a complete and total one. OK, that's got that off.
Wow, so many diverse views on here.
I'll start with Raising Steam. My wife's family are all big Pratchett fans too but interestingly, despite my arguments, Mother-in-law has never read it. To be specific she started in and then gave up because she was bored by the technical references to Steam technology. That's definitely a feature, as the industrial revolution hits the Discworld but it's a multilayer and brilliant story. It's a Moist story and a Goblin story and it's the completion of the Sam Vines / Low King of the Dwarfs story arcs.
I think there was some confusion above - Snuff is the one that's a cudgel about slavery and AIUI, Pratchett completed Raising Steam in his usual way. It's The Shepherd's Crown that was unfinished when he died. Whether you can see the effects of his disease and decline in the later books is inevitably a matter of opinion to some extent. My wife felt that The Shepherd's Crown lacked something but I didn't feel that, myself. I'm open to the possibility that I'm not as attuned to Pratchett as some fans but I didn't feel it was below par at all. Mostly because (spoiler)
The death of Granny Weatherwax was so beautifully and perfectly written. This felt like an appropriate completion of her story arc. Death's words to Granny are perfect:
"ESMERELDA WEATHERWAX, YOU KNOW WHO COMES, AND MAY I SAY IT’S A PRIVILEGE TO DEAL WITH YOU."
The note attached to the book says that Pratchett had written it all, just not finished his normal re-drafting process. Certainly, the plot harks back to various Witch novels, especially Lords and Ladies. I really liked it. YMMV, of course.
I have read all of the Discworld books more than once. I got introduced to the world via Guards, Guards which remains one of my favourites. It's so typical of the humour where Carrot, Nobby and Fred Colon knowing that million-to-one shots come off nine times out of ten, worry that their crazy plan it's quite unlikely enough so decide to set about making it more difficult, just to get to a million-to-one. I then read the Death books and the Witches and as a consequence, I had read at least half a dozen Discworld novels before reading The Colour of Magic. Which is why to me, it definitely read like an author learning his craft. It's nowhere near as polished and as good a story as his later books.
Anyway, FWIW, Monstrous Regiment is not one of my favourites - in fact, it's probably my least favourite. To me, the joke wears a little thin after a while. Although interestingly I enjoyed it more the second time I read it. Possibly because I was expecting not to... But having read them all and loved most of them, a couple of years ago I went back and read them all in order from The Colour of Magic to The Shepherd's Crown. I would recommend all Pratchett fans to do this at some point - the interwoven nature of the plots is so wonderfully laid out when you do that. I also have the Map of Discworld which I like to have handy whenever the story leaves the Ramparts or Ankh-Morpork. I enjoy all the Tiffany Aching books - they never felt like children's books to me (in the way that The Amazing Maurice does). Mostly because I think the Feegles are wonderful and also because it's really interesting watching Tiff herself grow up from a pre-teen who did not know she was a witch to one of extreme power and ability very much the right successor to Mistress Weatherwax as the leader of a group who does not have any leaders...
Finally a thought, about the adaptations. I have enjoyed all the ones I've seen. David Jason as Rincewind I didn't expect to work but I thought was wonderful. Charles Dance was a wonderful Patrician. No one above mentioned the recent animated adaptation of The Amazing Maurice - I found it a little disappointing; I didn't think it was quite as vibrant as the novel but it did come with some amazing voice talent.
Anyway, that's enough waffle from me. Some very diverse opinions here.
To any who haven't read Pratchett before then welcome and enjoy! For the sake of this thread you might want to start with Monstrous Regiment but if you don't like it, it is worth starting with either the witches in Equal Rites or the Watch in Guards Guards.
For the sake of this thread you might want to start with Monstrous Regiment but if you don't like it, it is worth starting with either the witches in Equal Rites or the Watch in Guards Guards.
Yes, that's what I'll be doing. I'll persevere with Monstrous Regiment although I'm unconvinced I'm going to like it any more as it goes on although I found very poignant
the bit which describes how Polly's brother came to life when it came to recognising birds, and how his picture was destroyed
but I definitely feel inspired to try some other Pratchetts.
Feeling as if I have stumbled across a huge Pratchett revival cult on the secret third deck of the Ship! I must get hold of more of his novels, I'm very much a novice here.
Pratchett is a bit “marmite “ - you either love him and find him hilarious, or you just can’t see why he commands such a following.
I wouldn't say I find him hilarious - rather I find he has an acute observational ability which he expresses with humour.
I think the footnotes are often the best bits of his novels. Then again, I also think the Appendices are the best part of the Lord of the Rings and prefer the Silmarillion anyway. I find it particularly odd that people who can read the (to me) impenetrable Dickens or Austen struggle with the Silmarillion, which I find totally straightforward and simple.
I have them all and have read them all many times.
Favourites include Thief of Time, Interesting Times, and especially Pyramids.
I miss looking forward to each new books they were published.
Pratchett is a bit “marmite “ - you either love him and find him hilarious, or you just can’t see why he commands such a following.
I wouldn't say I find him hilarious - rather I find he has an acute observational ability which he expresses with humour.
I think the footnotes are often the best bits of his novels. Then again, I also think the Appendices are the best part of the Lord of the Rings and prefer the Silmarillion anyway. I find it particularly odd that people who can read the (to me) impenetrable Dickens or Austen struggle with the Silmarillion, which I find totally straightforward and simple.
Yeah - his footnotes have all the best jokes. And we're being the same person again - I read the Silmarillion with a torch under the covers when I was a child, and have never understood why people find it such hard going. It's got all the good bits, without spending 800 pages listening to Frodo and Sam describe the country path they're walking down.
Pratchett is a bit “marmite “ - you either love him and find him hilarious, or you just can’t see why he commands such a following.
I wouldn't say I find him hilarious - rather I find he has an acute observational ability which he expresses with humour.
I think the footnotes are often the best bits of his novels. Then again, I also think the Appendices are the best part of the Lord of the Rings and prefer the Silmarillion anyway. I find it particularly odd that people who can read the (to me) impenetrable Dickens or Austen struggle with the Silmarillion, which I find totally straightforward and simple.
Yeah - his footnotes have all the best jokes. And we're being the same person again - I read the Silmarillion with a torch under the covers when I was a child, and have never understood why people find it such hard going. It's got all the good bits, without spending 800 pages listening to Frodo and Sam describe the country path they're walking down.
Three things I'm not really interested in in a book:
1. Character development arcs. Characters are plot devices to me; I'm not interested in them finding themselves or resolving deep seated issues. I'm interested in how they interact with the plot. I even get bored with Star Trek when it's about Worf sorting out his feelings towards Alexander. Let's find a planet with some Romulan shenanigans going on that we can thwart or a Borg base to sabotage. Photon torpedoes optional.
2. Descriptive passages. It was a wooden door. That'll do me. What's behind it?
3. Hidden symbolism and stuff. Although I sometimes think half of that is invented by English teachers as part of their job retention scheme
What I am interested in:
A story with a beginning, middle and end and some unexpected twists and turns along the way.
(For those familiar with the meme, as far as I'm concerned it means the curtains were blue.)
Pratchett is a bit “marmite “ - you either love him and find him hilarious, or you just can’t see why he commands such a following.
I wouldn't say I find him hilarious - rather I find he has an acute observational ability which he expresses with humour.
I think the footnotes are often the best bits of his novels. Then again, I also think the Appendices are the best part of the Lord of the Rings and prefer the Silmarillion anyway. I find it particularly odd that people who can read the (to me) impenetrable Dickens or Austen struggle with the Silmarillion, which I find totally straightforward and simple.
Yeah - his footnotes have all the best jokes. And we're being the same person again - I read the Silmarillion with a torch under the covers when I was a child, and have never understood why people find it such hard going. It's got all the good bits, without spending 800 pages listening to Frodo and Sam describe the country path they're walking down.
Three things I'm not really interested in in a book:
1. Character development arcs. Characters are plot devices to me; I'm not interested in them finding themselves or resolving deep seated issues. I'm interested in how they interact with the plot. I even get bored with Star Trek when it's about Worf sorting out his feelings towards Alexander. Let's find a planet with some Romulan shenanigans going on that we can thwart or a Borg base to sabotage. Photon torpedoes optional.
In fairness I think Worf was pretty bored of that too, which is why there are now loads of memes about Worf abandoning Alexander / not remembering who he is etc.
Pratchett is a bit “marmite “ - you either love him and find him hilarious, or you just can’t see why he commands such a following.
I wouldn't say I find him hilarious - rather I find he has an acute observational ability which he expresses with humour.
I think the footnotes are often the best bits of his novels. Then again, I also think the Appendices are the best part of the Lord of the Rings and prefer the Silmarillion anyway. I find it particularly odd that people who can read the (to me) impenetrable Dickens or Austen struggle with the Silmarillion, which I find totally straightforward and simple.
Yeah - his footnotes have all the best jokes. And we're being the same person again - I read the Silmarillion with a torch under the covers when I was a child, and have never understood why people find it such hard going. It's got all the good bits, without spending 800 pages listening to Frodo and Sam describe the country path they're walking down.
Three things I'm not really interested in in a book:
1. Character development arcs. Characters are plot devices to me; I'm not interested in them finding themselves or resolving deep seated issues. I'm interested in how they interact with the plot. I even get bored with Star Trek when it's about Worf sorting out his feelings towards Alexander. Let's find a planet with some Romulan shenanigans going on that we can thwart or a Borg base to sabotage. Photon torpedoes optional.
2. Descriptive passages. It was a wooden door. That'll do me. What's behind it?
3. Hidden symbolism and stuff. Although I sometimes think half of that is invented by English teachers as part of their job retention scheme
What I am interested in:
A story with a beginning, middle and end and some unexpected twists and turns along the way.
(For those familiar with the meme, as far as I'm concerned it means the curtains were blue.)
That's intriguing. Mostly because a lot of the Discworld books, much like Douglas Adams, are masterpieces despite a weak storyline.*
Feeling as if I have stumbled across a huge Pratchett revival cult on the secret third deck of the Ship! I must get hold of more of his novels, I'm very much a novice here.
Pratchett is a bit “marmite “ - you either love him and find him hilarious, or you just can’t see why he commands such a following.
I wouldn't say I find him hilarious - rather I find he has an acute observational ability which he expresses with humour.
I think the footnotes are often the best bits of his novels. Then again, I also think the Appendices are the best part of the Lord of the Rings and prefer the Silmarillion anyway. I find it particularly odd that people who can read the (to me) impenetrable Dickens or Austen struggle with the Silmarillion, which I find totally straightforward and simple.
Yeah - his footnotes have all the best jokes. And we're being the same person again - I read the Silmarillion with a torch under the covers when I was a child, and have never understood why people find it such hard going. It's got all the good bits, without spending 800 pages listening to Frodo and Sam describe the country path they're walking down.
Three things I'm not really interested in in a book:
1. Character development arcs. Characters are plot devices to me; I'm not interested in them finding themselves or resolving deep seated issues. I'm interested in how they interact with the plot. I even get bored with Star Trek when it's about Worf sorting out his feelings towards Alexander. Let's find a planet with some Romulan shenanigans going on that we can thwart or a Borg base to sabotage. Photon torpedoes optional.
2. Descriptive passages. It was a wooden door. That'll do me. What's behind it?
3. Hidden symbolism and stuff. Although I sometimes think half of that is invented by English teachers as part of their job retention scheme
What I am interested in:
A story with a beginning, middle and end and some unexpected twists and turns along the way.
(For those familiar with the meme, as far as I'm concerned it means the curtains were blue.)
That's intriguing. Mostly because a lot of the Discworld books, much like Douglas Adams, are masterpieces despite a weak storyline.*
Feeling as if I have stumbled across a huge Pratchett revival cult on the secret third deck of the Ship! I must get hold of more of his novels, I'm very much a novice here.
We are not a revival cult.
Pratchettism never died.
AFZ
*ducks behind the sofa
I never said the stories had to be particularly good. I'd not say that Pratchett's were particularly weak; they seem - appropriately strong? - for the setting.
Besides, I'd say that the stories Pratchett tells are stories about our world. I may be wrong, but didn't the Discworld move from the Century of the Fruitbat to the Century of the Anchovy at the same time as we moved from the 20th to the 21st century in terms of when the books were written?
I'd say world building was a particular strength of Pratchett's. I found the Discworld strangely believable, at least after the first two or three books.
Feeling as if I have stumbled across a huge Pratchett revival cult on the secret third deck of the Ship! I must get hold of more of his novels, I'm very much a novice here.
Daughter has told me that Monstrous Regiment is in her box of books stored in the garage. I will try to dig it out and get reading!!! I still remember standing in a local bookshop with the then boyfriend and our youth group leader recommending Pratchett to him. Husband is not a reader, but they could be relied on as a welcome gift for him. Very happy that both our kids now enjoy him too!
He just comes up with such netsuke-like encapsulated concepts, beautifully described - just there in asides. Each one a story in its own right.
Ooh, that's a good turn of phrase! I think that sums up a lot of his stuff very well, the little groups within the big world. Like the beggars under the bridge, or the band in Soul Music, led by someone called Imp Y Celyn, which became one of my favourite jokes once I finally got it. For those who haven't encountered Owain's parsnips on Duolingo, it's Welsh for "bud of the holly".
Another favourite aside is, I think, in Night Watch where Vimes ponders that dark sarcasm should be taught in schools. I think it was @Esmeralda here that revealed it to me.
I think this is one of the lengthiest and most lively conversations we've had on a book club thread BEFORE questions were officially posted -- albeit most of the discussion has been about Pratchett generally rather than this book specifically -- so I'm hoping this level of interest will continue now that I'm posting some questions.
As always in our book discussions, please treat these questions as possible jumping-off points for conversation, rather than exam questions which must all be answered. Feel free to ignore some or all of the questions, and to talk about things not covered here.
1. What was your experience of reading this book? First time, or a re-read? Loved it, hated it, felt so-so about it? If you felt strongly that you loved or hated it, what about the book provoked those feelings?
2. This has been touched on quite a bit in the discussion above, but if you haven't already done so -- where does this book fit into your experience of reading Pratchett as a whole? Are you a newcomer to his work, a hardcore fan, or somewhere in between?
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
4. This novel plays on an old and familiar trope of a girl or young woman in a patriarchal society disguising herself as a boy to enter an all-male environment -- often in pursuit of a lover, but in Polly's case, to find and rescue her brother. Do you think Monstrous Regiment brings anything new to this storyline? What do you think the story has to say about gender and gender roles?
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot?
6. The pronouncements of the god Nuggan are a frequent and recurring point in this novel. What point do you think Pratchett is making about religion in the way Nuggan is (or is not) worshipped by his people?
7. Apart from gender and religion, other real-world issues that are targeted in this satire include war, nationalism, and the media. What do you think about how these topics are treated in the novel?
6. The pronouncements of the god Nuggan are a frequent and recurring point in this novel. What point do you think Pratchett is making about religion in the way Nuggan is (or is not) worshipped by his people?
In "Small Gods", Pratchett talks about the machinery that accretes around the God, and gradually what is worshipped is not the God, who gets ignored, but the shell of ecclesial structure that is built around the outside.
There's a sort of similarity with Monstrous Regiment, where the god Nuggan is dead, and the increasingly barmy abominations are produced by the collective anxiety of the Borogravians, and offers a rather unpleasant picture of the small-minded jealousies and scapegoating that drives much of human behavior.
Readers can draw their own parallels with certain contemporary religious institutions...
1. What was your experience of reading this book? First time, or a re-read? Loved it, hated it, felt so-so about it? If you felt strongly that you loved or hated it, what about the book provoked those feelings?
I had this book on my shelf and I'm sure I did read it a long time ago - it may, as I said, have been recommended by a Shipmate as one of Pratchett's best. So it was a reread - but I couldn't remember a single thing about it, so it counts as a first time, really.
My overriding sense was one of disappointment as I really wanted to like it. I've never got into Pratchett and I'd like to as so many people rate him so highly. I feel I've missed something, and am still missing it.
2. This has been touched on quite a bit in the discussion above, but if you haven't already done so -- where does this book fit into your experience of reading Pratchett as a whole? Are you a newcomer to his work, a hardcore fan, or somewhere in between?
I'm a newcomer - haven't read any others.
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
I didn't particularly take to Polly, and for me to enjoy a book I have to like at least one person in it.
4. This novel plays on an old and familiar trope of a girl or young woman in a patriarchal society disguising herself as a boy to enter an all-male environment -- often in pursuit of a lover, but in Polly's case, to find and rescue her brother. Do you think Monstrous Regiment brings anything new to this storyline? What do you think the story has to say about gender and gender roles?
I thought it was an overworked trope and this book didn't bring anything new to it. The whole sock thing was mildly amusing the first time it came up but the joke wore very thin after that.
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot?
The title gave it away.
I look forward to other people's comments, especially Pratchett fans. I really wanted to like it.
My overriding sense was one of disappointment as I really wanted to like it. I've never got into Pratchett and I'd like to as so many people rate him so highly. I feel I've missed something, and am still missing it.
This is how I felt when my student loaned me Hogfather, assuring me I'd love it, after years of Pratchett fans recommending him. It's a little bit how I felt about The Colour of Magic too. It almost made me wonder if Pratchett is an author you have to read for the first time in your teens or early 20s, and that all subsequent enjoyment of his work is based on having gotten him firmly fixed into your psyche then. (I would welcome evidence from people whose experience disproves this!). He reminds me in many ways of Douglas Adams, and while I loved Adams when I was young, I don't know if the books would have hit me the same way if I'd picked them when in my 40s or 50s rather than in my 20s.
For me, for reasons I'll get into in another post, Monstrous Regiment was the one book of his so far that really grabbed me, but it didn't fill me with a driving need to read a bunch of other Pratchett novels, so I'm still not sure I qualify as a Pratchett fan.
If I were to recommend a Pratchett to try to get into him it would not be The Colour of Magic, where he's still learning his stuff, or Hogfather, which I too didn't really get at first, though I now think it's one of his best.
I think I'd recommend either Wyrd Sisters or Guards Guards. I think those series have his most likeable characters.
The humour in Monstrous Regiment feels more grim somehow than in his earlier or middle period books. (I think the change in style happened one or two books before Josh Kirby died and Paul Kidby started doing the covers. But the change in art on the covers may be influencing how I think about the change in writing style.)
If I were to recommend a Pratchett to try to get into him it would not be The Colour of Magic, where he's still learning his stuff, or Hogfather, which I too didn't really get at first, though I now think it's one of his best.
I think I'd recommend either Wyrd Sisters or Guards Guards. I think those series have his most likeable characters.
The humour in Monstrous Regiment feels more grim somehow than in his earlier or middle period books. (I think the change in style happened one or two books before Josh Kirby died and Paul Kidby started doing the covers. But the change in art on the covers may be influencing how I think about the change in writing style.)
Yep. Anyone Pratchett-curious should start with Guards Guards or one of the Witch novels.
The reason I ended up reading Monstrous Regiment was that my daughter and her friends chose it for their book club based on a "where should I start with Pratchett?" flowchart, probably this one. (One of the girls in the group was a very hardcore Pratchett fan and used this somewhat light-hearted flowchart to lure the others in. They all ended up with Monstrous Regiment as their choice).
It worked much better for me than the other two I'd read, mainly because I'm a very character-oriented reader, so I have to at least be interested in the main character(s) if I'm going to be drawn into a book. Unlike @Nenya's comment above, I did like Polly, and found her perspective a very easy one to view the story through, so that got me moving through the novel.
For me, this book had some interesting angles on the "girl disguised as a boy" trope. I agree that the title is a bit of a giveaway to the plot twist (but only to people who know the original quote: none of the three young people I did the podcast discussion with recognized it, so it didn't give them any clues). I liked the fact that it made me think about how much of gender is actually gender presentation; the ongoing joke about socks, in the novel, worked for me as a convenient shorthand for all the ways we perform gender socially, and the ways in which this affects our thinking.
One of my favourite novels as a child was Sally Watson's Mistress Malapert, in which a young girl in Elizabethan times disguises herself as a boy and runs away to join the players, eventually ending up with Shakespeare's company playing the role of Juliet. I probably read it about 50 times between the ages of nine and thirteen. In all my re-readings of that book, I was always keenly aware that the heroine Val was, as Polly is in MR, a girl playing a boy's role.
But around the same age, I read another "girl disguised as a boy" novel which I don't remember nearly so well (only read it once as it was a library book, something set in Australia) which was written in first person. The girl's name was something like Joanna or Josie, and she started going by Joe when she disguised herself as a boy. By the time I was halfway through that novel, I was constantly forgetting that Joe was a girl; because it was in first person and I wasn't constantly seeing Joe referred to with she/her pronouns, I began to simply read the character as a boy -- which, even at that young age, made me reflect on how much external things like pronouns shape how we view a character.
So this was one of the things I liked about MR: the exploration of gender as performance seemed pretty thoughtful and nuanced to me. Also (something pointed out by my daughter and friends when we discussed it) the willingness of the adult women who had spent years in military careers disguised as men, to uphold the patriarchal system rather than changing it, was both disappointing, and sadly realistic to the way things often work in our round world.
This was a re-read for me, having been given it as a Christmas present several years ago. I enjoyed it, possibly because a lot of my life I've been being either the only or one of a very few females in various jobs/hobbies, and some of it, especially at the end, rang very true. Mind you, I started reading Pratchett when the lad I shared a desk with in GCSE Maths suggested him - that was about the time Pyramids came out - so possibly another reason for my enjoying it!
Having grown up in an ethnically Scottish household, with one parent raised Free Kirk, I saw the joke in the title, and was wondering how it would play out - I mean, given there's a Duchess ruling, that's already a Regiment of Woman in Knox's sense of it in the first few pages... As far as I recall it wasn't exactly a surprise when they all turned out to be female, although Sgt Jackrum was a bit more of one.
I liked the fact that it made me think about how much of gender is actually gender presentation; the ongoing joke about socks, in the novel, worked for me as a convenient shorthand for all the ways we perform gender socially, and the ways in which this affects our thinking.
Yes, very much so. Many years ago on an email list devoted to discussion of gender online, someone pointed out that the only reason they believed I was female was because my university-provided email had defaulted to 'Miss C Knotweed' in the from field. If I removed the title, then since the email address was a student id number and my forename (which couldn't be removed) is not very common and at the time was unlikely to be known in that person's part of the world, they would have had no idea. We were discussing assumptions at the time Makes me stop and think, even some 30 years on!
I have to agree with @alienfromzog that Guards Guards! and the Witches books are probably good starting points. A lot of Colour of Magic is jokes that make more sense if you've done RPGs, and images common to other SF/Fantasy writing.
1. What was your experience of reading this book? First time, or a re-read? Loved it, hated it, felt so-so about it? If you felt strongly that you loved or hated it, what about the book provoked those feelings?
This is a re-read - probably only the second time I've read it, in fact, as I struggled to get into it the first time.
2. This has been touched on quite a bit in the discussion above, but if you haven't already done so -- where does this book fit into your experience of reading Pratchett as a whole? Are you a newcomer to his work, a hardcore fan, or somewhere in between?
I'm a fairly hardcore fan, TP just ticks my boxes, whatever mood the book is in. There's just enough light in the dark books to shine, yet deepen the darkness, and the funny ones are very funny indeed. I also love the Tiffany Aching books - I think I've mentioned before that the countryside of the Chalk is so, so believeable.
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
It's an odd specimen that doesn't particularly fit the canon - it has the "usual suspects", but they are an aside to the main story. I recalled it as feeling as though Vimes etc were rather dropped in to add in some familiar characters. With re-reading, I see that they are actually there quite a long way through, which makes rather more sense. I guess their presence to make the warring parties make peace before *everyone* in Borogravia dies is the reason, but it's the only book I recall reading with this in (confession - I rarely read fiction).
4. This novel plays on an old and familiar trope of a girl or young woman in a patriarchal society disguising herself as a boy to enter an all-male environment -- often in pursuit of a lover, but in Polly's case, to find and rescue her brother. Do you think Monstrous Regiment brings anything new to this storyline? What do you think the story has to say about gender and gender roles?
Aiee, that's a difficult one - I have the sensitivity of a brick to these things. (Someone mentioned upthread that TP missed mentioning a monthly occurence at any point - thinking back to the media when this was written, I think it would be much more acceptable to put that into a book now than it was then, menstruation is noticably less taboo today. I wonder whether he simply thought it was one thing too far? Or figured that if the songs glossed over it, so could he?). One of the things that struck me is the escape from the kitchen is classically Boys Own stuff, and there's a nod to the A Team as well, but all engineered by women. I guess I ought to look out the Knotweed's Worrals stories and see how W E Johns treated it...
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot?
I wasn't certain about it until pretty late - unlike the Knotweed, I am not from a Calvinist Scots background, so Knox was off my radar - though afterwards I did find out that the former Lord Lieutenant of Essex, who my primary school visited at his house every year, had commanded an anti-aircraft artillery battery "manned" by women during WW2, and fondly referred to them as his "Monstrous Regiment". I guess even then the socks should have been a giveaway, and the "flag" on the dustjacket cover - but I'm a bit like @KarlLB on these things.
6. The pronouncements of the god Nuggan are a frequent and recurring point in this novel. What point do you think Pratchett is making about religion in the way Nuggan is (or is not) worshipped by his people?
Pratchett's gods only exist if people believe in them - see Small Gods for the full take on this one, and Pyramids for another - so I found this an interesting inversion of the "god is good, but people do crazy things" trope. Nuggan has become so up himself that no-one can sensibly believe in him, so he atrophies to something rather like a Daily Mail leader ( @Leorning Cniht has expressed this much better than I can already). Meanwhile the Duchess is (long?) dead, but there is just enough belief in her that she remains a presence, and the fervence of Wazzer's belief in here is enough to make her strong enough to influence the events in the keep. I actually think this is quite interesting for TP, who was heading towards the Atheist Militant, to bring a goddess in, even if she then tells the people of Borogravia to believe in themselves rather than her.
7. Apart from gender and religion, other real-world issues that are targeted in this satire include war, nationalism, and the media. What do you think about how these topics are treated in the novel?
Maybe it's my interest in photographic history, but the Ankh-Morpork Times caravan reminded me of Roger Fenton in the Crimean War, though I don't recall them being accused of moving cannon balls at any point. But the Times is definitely pursuing a narrative of its own that may or may not be that of Ankh-Morpork.
War is an interesting one - Ankh-Morpork has got involved to stop Prince Heinrich being a threat to them, but they seem a bit late on the uptake, the war has obviously been going on for years, surely a world with Lord Vetinari in would have found a solution much, much earlier before Borogravia warred itself to a standstill? It's hard to find a new way to say "War is shot, kids, don't do it" - but TP does but a pleasingly black slant on some of it. And he's no fan of nationalism - just read the speech about what you are proud of to know that.
Some somewhat random asides. There's a moment where Polly spots Vimes (as we know him to be, though she doesn't) in the distance, with a shield on his breastplate, and I suddenly wondered if that's a sly wink at Judge Dredd?
The revelation that most of Borogravia's historic military heroes are in the dungeon as zombies is odd - nothing else comes of it, it almost seems as though they are there as an excuse to mention Reg Shoe (the Ankh-Morpork City Watch's own zombie).
The joke about folk singers in the lower bar made me cackle - if you've ever been in Oxford for May Morning you'll know how long the morris dancers can stay in a pub if they start at 7am! This is obviously a fond joke, I wonder if he had friends he said he'd mention (there are a few books with obvious Tuckerisations in, eg Marco Soto in Thief of Time), as TP was a folk fan himself.
1. What was your experience of reading this book? First time, or a re-read? Loved it, hated it, felt so-so about it? If you felt strongly that you loved or hated it, what about the book provoked those feelings?
2. This has been touched on quite a bit in the discussion above, but if you haven't already done so -- where does this book fit into your experience of reading Pratchett as a whole? Are you a newcomer to his work, a hardcore fan, or somewhere in between?
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
4. This novel plays on an old and familiar trope of a girl or young woman in a patriarchal society disguising herself as a boy to enter an all-male environment -- often in pursuit of a lover, but in Polly's case, to find and rescue her brother. Do you think Monstrous Regiment brings anything new to this storyline? What do you think the story has to say about gender and gender roles?
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot?
6. The pronouncements of the god Nuggan are a frequent and recurring point in this novel. What point do you think Pratchett is making about religion in the way Nuggan is (or is not) worshipped by his people?
7. Apart from gender and religion, other real-world issues that are targeted in this satire include war, nationalism, and the media. What do you think about how these topics are treated in the novel?
A confession: I have not actually managed to locate my copy of 'Monstrous Regiment' but have been following the comments with interest. I hope this doesn't disqualify me from taking part.
From what I recall of the book, my reaction on reading it was basically 'meh.' I didn't hate it, but before this discussion started I never really felt the urge to reread it. I think it's because it introduces a whole bunch of new characters (a Monstrous Regiment, in fact) that we'd never heard of before, in order to satirise a lot of things he'd already done. Religion? Small Gods, Feet of Clay, Carpe Jugulum, plus numerous asides in other books. Nationalism is covered pretty well in Jingo, multiculturalism in Thud, the media in 'The Truth' and as a running joke thereafter.
He did handle gender roles quite well in this book, although it's a recurring theme in many of his books. I liked the way he resolved the Sergeant's dilemma and the scene where the 'Rupert' mansplained ironing to a group of laundresses. Although does it count as mansplaining if he really did know more about ironing than them? And it's a pity more heroines of folk songs didn't throw their half coin back in their lover's teeth and tell him to get lost, though I suppose if they did nobody would have written a song about them.
It was really gratifying to read a fantasy book by a male author who'd read Diana Wynne Jones' Tough Guide to Fantasyland and taken the trouble to get the technical details of cooking right.
But on the whole, it wasn't enough to make me want to add it to the list of Pratchetts that I reread. And the final message - that despite Ankh-Morpork's best efforts, Borogravia is going to go straight back to war - because they've been at war so long they can't imagine any other state? Because if they stop now all the blood and death will have been for nothing? Because they don't like doing what Ankh-Morpork wants? Depressing, even if it's true.
I enjoyed this a lot more than I thought I was going to as I'm someone who doesn't really get Pratchett. I can admire his ideas and find the jokes funny, but I just can't warm to him in the way I do to Diana Wynne Jones for instance. However once it became obvious the whole regiment were women I found it really started to romp along. At the start I was finding it tricky to work out who was who with all the different nick names.
I too wondered how many women could get away with disguising themselves as men. I guess in a country where there isn't a lot to eat everyone would be skinny and women might stop menstruating, but even so it was a bit of a stretch that even the top brass was female. However I went along with it as it is fantasy after all.
I'll come back with some more thoughts later.
War is an interesting one - Ankh-Morpork has got involved to stop Prince Heinrich being a threat to them, but they seem a bit late on the uptake, the war has obviously been going on for years, surely a world with Lord Vetinari in would have found a solution much, much earlier before Borogravia warred itself to a standstill?
But that's the thing, isn't it - what are the interests of Ankh-Morpork? They're not the same as the interests of well-meaning decent people, are they? Vimes, who tends to be what passes for a practical conscience in these books, talks about the difference between the interests of the city itself, and of the Lord Rusts who control much of it, and the things the public cares about (which appears to be young gels with a bit of pluck, thanks to Mr. de Worde).
Before the public takes an interest, and before Ankh-Morpork sets up the clacks, and so needs to defend it against the locals, the interests of Ankh are probably rather well served by its neighbors squabbling with each other in an endless round of stupid war.
The revelation that most of Borogravia's historic military heroes are in the dungeon as zombies is odd - nothing else comes of it, it almost seems as though they are there as an excuse to mention Reg Shoe (the Ankh-Morpork City Watch's own zombie).
There's a thing about progress here. Borogravia worships a dead god, and slavishly follows his increasingly batshit pronouncements. It's mired in the endless cycle of war with Zlobenia and lying to the people about it, because it's lying to itself about its past and its present. And then the dead themselves rise up to fight.
You may be right there, @Leorning Cniht - for reasons mentioned elsewhere, my head is not up to coherent thought as much as usual at the mo. You are certainly quite right about the clacks - A-M is protecting its interest there, which is as good a reason as any to be involved.
1. What was your experience of reading this book? First time, or a re-read? Loved it, hated it, felt so-so about it? If you felt strongly that you loved or hated it, what about the book provoked those feelings?
First time reading Monstrous Regiment, and I feel so-so about it. I found the basic conceit interesting for a while, there were some good jokes and observations, and I quite liked Polly as a character, but I found it lacked narrative drive, and frankly got a bit boring. I was confused by the position of Ankh-Mopork and Vimes, (obviously if you’ve read other Discworld novels you would understand) but I couldn’t make myself care enough to investigate or research further. I can’t help feeling that this would make a good short story rather than a full-length novel; it can’t sustain 300-odd pages.
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
As I noted above, I found that I lacked basic knowledge of the Discworld, so I was a bit confused by some aspects, especially Vimes. I started the book with some enthusiasm, but found the endless journey dragged, and I nearly gave up. I did finish the novel, but skipped bits.
4. This novel plays on an old and familiar trope of a girl or young woman in a patriarchal society disguising herself as a boy to enter an all-male environment -- often in pursuit of a lover, but in Polly's case, to find and rescue her brother. Do you think Monstrous Regiment brings anything new to this storyline? What do you think the story has to say about gender and gender roles?
The story, as others have said is old and much-told, and in many cultures. I found it interesting, and perhaps it is a novel twist, that the girls prove to be so good at operating in an all-male environment – except that it isn’t!
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot?
It was in the title – once Polly got the advice about the socks, it became pretty obvious. My copy also had a fairly unambiguously female character on the cover too.
6. The pronouncements of the god Nuggan are a frequent and recurring point in this novel. What point do you think Pratchett is making about religion in the way Nuggan is (or is not) worshipped by his people?
Leorning Cniht has said it best, that in Monstrous Regiment, ‘where the god Nuggan is dead, and the increasingly barmy abominations are produced by the collective anxiety of the Borogravians,’ that religion, at least in this manifestation, ‘offers a rather unpleasant picture of the small-minded jealousies and scapegoating that drives much of human behaviour’. Clearly most people are not taking a great deal of notice of the prohibitions.
I also felt it would have made a funnier and tighter novella, a metaphor or conceit pushed too far.
My favourite quotation though (and I could wade through Pratchett just for his asides):
“There was this about vampires: they could never look scruffy. Instead, they were... what was the word... deshabille. It meant untidy, but with bags and bags of style.”
1. What was your experience of reading this book? First time, or a re-read? Loved it, hated it, felt so-so about it? If you felt strongly that you loved or hated it, what about the book provoked those feelings?
This was my first time reading Monstrous Regiment, but as I accidentally bought the play script based on the novel I read that first, so knew the basic story line. The novel includes a lot more detail and the play script cuts out the subplot of Nuggan and the Nugganite religion altogether, but does include Wazzer and the Duchess' story line. The play script also cuts all the serious violence, so it was a bit shocking when people were killed in the novel. I enjoyed the book, but the story line didn't really stick in my head. I liked the characters and their interactions and although not generally a big fan of fantasy I really like how the vampires, trolls, zombies and Igorina were portrayed. Igorina and Maladict were my favourite characters.
2. This has been touched on quite a bit in the discussion above, but if you haven't already done so -- where does this book fit into your experience of reading Pratchett as a whole? Are you a newcomer to his work, a hardcore fan, or somewhere in between?
I have read a couple of other books for the Ship book club, but am struggling to remember which ones. One was about the witches and the other included the Nac MacFeegal. I think I then read the first book in the series 'The Colour of Magic'. I have also watched the TV adaption of the first two books. I tried watching 'The Hogfather' but didn't enjoy it.
Although I enjoyed all the books I never have been able to get into the series as a whole. Possibly because there were so many published already before I read any of them so it is a bit daunting to know where to start and also because I can't seem to remember the plot lines of these books. I looked through the summaries to try to remember which books I have read and remembered characters, but not events.
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
After reading about a quarter of the novel while stuck at the library during a violent storm, I found I read about 25 to 30 pages a day. I agree with others that it could have been a bit shorter and some parts were a bit repetitive. I just didn't find it a page turner, but enjoyed reading it a bit at at time.
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot?
I spoiled the twist by reading the play script first. When reading play scripts I like to cast myself and friends or family members as the characters (that's how I got through Shakespeare in high school!) so I realised most of the characters were played by women. Interestingly Maladict, Jack Rackrum and Jade were played by men in the play even though the characters were also women in disguise.
7. Apart from gender and religion, other real-world issues that are targeted in this satire include war, nationalism, and the media. What do you think about how these topics are treated in the novel?[/quote]
It was one of the few fictional novels I have read that shines a spotlight on the effects of the war on people at home. Particularly the fact that the Borogravians were running out of food because all their young men had died in or were off fighting the war.
The satire of religion in the Nuggan references is pretty obvious, but it was resonant for me as someone who's had a lot of experience with very rules-based churches -- the way in which the rules can seem just ridiculously arbitrary, the sense that religious leaders are making up rules for their own purposes without any actual reference to what the deity actually said, and the completely arbitrary way in which adherents insist that some rules are absolutely vital while blithely ignoring others. Some of that felt very close to home.
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
I think it's a bit more bleak than most of the other Discworld books. Most of the other books, when the weather isn't specified I imagine it's sunny; this one I imagine it's overcast. If that makes sense?
It's not that the humour is black, because Pratchett doesn't do black humour - black humour treats serious subject matter as if you don't really care. So while there are jokes, there aren't really any big comic set pieces to lighten the mood, except maybe the laundress scenes.
Particularly the fact that the Borogravians were running out of food because all their young men had died in or were off fighting the war.
The main reason that war leads to famine is that an army passing through an area without mechanised transport to carry food has to eat all the spare crops in the area it travels through, and if a second army passes through that includes the seed for the next year's crops.
@Dafyd : true, but pre-industrial agriculture was also very hard work and some jobs (ploughing, for example) required a lot of upper body strength. So if all your men have been killed or maimed in the war you can't cultivate as much land as you would otherwise. Even if you managed to hide your seed from the second army it will be worthless if you can't plough enough ground to sow it.
Classically, the campaign season began after harvest, as then your opponents grain had already been harvested and you could just loot it from the granaries. Hence why Agincourt was fought in late October at the culmination of a campaign that wasn't far from being Blackadder's "pop over the channel, bash johnny foreigner, and back home in time for tea and medals". Logistics only had to worry about arms and armour, food could be pillaged along the way.
The Romans I gather issued legionaries with sickles as standard equipment so that they could pillage the crops before they were harvested, making it possible for the Romans to move their legions earlier than anyone else.
1. What was your experience of reading this book? First time, or a re-read? Loved it, hated it, felt so-so about it? If you felt strongly that you loved or hated it, what about the book provoked those feelings?
First time reading. Pretty neutral felings. Could have used more plot and been shorter.
2. This has been touched on quite a bit in the discussion above, but if you haven't already done so -- where does this book fit into your experience of reading Pratchett as a whole? Are you a newcomer to his work, a hardcore fan, or somewhere in between?
Newcomer and not likely to read more of his books.
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first? Little, slow moving plot. Only one conceit: they are all women.
4. This novel plays on an old and familiar trope of a girl or young woman in a patriarchal society disguising herself as a boy to enter an all-male environment -- often in pursuit of a lover, but in Polly's case, to find and rescue her brother. Do you think Monstrous Regiment brings anything new to this storyline? What do you think the story has to say about gender and gender roles?
I am not sure it brings much new to an old plot device.
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot? It was interesting the first times it happened. After that it got tedious.
Newcomer and not likely to read more of his books.
For the reasons I discussed on previous pages, I think this a shame. To me, this is the weakest Discworld novel by a long way. If you don't like the fantasy genre at all then you may not enjoy Pratchett but this is the wrong one to judge it on. Sir Terry has so many fans because his best is sublime. This one is humdrum.
I don't know if this parallel works for you but I would argue that anyone who had only seen The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would probably hate Indian Jones movies, whilst Raiders, Temple of Doom and especially Last Crusade are great adventure movies.
I don't presume to tell you what to read, just my perspective.
To me, this is the weakest Discworld novel by a long way.
There's Raising Steam and Shepherd's Crown, which are both barely there.
I haven't been able to get on with any of the Rincewind books, at least since Wyrd Sisters came out. There's only so much plot you can get out of someone whose default reaction to any situation is to run away from it.
I think Sergeant Jackrum is one of Pratchett's more memorable characters, and that's an achievement given the competition and given that we never see inside his (*) head.
I agree that Monstrous Regiment doesn't have much of the good points of Wyrd Sisters or those of Hogfather. I'm not sure that makes it weak. I think Pratchett was trying something he hadn't really tried before.
(*) In the absence of any evidence otherwise and given that Jackrum must have joined the army well before the current crisis I'm assuming Jackrum is male by gender.
I think Sergeant Jackrum is one of Pratchett's more memorable characters, and that's an achievement given the competition and given that we never see inside his (*) head.
I agree that Monstrous Regiment doesn't have much of the good points of Wyrd Sisters or those of Hogfather. I'm not sure that makes it weak. I think Pratchett was trying something he hadn't really tried before.
(*) In the absence of any evidence otherwise and given that Jackrum must have joined the army well before the current crisis I'm assuming Jackrum is male by gender.
I think you may be right about Pratchett trying something new with Monstrous Regiment, or at least he was taking a different look at the Discworld in that book. As far as seeing Sgt Jackrum's point of view goes, have you finished the book yet? There's a bit very near the end where we get the Sgt telling Polly about earlier days in the army...
To me, this is the weakest Discworld novel by a long way.
There's Raising Steam and Shepherd's Crown, which are both barely there.
I haven't been able to get on with any of the Rincewind books, at least since Wyrd Sisters came out. There's only so much plot you can get out of someone whose default reaction to any situation is to run away from it.
Wow. A few Raising Steam dislikes on this thread. I disagree, I really like it and it's full of plot and an ensemble piece. It's got new characters but it's also a goblin story, a Moist story, a Vines story and completes the Low King of Dwarfs story Arc.... Shepherd's Crown is a little bit of a rehash of Lords and Ladies but as I said previously, the death of Granny Weatherwax is beautifully told. I also like the fact that Tiffany grows up through her stories. It was, of course unfinished when Pratchett died and many hard-core fans are not totally enamored with it.
To me, both far superior to MR. You mileage may, of course, vary...
Comments
Most of his books have a sledgehammer, but in his earlier books it's decorated up so it looks like a rubber clown mallet.
From memory of Rob Wilkin's book, Raising Steam as submitted to the publisher was virtually plotless, and had to be heavily reconstructed. It's pretty obvious that there wasn't a lot of TP left by then. Evil bastard disease. There's a number of points in that book that had me blubbering, one before it was even opened, in the display in Waterstones window.
I've often wondered about Snuff. In many ways it seems to exist to give Vimes amongst others, a happy ending, despite the ghastliness uncovered therein, and bury a few hatchets. I guess after all the crap he had waded through, Sam needed a valediction?
Wow, so many diverse views on here.
I'll start with Raising Steam. My wife's family are all big Pratchett fans too but interestingly, despite my arguments, Mother-in-law has never read it. To be specific she started in and then gave up because she was bored by the technical references to Steam technology. That's definitely a feature, as the industrial revolution hits the Discworld but it's a multilayer and brilliant story. It's a Moist story and a Goblin story and it's the completion of the Sam Vines / Low King of the Dwarfs story arcs.
I think there was some confusion above - Snuff is the one that's a cudgel about slavery and AIUI, Pratchett completed Raising Steam in his usual way. It's The Shepherd's Crown that was unfinished when he died. Whether you can see the effects of his disease and decline in the later books is inevitably a matter of opinion to some extent. My wife felt that The Shepherd's Crown lacked something but I didn't feel that, myself. I'm open to the possibility that I'm not as attuned to Pratchett as some fans but I didn't feel it was below par at all. Mostly because (spoiler)
"ESMERELDA WEATHERWAX, YOU KNOW WHO COMES, AND MAY I SAY IT’S A PRIVILEGE TO DEAL WITH YOU."
I have read all of the Discworld books more than once. I got introduced to the world via Guards, Guards which remains one of my favourites. It's so typical of the humour where Carrot, Nobby and Fred Colon knowing that million-to-one shots come off nine times out of ten, worry that their crazy plan it's quite unlikely enough so decide to set about making it more difficult, just to get to a million-to-one. I then read the Death books and the Witches and as a consequence, I had read at least half a dozen Discworld novels before reading The Colour of Magic. Which is why to me, it definitely read like an author learning his craft. It's nowhere near as polished and as good a story as his later books.
Anyway, FWIW, Monstrous Regiment is not one of my favourites - in fact, it's probably my least favourite. To me, the joke wears a little thin after a while. Although interestingly I enjoyed it more the second time I read it. Possibly because I was expecting not to... But having read them all and loved most of them, a couple of years ago I went back and read them all in order from The Colour of Magic to The Shepherd's Crown. I would recommend all Pratchett fans to do this at some point - the interwoven nature of the plots is so wonderfully laid out when you do that. I also have the Map of Discworld which I like to have handy whenever the story leaves the Ramparts or Ankh-Morpork. I enjoy all the Tiffany Aching books - they never felt like children's books to me (in the way that The Amazing Maurice does). Mostly because I think the Feegles are wonderful and also because it's really interesting watching Tiff herself grow up from a pre-teen who did not know she was a witch to one of extreme power and ability very much the right successor to Mistress Weatherwax as the leader of a group who does not have any leaders...
Finally a thought, about the adaptations. I have enjoyed all the ones I've seen. David Jason as Rincewind I didn't expect to work but I thought was wonderful. Charles Dance was a wonderful Patrician. No one above mentioned the recent animated adaptation of The Amazing Maurice - I found it a little disappointing; I didn't think it was quite as vibrant as the novel but it did come with some amazing voice talent.
Anyway, that's enough waffle from me. Some very diverse opinions here.
To any who haven't read Pratchett before then welcome and enjoy! For the sake of this thread you might want to start with Monstrous Regiment but if you don't like it, it is worth starting with either the witches in Equal Rites or the Watch in Guards Guards.
I think this is going to be a fun thread.
AFZ
Yes, that's what I'll be doing. I'll persevere with Monstrous Regiment although I'm unconvinced I'm going to like it any more as it goes on although I found very poignant
I wouldn't say I find him hilarious - rather I find he has an acute observational ability which he expresses with humour.
I think the footnotes are often the best bits of his novels. Then again, I also think the Appendices are the best part of the Lord of the Rings and prefer the Silmarillion anyway. I find it particularly odd that people who can read the (to me) impenetrable Dickens or Austen struggle with the Silmarillion, which I find totally straightforward and simple.
Favourites include Thief of Time, Interesting Times, and especially Pyramids.
I miss looking forward to each new books they were published.
Yeah - his footnotes have all the best jokes. And we're being the same person again - I read the Silmarillion with a torch under the covers when I was a child, and have never understood why people find it such hard going. It's got all the good bits, without spending 800 pages listening to Frodo and Sam describe the country path they're walking down.
Three things I'm not really interested in in a book:
1. Character development arcs. Characters are plot devices to me; I'm not interested in them finding themselves or resolving deep seated issues. I'm interested in how they interact with the plot. I even get bored with Star Trek when it's about Worf sorting out his feelings towards Alexander. Let's find a planet with some Romulan shenanigans going on that we can thwart or a Borg base to sabotage. Photon torpedoes optional.
2. Descriptive passages. It was a wooden door. That'll do me. What's behind it?
3. Hidden symbolism and stuff. Although I sometimes think half of that is invented by English teachers as part of their job retention scheme
What I am interested in:
A story with a beginning, middle and end and some unexpected twists and turns along the way.
(For those familiar with the meme, as far as I'm concerned it means the curtains were blue.)
So there.
In fairness I think Worf was pretty bored of that too, which is why there are now loads of memes about Worf abandoning Alexander / not remembering who he is etc.
I recall a scene on Deep Space Nine, with Worf (vexed by Quark - perhaps not without reason), growling *Will no-one slay me this Ferenghi?*...
DS9 had a most wonderfully eclectic mish-mash of characters.
Back to Discworld...
That's intriguing. Mostly because a lot of the Discworld books, much like Douglas Adams, are masterpieces despite a weak storyline.*
We are not a revival cult.
Pratchettism never died.
AFZ
*ducks behind the sofa
I never said the stories had to be particularly good. I'd not say that Pratchett's were particularly weak; they seem - appropriately strong? - for the setting.
Besides, I'd say that the stories Pratchett tells are stories about our world. I may be wrong, but didn't the Discworld move from the Century of the Fruitbat to the Century of the Anchovy at the same time as we moved from the 20th to the 21st century in terms of when the books were written?
I'd say world building was a particular strength of Pratchett's. I found the Discworld strangely believable, at least after the first two or three books.
On reflection, you're right. Viva Pratchettism!
Ooh, that's a good turn of phrase! I think that sums up a lot of his stuff very well, the little groups within the big world. Like the beggars under the bridge, or the band in Soul Music, led by someone called Imp Y Celyn, which became one of my favourite jokes once I finally got it. For those who haven't encountered Owain's parsnips on Duolingo, it's Welsh for "bud of the holly".
Another favourite aside is, I think, in Night Watch where Vimes ponders that dark sarcasm should be taught in schools. I think it was @Esmeralda here that revealed it to me.
As always in our book discussions, please treat these questions as possible jumping-off points for conversation, rather than exam questions which must all be answered. Feel free to ignore some or all of the questions, and to talk about things not covered here.
1. What was your experience of reading this book? First time, or a re-read? Loved it, hated it, felt so-so about it? If you felt strongly that you loved or hated it, what about the book provoked those feelings?
2. This has been touched on quite a bit in the discussion above, but if you haven't already done so -- where does this book fit into your experience of reading Pratchett as a whole? Are you a newcomer to his work, a hardcore fan, or somewhere in between?
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
4. This novel plays on an old and familiar trope of a girl or young woman in a patriarchal society disguising herself as a boy to enter an all-male environment -- often in pursuit of a lover, but in Polly's case, to find and rescue her brother. Do you think Monstrous Regiment brings anything new to this storyline? What do you think the story has to say about gender and gender roles?
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot?
6. The pronouncements of the god Nuggan are a frequent and recurring point in this novel. What point do you think Pratchett is making about religion in the way Nuggan is (or is not) worshipped by his people?
7. Apart from gender and religion, other real-world issues that are targeted in this satire include war, nationalism, and the media. What do you think about how these topics are treated in the novel?
In "Small Gods", Pratchett talks about the machinery that accretes around the God, and gradually what is worshipped is not the God, who gets ignored, but the shell of ecclesial structure that is built around the outside.
There's a sort of similarity with Monstrous Regiment, where the god Nuggan is dead, and the increasingly barmy abominations are produced by the collective anxiety of the Borogravians, and offers a rather unpleasant picture of the small-minded jealousies and scapegoating that drives much of human behavior.
Readers can draw their own parallels with certain contemporary religious institutions...
I had this book on my shelf and I'm sure I did read it a long time ago - it may, as I said, have been recommended by a Shipmate as one of Pratchett's best. So it was a reread - but I couldn't remember a single thing about it, so it counts as a first time, really.
My overriding sense was one of disappointment as I really wanted to like it. I've never got into Pratchett and I'd like to as so many people rate him so highly. I feel I've missed something, and am still missing it.
2. This has been touched on quite a bit in the discussion above, but if you haven't already done so -- where does this book fit into your experience of reading Pratchett as a whole? Are you a newcomer to his work, a hardcore fan, or somewhere in between?
I'm a newcomer - haven't read any others.
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
I didn't particularly take to Polly, and for me to enjoy a book I have to like at least one person in it.
4. This novel plays on an old and familiar trope of a girl or young woman in a patriarchal society disguising herself as a boy to enter an all-male environment -- often in pursuit of a lover, but in Polly's case, to find and rescue her brother. Do you think Monstrous Regiment brings anything new to this storyline? What do you think the story has to say about gender and gender roles?
I thought it was an overworked trope and this book didn't bring anything new to it. The whole sock thing was mildly amusing the first time it came up but the joke wore very thin after that.
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot?
The title gave it away.
I look forward to other people's comments, especially Pratchett fans. I really wanted to like it.
This is how I felt when my student loaned me Hogfather, assuring me I'd love it, after years of Pratchett fans recommending him. It's a little bit how I felt about The Colour of Magic too. It almost made me wonder if Pratchett is an author you have to read for the first time in your teens or early 20s, and that all subsequent enjoyment of his work is based on having gotten him firmly fixed into your psyche then. (I would welcome evidence from people whose experience disproves this!). He reminds me in many ways of Douglas Adams, and while I loved Adams when I was young, I don't know if the books would have hit me the same way if I'd picked them when in my 40s or 50s rather than in my 20s.
For me, for reasons I'll get into in another post, Monstrous Regiment was the one book of his so far that really grabbed me, but it didn't fill me with a driving need to read a bunch of other Pratchett novels, so I'm still not sure I qualify as a Pratchett fan.
I think I'd recommend either Wyrd Sisters or Guards Guards. I think those series have his most likeable characters.
The humour in Monstrous Regiment feels more grim somehow than in his earlier or middle period books. (I think the change in style happened one or two books before Josh Kirby died and Paul Kidby started doing the covers. But the change in art on the covers may be influencing how I think about the change in writing style.)
Yep. Anyone Pratchett-curious should start with Guards Guards or one of the Witch novels.
It worked much better for me than the other two I'd read, mainly because I'm a very character-oriented reader, so I have to at least be interested in the main character(s) if I'm going to be drawn into a book. Unlike @Nenya's comment above, I did like Polly, and found her perspective a very easy one to view the story through, so that got me moving through the novel.
For me, this book had some interesting angles on the "girl disguised as a boy" trope. I agree that the title is a bit of a giveaway to the plot twist (but only to people who know the original quote: none of the three young people I did the podcast discussion with recognized it, so it didn't give them any clues). I liked the fact that it made me think about how much of gender is actually gender presentation; the ongoing joke about socks, in the novel, worked for me as a convenient shorthand for all the ways we perform gender socially, and the ways in which this affects our thinking.
One of my favourite novels as a child was Sally Watson's Mistress Malapert, in which a young girl in Elizabethan times disguises herself as a boy and runs away to join the players, eventually ending up with Shakespeare's company playing the role of Juliet. I probably read it about 50 times between the ages of nine and thirteen. In all my re-readings of that book, I was always keenly aware that the heroine Val was, as Polly is in MR, a girl playing a boy's role.
But around the same age, I read another "girl disguised as a boy" novel which I don't remember nearly so well (only read it once as it was a library book, something set in Australia) which was written in first person. The girl's name was something like Joanna or Josie, and she started going by Joe when she disguised herself as a boy. By the time I was halfway through that novel, I was constantly forgetting that Joe was a girl; because it was in first person and I wasn't constantly seeing Joe referred to with she/her pronouns, I began to simply read the character as a boy -- which, even at that young age, made me reflect on how much external things like pronouns shape how we view a character.
So this was one of the things I liked about MR: the exploration of gender as performance seemed pretty thoughtful and nuanced to me. Also (something pointed out by my daughter and friends when we discussed it) the willingness of the adult women who had spent years in military careers disguised as men, to uphold the patriarchal system rather than changing it, was both disappointing, and sadly realistic to the way things often work in our round world.
Having grown up in an ethnically Scottish household, with one parent raised Free Kirk, I saw the joke in the title, and was wondering how it would play out - I mean, given there's a Duchess ruling, that's already a Regiment of Woman in Knox's sense of it in the first few pages... As far as I recall it wasn't exactly a surprise when they all turned out to be female, although Sgt Jackrum was a bit more of one.
Yes, very much so. Many years ago on an email list devoted to discussion of gender online, someone pointed out that the only reason they believed I was female was because my university-provided email had defaulted to 'Miss C Knotweed' in the from field. If I removed the title, then since the email address was a student id number and my forename (which couldn't be removed) is not very common and at the time was unlikely to be known in that person's part of the world, they would have had no idea. We were discussing assumptions at the time
I have to agree with @alienfromzog that Guards Guards! and the Witches books are probably good starting points. A lot of Colour of Magic is jokes that make more sense if you've done RPGs, and images common to other SF/Fantasy writing.
I'm a fairly hardcore fan, TP just ticks my boxes, whatever mood the book is in. There's just enough light in the dark books to shine, yet deepen the darkness, and the funny ones are very funny indeed. I also love the Tiffany Aching books - I think I've mentioned before that the countryside of the Chalk is so, so believeable.
It's an odd specimen that doesn't particularly fit the canon - it has the "usual suspects", but they are an aside to the main story. I recalled it as feeling as though Vimes etc were rather dropped in to add in some familiar characters. With re-reading, I see that they are actually there quite a long way through, which makes rather more sense. I guess their presence to make the warring parties make peace before *everyone* in Borogravia dies is the reason, but it's the only book I recall reading with this in (confession - I rarely read fiction).
Aiee, that's a difficult one - I have the sensitivity of a brick to these things. (Someone mentioned upthread that TP missed mentioning a monthly occurence at any point - thinking back to the media when this was written, I think it would be much more acceptable to put that into a book now than it was then, menstruation is noticably less taboo today. I wonder whether he simply thought it was one thing too far? Or figured that if the songs glossed over it, so could he?). One of the things that struck me is the escape from the kitchen is classically Boys Own stuff, and there's a nod to the A Team as well, but all engineered by women. I guess I ought to look out the Knotweed's Worrals stories and see how W E Johns treated it...
I wasn't certain about it until pretty late - unlike the Knotweed, I am not from a Calvinist Scots background, so Knox was off my radar - though afterwards I did find out that the former Lord Lieutenant of Essex, who my primary school visited at his house every year, had commanded an anti-aircraft artillery battery "manned" by women during WW2, and fondly referred to them as his "Monstrous Regiment". I guess even then the socks should have been a giveaway, and the "flag" on the dustjacket cover - but I'm a bit like @KarlLB on these things.
Pratchett's gods only exist if people believe in them - see Small Gods for the full take on this one, and Pyramids for another - so I found this an interesting inversion of the "god is good, but people do crazy things" trope. Nuggan has become so up himself that no-one can sensibly believe in him, so he atrophies to something rather like a Daily Mail leader ( @Leorning Cniht has expressed this much better than I can already). Meanwhile the Duchess is (long?) dead, but there is just enough belief in her that she remains a presence, and the fervence of Wazzer's belief in here is enough to make her strong enough to influence the events in the keep. I actually think this is quite interesting for TP, who was heading towards the Atheist Militant, to bring a goddess in, even if she then tells the people of Borogravia to believe in themselves rather than her.
Maybe it's my interest in photographic history, but the Ankh-Morpork Times caravan reminded me of Roger Fenton in the Crimean War, though I don't recall them being accused of moving cannon balls at any point. But the Times is definitely pursuing a narrative of its own that may or may not be that of Ankh-Morpork.
War is an interesting one - Ankh-Morpork has got involved to stop Prince Heinrich being a threat to them, but they seem a bit late on the uptake, the war has obviously been going on for years, surely a world with Lord Vetinari in would have found a solution much, much earlier before Borogravia warred itself to a standstill? It's hard to find a new way to say "War is shot, kids, don't do it" - but TP does but a pleasingly black slant on some of it. And he's no fan of nationalism - just read the speech about what you are proud of to know that.
Some somewhat random asides. There's a moment where Polly spots Vimes (as we know him to be, though she doesn't) in the distance, with a shield on his breastplate, and I suddenly wondered if that's a sly wink at Judge Dredd?
The revelation that most of Borogravia's historic military heroes are in the dungeon as zombies is odd - nothing else comes of it, it almost seems as though they are there as an excuse to mention Reg Shoe (the Ankh-Morpork City Watch's own zombie).
The joke about folk singers in the lower bar made me cackle - if you've ever been in Oxford for May Morning you'll know how long the morris dancers can stay in a pub if they start at 7am! This is obviously a fond joke, I wonder if he had friends he said he'd mention (there are a few books with obvious Tuckerisations in, eg Marco Soto in Thief of Time), as TP was a folk fan himself.
GNU Terry Pratchett
A confession: I have not actually managed to locate my copy of 'Monstrous Regiment' but have been following the comments with interest. I hope this doesn't disqualify me from taking part.
From what I recall of the book, my reaction on reading it was basically 'meh.' I didn't hate it, but before this discussion started I never really felt the urge to reread it. I think it's because it introduces a whole bunch of new characters (a Monstrous Regiment, in fact) that we'd never heard of before, in order to satirise a lot of things he'd already done. Religion? Small Gods, Feet of Clay, Carpe Jugulum, plus numerous asides in other books. Nationalism is covered pretty well in Jingo, multiculturalism in Thud, the media in 'The Truth' and as a running joke thereafter.
He did handle gender roles quite well in this book, although it's a recurring theme in many of his books. I liked the way he resolved the Sergeant's dilemma and the scene where the 'Rupert' mansplained ironing to a group of laundresses. Although does it count as mansplaining if he really did know more about ironing than them? And it's a pity more heroines of folk songs didn't throw their half coin back in their lover's teeth and tell him to get lost, though I suppose if they did nobody would have written a song about them.
It was really gratifying to read a fantasy book by a male author who'd read Diana Wynne Jones' Tough Guide to Fantasyland and taken the trouble to get the technical details of cooking right.
But on the whole, it wasn't enough to make me want to add it to the list of Pratchetts that I reread. And the final message - that despite Ankh-Morpork's best efforts, Borogravia is going to go straight back to war - because they've been at war so long they can't imagine any other state? Because if they stop now all the blood and death will have been for nothing? Because they don't like doing what Ankh-Morpork wants? Depressing, even if it's true.
I too wondered how many women could get away with disguising themselves as men. I guess in a country where there isn't a lot to eat everyone would be skinny and women might stop menstruating, but even so it was a bit of a stretch that even the top brass was female. However I went along with it as it is fantasy after all.
I'll come back with some more thoughts later.
But that's the thing, isn't it - what are the interests of Ankh-Morpork? They're not the same as the interests of well-meaning decent people, are they? Vimes, who tends to be what passes for a practical conscience in these books, talks about the difference between the interests of the city itself, and of the Lord Rusts who control much of it, and the things the public cares about (which appears to be young gels with a bit of pluck, thanks to Mr. de Worde).
Before the public takes an interest, and before Ankh-Morpork sets up the clacks, and so needs to defend it against the locals, the interests of Ankh are probably rather well served by its neighbors squabbling with each other in an endless round of stupid war.
There's a thing about progress here. Borogravia worships a dead god, and slavishly follows his increasingly batshit pronouncements. It's mired in the endless cycle of war with Zlobenia and lying to the people about it, because it's lying to itself about its past and its present. And then the dead themselves rise up to fight.
First time reading Monstrous Regiment, and I feel so-so about it. I found the basic conceit interesting for a while, there were some good jokes and observations, and I quite liked Polly as a character, but I found it lacked narrative drive, and frankly got a bit boring. I was confused by the position of Ankh-Mopork and Vimes, (obviously if you’ve read other Discworld novels you would understand) but I couldn’t make myself care enough to investigate or research further. I can’t help feeling that this would make a good short story rather than a full-length novel; it can’t sustain 300-odd pages.
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
As I noted above, I found that I lacked basic knowledge of the Discworld, so I was a bit confused by some aspects, especially Vimes. I started the book with some enthusiasm, but found the endless journey dragged, and I nearly gave up. I did finish the novel, but skipped bits.
4. This novel plays on an old and familiar trope of a girl or young woman in a patriarchal society disguising herself as a boy to enter an all-male environment -- often in pursuit of a lover, but in Polly's case, to find and rescue her brother. Do you think Monstrous Regiment brings anything new to this storyline? What do you think the story has to say about gender and gender roles?
The story, as others have said is old and much-told, and in many cultures. I found it interesting, and perhaps it is a novel twist, that the girls prove to be so good at operating in an all-male environment – except that it isn’t!
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot?
It was in the title – once Polly got the advice about the socks, it became pretty obvious. My copy also had a fairly unambiguously female character on the cover too.
6. The pronouncements of the god Nuggan are a frequent and recurring point in this novel. What point do you think Pratchett is making about religion in the way Nuggan is (or is not) worshipped by his people?
Leorning Cniht has said it best, that in Monstrous Regiment, ‘where the god Nuggan is dead, and the increasingly barmy abominations are produced by the collective anxiety of the Borogravians,’ that religion, at least in this manifestation, ‘offers a rather unpleasant picture of the small-minded jealousies and scapegoating that drives much of human behaviour’. Clearly most people are not taking a great deal of notice of the prohibitions.
My favourite quotation though (and I could wade through Pratchett just for his asides):
“There was this about vampires: they could never look scruffy. Instead, they were... what was the word... deshabille. It meant untidy, but with bags and bags of style.”
This was my first time reading Monstrous Regiment, but as I accidentally bought the play script based on the novel I read that first, so knew the basic story line. The novel includes a lot more detail and the play script cuts out the subplot of Nuggan and the Nugganite religion altogether, but does include Wazzer and the Duchess' story line. The play script also cuts all the serious violence, so it was a bit shocking when people were killed in the novel. I enjoyed the book, but the story line didn't really stick in my head. I liked the characters and their interactions and although not generally a big fan of fantasy I really like how the vampires, trolls, zombies and Igorina were portrayed. Igorina and Maladict were my favourite characters.
2. This has been touched on quite a bit in the discussion above, but if you haven't already done so -- where does this book fit into your experience of reading Pratchett as a whole? Are you a newcomer to his work, a hardcore fan, or somewhere in between?
I have read a couple of other books for the Ship book club, but am struggling to remember which ones. One was about the witches and the other included the Nac MacFeegal. I think I then read the first book in the series 'The Colour of Magic'. I have also watched the TV adaption of the first two books. I tried watching 'The Hogfather' but didn't enjoy it.
Although I enjoyed all the books I never have been able to get into the series as a whole. Possibly because there were so many published already before I read any of them so it is a bit daunting to know where to start and also because I can't seem to remember the plot lines of these books. I looked through the summaries to try to remember which books I have read and remembered characters, but not events.
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first?
After reading about a quarter of the novel while stuck at the library during a violent storm, I found I read about 25 to 30 pages a day. I agree with others that it could have been a bit shorter and some parts were a bit repetitive. I just didn't find it a page turner, but enjoyed reading it a bit at at time.
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot?
I spoiled the twist by reading the play script first. When reading play scripts I like to cast myself and friends or family members as the characters (that's how I got through Shakespeare in high school!) so I realised most of the characters were played by women. Interestingly Maladict, Jack Rackrum and Jade were played by men in the play even though the characters were also women in disguise.
7. Apart from gender and religion, other real-world issues that are targeted in this satire include war, nationalism, and the media. What do you think about how these topics are treated in the novel?[/quote]
It was one of the few fictional novels I have read that shines a spotlight on the effects of the war on people at home. Particularly the fact that the Borogravians were running out of food because all their young men had died in or were off fighting the war.
It's not that the humour is black, because Pratchett doesn't do black humour - black humour treats serious subject matter as if you don't really care. So while there are jokes, there aren't really any big comic set pieces to lighten the mood, except maybe the laundress scenes.
The main reason that war leads to famine is that an army passing through an area without mechanised transport to carry food has to eat all the spare crops in the area it travels through, and if a second army passes through that includes the seed for the next year's crops.
First time reading. Pretty neutral felings. Could have used more plot and been shorter.
2. This has been touched on quite a bit in the discussion above, but if you haven't already done so -- where does this book fit into your experience of reading Pratchett as a whole? Are you a newcomer to his work, a hardcore fan, or somewhere in between?
Newcomer and not likely to read more of his books.
3. For those who found this book "hard to get into" (a comment I saw a few times in the discussion above) -- can you articulate why, or what it was about it that didn't grab you at first? Little, slow moving plot. Only one conceit: they are all women.
4. This novel plays on an old and familiar trope of a girl or young woman in a patriarchal society disguising herself as a boy to enter an all-male environment -- often in pursuit of a lover, but in Polly's case, to find and rescue her brother. Do you think Monstrous Regiment brings anything new to this storyline? What do you think the story has to say about gender and gender roles?
I am not sure it brings much new to an old plot device.
5. If this was your first time reading the novel (or, if this was a reread, can you remember from your first reading), at what point did you figure out the twist that almost all the male characters were actually disguised women? What did you think about this turn in the plot? It was interesting the first times it happened. After that it got tedious.
For the reasons I discussed on previous pages, I think this a shame. To me, this is the weakest Discworld novel by a long way. If you don't like the fantasy genre at all then you may not enjoy Pratchett but this is the wrong one to judge it on. Sir Terry has so many fans because his best is sublime. This one is humdrum.
I don't know if this parallel works for you but I would argue that anyone who had only seen The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would probably hate Indian Jones movies, whilst Raiders, Temple of Doom and especially Last Crusade are great adventure movies.
I don't presume to tell you what to read, just my perspective.
AFZ
I haven't been able to get on with any of the Rincewind books, at least since Wyrd Sisters came out. There's only so much plot you can get out of someone whose default reaction to any situation is to run away from it.
I agree that Monstrous Regiment doesn't have much of the good points of Wyrd Sisters or those of Hogfather. I'm not sure that makes it weak. I think Pratchett was trying something he hadn't really tried before.
(*) In the absence of any evidence otherwise and given that Jackrum must have joined the army well before the current crisis I'm assuming Jackrum is male by gender.
I think you may be right about Pratchett trying something new with Monstrous Regiment, or at least he was taking a different look at the Discworld in that book. As far as seeing Sgt Jackrum's point of view goes, have you finished the book yet? There's a bit very near the end where we get the Sgt telling Polly about earlier days in the army...
Wow. A few Raising Steam dislikes on this thread. I disagree, I really like it and it's full of plot and an ensemble piece. It's got new characters but it's also a goblin story, a Moist story, a Vines story and completes the Low King of Dwarfs story Arc.... Shepherd's Crown is a little bit of a rehash of Lords and Ladies but as I said previously, the death of Granny Weatherwax is beautifully told. I also like the fact that Tiffany grows up through her stories. It was, of course unfinished when Pratchett died and many hard-core fans are not totally enamored with it.
To me, both far superior to MR. You mileage may, of course, vary...
AFZ