The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
Wyrd Sisters
2015 Reads
>
WS: Is this a good *novel*, or is it just good comedy?
date
newest »
newest »
Honestly, that's how I felt about every Douglas Adams I ever read. When you take out the comedy, there wasn't that much substance left.
I think Weird Systers has some interesting themes but that it was a bit lacking in plot as well. Witches Abroad felt more like a proper novel (as well as some of his later books).
I think Weird Systers has some interesting themes but that it was a bit lacking in plot as well. Witches Abroad felt more like a proper novel (as well as some of his later books).
I agree with you. Moreover i don't enjoy it, i don't like the main characters and i don't laugh, only smile sometimes but its not enough. I am the same stage reading as you and right now i'm waiting for the end, not being hooked on in the process. It annoys me that all the kingdom revolves around bunch of witches.
As an intro to Discworld it's fair. I'm not sure I'll read any more Discworld, although the large selection available from my library argues in favor of that. Wyrd Sisters is short and at least mildly interesting. I'm about halfway through and the descriptions of Magrat are amusing, as well as (view spoiler)
Magrat is my favourite.
Just.....
Her being all excited and eager about this career path and the bitter old ladies just being all, "No things are not that glamorous"
Just.....
Her being all excited and eager about this career path and the bitter old ladies just being all, "No things are not that glamorous"
I think it's true that Pratchett was still perfecting his art here. He'd got a talent for humour and rhetoric which are very British* and he's building outwards from there. I also find the reliance on Macbeth and associated Shakesperean artifices to be a bit of an obvious crutch compared with what we got with later Pratchett. I'm still enjoying it though.* Would any of you Americans believe me if I said that as kids we had to demonstrate these kinds of skills at the family dinner table if we wanted to eat dessert?
@Anja I think Douglas Adams is a good comparison, but even there the cosmic irony oftentimes made everything feel more connected/fitting than it is here. A house is going to get demolished for a highway, so what happens next? The entire planet gets demolished for a highway. Etc etc. And I guess we do get a couple of through-lines at least-- I'm amazed that he can keep bringing up the storm-in-training and make it funny and new every single time. But that's not really the same thing. Airplane with a couple of running jokes isn't suddenly a structured comedy (and I love Airplane, but I don't know, I opened this book really expecting Edgar Wright)
@Anne I can believe it. It's why you lot produce Eddie Izzards while we get Dane Cooks.
@Rob: Wow, my wording is all off. I know Adams is a high quality author and had all these big ideas. : ) I think because his characters felt more like vehicles for comedy than fully fledged characters that I just never could get that connection to the book as a book. Which is what I meant.
Anne wrote: "* Would any of you Americans believe me if I said that as kids we had to demonstrate these kinds of skills at the family dinner table if we wanted to eat dessert?"How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
Joseph wrote: "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"WINNER.
...and to accept your award, Joseph, I will ask that you stand still, Laddy!
Anne wrote: "I think it's true that Pratchett was still perfecting his art here. He'd got a talent for humour and rhetoric which are very British* and he's building outwards from there. I also find the reliance..."Agreed. Pratchett's work becomes more...unique in later books. Wyrd Sisters is still, to me, a fine and enjoyable parody.
Rob Secundus wrote: "I'm about 50% through, and while I've been enjoying it, there's been something nagging at me. I've enjoyed every scene, I've laughed at most jokes, but I'm not sure I'm really enjoying this as a no..."The thing is, there are a lot of separate threads in WS; it isn't a simple story that just goes in a single line from start to end. That you don't see how all the threads relate to each other immediately is not a valid criticism. That just means that the author is doing something sufficiently unlike what other authors do that the reader can't easily anticipate; in other words, he is doing something original. I'd say that if you can see from the beginning where the story is going, then it is probably just a cliche.
Rob Secundus wrote: "… I opened this book really expecting Edgar Wright …"Why not just let the book be what it is, instead of imposing your expectations on it?
Anja wrote: "Magrat is my favourite.Just.....
Her being all excited and eager about this career path and the bitter old ladies just being all, "No things are not that glamorous""
I don't see how either Granny or, especially, Nanny can be called bitter.
I found it enjoyable and with a poignant edge. Witches really were perceived as the "Scottish Play" portrays, whereas a "witch" was more like the ones in the book - nature-wise women with knowledge of healing herbs and other such helpful but misunderstood subjects. Instead of the respected witches of Wyrd Sisters, in reality we had horrific pogroms.
There is a lot in this book, but underlying it all is a theme about the power of words.
I feel like I should clarify after listening to the podcast; I don't think the book lacks a plot. I think the entire middle third (or maybe a bit more) has a plot that's wandering, aimless, and only pushed along by gags, rather than gags flowing naturally from the plot. People show up in a place. Then they decide to go to another place. Even when a witch is (view spoiler) it's just a change of scenery; they wander in, they wander out. And I do feel, now that I've finished the book, that when they do the (view spoiler) these problems go away, and it feels like a really excellent comic novel (I ended up giving it four stars). I just really wish that whole thing felt like that, not just the last third.
Michael wrote: "
Why not just let the book be what it is, instead of imposing your expectations on it?"
If something is inappropriate for a certain medium, you shouldn't be writing it in that medium. In this case, if what it is is funny but a bad novel, it'd be better served by being cut down to a novella or longer short story.
Michael wrote "there are a lot of separate threads in WS; it isn't a simple story that just goes in a single line from start to end. That you don't see how all the threads relate to each other immediately is not a valid criticism. That just means that the author is doing something sufficiently unlike what other authors do that the reader can't easily anticipate; in other words, he is doing something original. I'd say that if you can see from the beginning where the story is going, then it is probably just a cliche. "
There's a difference between "oh, that was obviously going to happen" and making sure that each scene/development logically proceeds from what came before; when Bertie and Jeeves show up at a country house you don't quite know what chaos is about to ensue, but each step to the chaotic climax is carefully chosen.
It's the difference between 1. simple straight lines that you know will cross (cliche story) 2. complicated lines governed by some logical pattern that you can only grasp when you see the whole (a good story), and 3. dotted lines where each chunk isn't necessarily connected to anything that came before, and that aren't governed by any great pattern (the middle third of this book)
It's better if you think of Wyrd Sisters as a play that went horribly awry and smuggled itself out of the theater in a novel. I mean, stage direction keeps showing up in dialog. It's true Pratchett's structure at this point in time wasn't great. But I think he was legitimately trying to mimic a Shakespearean structure here. If you want more structure, Night's Watch was the first really structurally strong novels of his I remember reading, he was developing character and theme rather than just playing with tropes.
I just came upon a tribute to Terry Pratchett that was posted last month. It has several references to Wyrd Sisters and much about the 'literary' content of Pratchett's novels. I'll share it here because is seems applicable. https://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/...
Michael wrote: "Anja wrote: "Magrat is my favourite.
Just.....
Her being all excited and eager about this career path and the bitter old ladies just being all, "No things are not that glamorous""
I don't see ho..."
They are not bitter towards life but they are less star-gazed about their job. I.e. Margot wants to do magic with the "proper" items and Granny and Nanny just grab a random utensil.
Wrong word choice.
Just.....
Her being all excited and eager about this career path and the bitter old ladies just being all, "No things are not that glamorous""
I don't see ho..."
They are not bitter towards life but they are less star-gazed about their job. I.e. Margot wants to do magic with the "proper" items and Granny and Nanny just grab a random utensil.
Wrong word choice.
I think it's a fair statement to say that, plot-wise, the novel has some weak points. But I can't help but be reminded of something Stephen King said in his novel, Duma Key:"Any fool with steady hands and a working set of lungs can build up a house of cards and then blow it down, but it takes a genius to make people laugh.”
Walter wrote: "Any fool with steady hands and a working set of lungs can build up a house of cards and then blow it down, but it takes a genius to make people laugh"And still any sophisticated intricate intriguing plot with great characters give me far more fulfillment than the sum of all humor in the world.
And by the way i think humor in text-form has far less potential then humor performed by actors. So either i have too little imagination or comedy books are just cannot be so powerful at all. I prefer concentrating on more serious stuff.
I think we have very different definitions of what serious stuff is. Pratchett's philosophical fantasy is about the most serious stuff I've seen in that it is relevant to real life. I can't say I've seen much other modern fiction that does this nearly as well. This article from the SF publisher TOR (written by Brandon Sanderson) actually accuses him of perpetrating 'literature'.http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/04/terr...
It shouldn't just have serious hidden basis, it should have serious feel. I don't get why everyone so turned on by this contradictory combination of humorous form and presumably (if fans are saying Disc World philosophy is SO substantial then maybe i should believe them, but as it seems for me after reading Wyrd Sisters it is no bigger than any of other SFF series which contains half-hidden critique of superstition, cruelty, monarchy, self-delusion, ignorance, fanaticism, myths, greed, self-destruction tendency, and so on and so on) very serious essence. I prefer consuming those apart from each other.
Daniel wrote: "It shouldn't just have serious hidden basis, it should have serious feel.."Now here is a place where our tastes differ. I personally dislike fiction that is intended to 'feel' as if it's not fiction. It's actually one of my pet peeves with most fiction today. Fiction is pretend. I try not to blur the line between fiction and reality. A serious treatment of history, science, or whatever isn't the proper domain of fiction. It's not what I turn to for such things, anyway. That's what nonfiction is for. I look to fiction first and foremost for an enjoyable story. Great fiction will also explore the human condition, but if it does this by trying to make the fictional characters and setting 'serious', it's lying, it's BS, and I have a fairly low tolerance for that. I prefer consuming fact and fiction separately, for the most part. :-)
D.L. wrote: "but if it does this by trying to make the fictional characters and setting 'serious', it's lying, it's BS, and I have a fairly low tolerance for that"So you don't like Ender's Game, for example? Or Hyperion, Neuromancer or Space Odyssey? Hell, even Haryy Potter is pretty serious without artificially "funny" stuff (remember those "family" scenes at start of each story). All of them are pretty serious with serious story, serious characters, serious feel, serious philosophy/psychology and serious implications. Without any unnecessary fooling around. That's what really deeply enjoyable fiction for me.
Daniel wrote: "Walter wrote: "Any fool with steady hands and a working set of lungs can build up a house of cards and then blow it down, but it takes a genius to make people laugh"And still any sophisticated in..."
For me, this discussion is a good example of the difference between objective and subjective valuations.
Objective is two carpenters checking out a deck, with one nodding in agreement as the other says, "Those boards should never have been nailed together so close. The contractor should have left gaps between the boards so the rainwater could drain instead of pooling and damaging the wood over time."
Subjective is those same carpenters checking out the two women walking down the street:
"Hey, get a load of the blonde. Hubba hubba!"
"You blind? The blonde's a horse. Now that redhead..."
I'm really surprised that anyone would describe Hyperion and Neuromancer as being totally serious, there's tons of humour in both (the poet's tale?). Humour makes radical ideas easier to swallow.
Some of my favorite fiction makes me laugh and then makes me think. I think you can make the criticism though that sometimes in comedy, things happen because they're funny and not because they make sense. But a good comic can use humor to sneak in ideas that would not be accepted any other way. Satire as a catalyst for change is an important legacy.
Daniel wrote: "D.L. wrote: "but if it does this by trying to make the fictional characters and setting 'serious', it's lying, it's BS, and I have a fairly low tolerance for that"So you don't like Ender's Game, ..."
Of those you mention, I've only read a few. I'm kind of picky and am far more likely to put a book aside unfinished now than I ever was when I was younger. Ender's Game is one that I forced myself to finish several years ago. I don't recall much other than that I disliked it. The Harry Potter books are okay but pale in comparison to Pratchett's Tiffany Aching YA series...in my opinion.
Joanna wrote: "Some of my favorite fiction makes me laugh and then makes me think. I think you can make the criticism though that sometimes in comedy, things happen because they're funny and not because they mak..."Different people are looking for different things in fiction. Some want "action". Some want romance. Some want angst or emotion... I prefer stories that provoke smiles and thoughts. I also like protagonists that are reasonably confident, rational, and have admirable motives. (Although what I find admirable, others may not.) Oh, and I'm a sucker for a happy ending.
Daniel wrote: "It shouldn't just have serious hidden basis, it should have serious feel. I don't get why everyone so turned on by this contradictory combination of humorous form and presumably (if fans are saying..."If they're seemingly contradictory, I think maybe you just haven't been exposed to good comic writing. The very nature of comedy lends itself really well to addressing serious issues/topics/themes-- the mechanics of humor are essentially the same as those of horror and despair. Edgar Wright and Wes Anderson are directors that very quickly come to mind, but Doctor Horrible's Sing Along Blog is a great little masterclass in the subject. In print the big names off the top of my head would be Waugh, O'Connor, and Percy.
But then I say all this as a very biased person studying satire as part of my career. So.
Rob Secundus wrote: "Edgar Wright and Wes Anderson are directors that very quickly come to mind, but Doctor Horrible's Sing Along Blog is a great little masterclass in the subject. In print the big names off the top of my head would be Waugh, O'Connor, and Percy. "Also Futurama! I was roommates for 4 years with a professional comedy writer, and we'd spend hours listening to the commentary tracks and dissecting the jokes on that show. Such a perfect (Pratchettesque?) blend of serious social commentary and humour.
I kind of felt like things could have been cut and pulled together a bit more tightly to make a really good, fun and interesting novella, but instead there was all this silliness flying off all over the place that distracted me from the story, rather than enhancing it. It was almost like a joke that went on too long, and so about a third of the way in, the book became a real drag to read, even though there was still plenty of good stuff later on. I don't know, there was an emptiness, somehow.
There's a good bit in here about Pratchett's humor. Thanks to Dara for posting it in another thread!http://io9.com/the-io9-guide-to-discw...
Compare this to any of the great 20th century British comic novels. Think of something like a Wodehouse novel (which is, I think, particularly fair, given that Jeeves is, for all intents and purposes, a kind of magical, mysterious wizard). Every single scene has a purpose. The jokes are not simply contained in each scene, but the grander joke is how everything seems necessarily to lead to the next bit of increasing chaos, until, at last, Jeeves solves the problems that have arisen, in what seems the only way possible.
Or maybe look at Good Omens. There we have a half dozen plotlines, but everything in each is tightly plotted, and all of them converge seemingly inevitably. Adam et al do a thing, then we get the result of that thing, Crowley does a thing, we get the result of that thing, etc. It's all one great chain.
Here things just sort of wander hither and thither. The witches hang out in a house. Then they hang out on a hill. Then a different house. The fool shows up to hang out with the Duke for a bit. Then he does again in a different part of the castle. A witch ends up in the castle. She leaves. Then they're hanging out in houses again. Etc etc. Nothing ever happens, and the wanderings seem only loosely connected. It's more like a standup routine than it is a novel.
Maybe this will change soon-- I've finally gotten to the part where (view spoiler)[ the Witches have decided to make a plan! To do something! (hide spoiler)]. We'll see. Even if things do start to become tighter, it might be too little too late.
And honestly I'd be ok with the "and now we're over here, now we're over there, mostly we've only shifted because I've got a couple of great jokes to tell" structure if there were, at least, any movement in the characters. But our three protagonists all seem to be static. The Fool seems to be the only one set up to actually progress (and it's a little upsetting that in a novel about three women, it's the dude that gets to be more than just a mother, maiden, or crone)
I don't know. Is it silly to go "I'm having a great time but don't think this is a great work/ I think the writing is great but the novel is not" ? Are my standards just ridiculous? Have I just read too much Wodehouse?