The Color of Magic - Style of humor

[Elizabeth]

What do you think of the style of humor in The Color of Magic?

[Jon]

I absolutely love it. In fact, I've gone back and re-read paragraphs and sentences to re-create the scenes in my head - because I will invariably miss something humorous. It's like trying to watch a Leslie Neilson movie - many sight gags, if you know what I mean.

[Brooke]

I love it, too - Pratchett has a habit of playing on words in such a quick way that you can almost miss it if you're not reading closely. If I read during lunch at work, I usually end up embarassing myself by laughing out loud. He's really clever.

[Jon]

I was just doing that in the breakroom during my lunch - reading and laughing out loud. Luckily, since I take an early lunch, there weren't too many odd looks my way.

[Rusty]

This probably happens a lot, but I would say his humor is like that of a subtle Douglas Adams. I like it.

[[deleted user]]

I like the fact that it's not just one style. He uses many humor styles at once: word play, biting commentary, subtle commentary, slapstick, parody, etc.

[Branka]

I just love his style, how he plays with words, sentences...I did have some problems at the beginning, since I'm not a native english speaker, but it soon became a fluid read.

[Michael]

Like Douglas Adams, Pratchett has this way of putting together words and phrases in funny and descriptive ways. It seems very easy when you read it on the page, but then you step back and think about how well he's put things together.

[Amy]

I loved the humor - it's honestly what kept me going, as I thought the plot was a little weak (maybe just because it doesn't end?). And I would probably find more to laugh at if I re-read it - I like that.
Bunny, I like what you said about respecting reader's intelligence - I like books that have subtleties that I almost miss (or do miss) - it shows a confidence in the material being presented -in that sense, I'd have to say there are parallels to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Both authors present material without being overly concerned about how or if it all comes together for the readers. I apologize for going a little off-topic.

[E.J.]

I've never really been a fan of British comedy. I see the attraction to stuff like Monty Python, Faulty Towers, et al, but the humor's vastly different then what I enjoy. I think it's the propriety or formality that throws me off. People compare Terry Pratchett's work to Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide series and that seems pretty approriate. Both are outlandish and filled with silly inanity. That being said, it's not my cup of tea. There always seems to be those scenes where characters apologize for having to kill one of the protagonists, as if they'd rather not, but it's their duty. There's also a number of times Pratchett takes the story in some completely new direction - with the gambling G-ds overseeing everything. I know this is what attracts a lot of readers, but not me. I prefer my science fiction (comedy or otherwise) to have its rules grounded and clear. I also like stories with beginnings, middles and ends. This one doesn't really have that. I understand the Discworld series gets better over time and I might pick up the second one if I run across it, but I'm not going to go out of my way to get it

[Sandi]

I pretty much agree with every Robinson said.

[Steingard]

Robinson,

“I prefer my science fiction (comedy or otherwise) to have its rules grounded and clear.”

Now, where’s the fun in that?

I guess you are American. Being from another part of the great “outland” than the English-speaking one, I can’t really relate to your classification of humour. To me, there is a great difference between (for instance) Faulty Towers and Pratchett (though I can enjoy them both). I usually don’t take much notice whether the fantasy/sci-fi books I read in English are written by authors from England, Canada, Australia or the USA (or wherever). What, in your opinion, characterises good American humour?

By the way, one of the funniest books I know is Good Omens, co-written by Pratchett and Gaiman. What I find impressive is that it works so well in spite of the vast difference in their individual styles of humour.

[Andrew]

I wouldn't entirely agree with Robinson's comments on the humour front, although the Douglas Adams comparison is a good one I'd not thought about (but Monty Python? Nope.) However, I would agree that the early Pratchett books were a bit anarchic - bouncing off at strange tangents at times.

It seemed to me that the biggest change in the early books was that the stories did acquire a beginning, middle and ends - although the Rincewind series always were a bit more random!

[Kristjan]

Andrew I wouldn't entirely agree with Robinson's comments on the humour front, although the Douglas Adams comparison is a good one I'd not thought about (but Monty Python? Nope.)

I don't know .. I thought is was vaguely grail shaped myself :) For the most part, the book seemed to just travel from scene to scene without much of a transition. The only thing missing is the coconuts ...

[Sandi]

Coconuts would have been good. The abrupt scene changes just bugged the heck out of me. I never knew what was going on or why. The only part that made any sense was the middle section with the dragons. It was the only part of the story that seemed coherent.

[HeyT]

lol The dragons were the part I could have done without :P

[Sandi]

The weird thing is that I'm sick to death of dragons in fantasy. But, I liked Pratchett's take on them.

[HeyT]

Yeah, I thought the whole you have to believe in them thing was a nice touch I just remember that's when I started to get that glazed over look and had to really push through to get to the end.

[C Jon]

I started with the later books and read this one afterward and it is much more difficult to read. He makes all the dealings with wizards really hap-hazard and I try to stay away from the wizard tales because of that reason. Just too bouncy. I do like the books though.

[Angie]

I am half way through the book and I am loving the humor. Spoiler: Like the little camera flashing and scaring the monster away. HA! That is great!

[AA]

I love the style of humour. To those who say they don't like Brit humour, please remember that there are different styles of Brit humour too. I love certain BritComs, but Fawlty Towers isn't one of them .. and this is coming from someone who thinks John Cleese is amazing!

@Robinson and @Sandi: If something doesn't work for you, then it just doesn't. I am curious which comedic sci-fi books you do enjoy though.

Pratchett's style works for me. I don't mind the abrupt scene changes, they make me think of the old ViewMasters where you pull the lever and the scene changes completely. I like the play on words and "Zweiblumen" made me laugh out loud. (Yeah, it doens't take much ;)

[Sandi]

AA, I don't read a lot of humorous science fiction, but two that really stand out are "The Android's Dream" by John Scalzi and "Soon I Will Be Invincible" by Austin Grossman. Both of those books really cracked me up. I also love Connie Willis' sense of humor. Even her most serious book, "Passage", has a great deal of humor in it.

[Michael]

Sandi,

I read "Android's Dream" last year and enjoyed it a great deal. Any novel that has a potential war started over flatulance has to be worth reading. And the interesting thing is that Scalzi is able to take the funny and throw in a dash or two of serious elements to make you think in between the laughs.

And like Pratchett and Adams, he makes it look easy, when in reality it's probably not.

[AA]

@Sandi - Thanks! I haven't read those, so my list just got a little bit longer :)