Discworld discussion
Reading order
So far I've done reverse order, colour of dust jacket spine order, alphabetical order. Throwing them up in the air and reading them in the order they come down order (still waiting for Mort to come down). Last one was a joke, people that throw books in the air and drop them are on a level with perverts, tax collectors and mime artists and should be shot.
Because most of the people who are advocating to read in any order already read the books and aren't spoiling things for themselves.
Wolfie, one tires of your one trick pony, empty rhetoric. It seems that while you read the books, you do not understand the free thinking spirit of the writer. 50 points from Slytherin.
Niall wrote: "Wolfie, one tires of your one trick pony, empty rhetoric. It seems that while you read the books, you do not understand the free thinking spirit of the writer. 50 points from Slytherin."
That deserves a high five, and maybe a cookie too. *tosses Niall some oreos*
I thank you. I'm also available for weddings, christenings, funerals, and Bar Mitzvahs. Please tip your waitress before you head home.
JSWolf, if the books must be read in order then why are there YA books, like Wee Free Men, much further down the series list? Should a 8 year old have read all the previous 29 books first?
All permutations are possible but there are reasons for each and it is fun to argue about rituals to get the most out of your books. That about sums up my understanding of the situation. I didn't have anything substantial or compelling to say but I just wanted to join in the water balloon fight. Reading in publication order can be useful and fun but shorter tours suggest themselves such as reading the YA books separately or following the career of Vimes et al or the witches, etc. I think if you've already read the entire series in one order it's probably a good idea to try another tack just to stimulate the old brain growth. I have read other series in one order and then repeated the exact same sequence again without self- destructing so you too may survive. Forty books is a lot to read twice but if I know my fellow book nuts...
Lets be honest it either the water balloon fight or play-doh and my yellow already looks browny-greeny-grey.
Chris wrote: "I'm really very shocked by some of the opinions expressed in this thread. It seems there are people here who think it's OK to read the later books in the Discworld series without having read the ea..."Excellent Chris! TP would be proud of you!
The thing is, by telling people it's OK to read out of order, they might actually listen to you when they would have gone and read in order. What you are doing is telling people something they should figure out for themselves. They should start with The Colour of Magic. Most people when they come upon a series with enough books either read in published order or chronological order. In this case, both orders are the same. So let them read as they feel is appropriate without trying to say skip this or read that first. Don't bombard them with that frigging pathetic chart. Let them read in order if that's how they want to read. You are spoiling thing for them. So knock it off.I've seen plenty of recommendations that say it's OK to read book 3 or book 4 (of a series, not necessarily Discworld) because it's stand-alone. BS it is. In most cases, that's untrue. So let new readers read in order if that's what they want. Don't try to tell them differently.
I really think it's an exaggeration to say the series will be ruined or spoiled for someone if they read out of order. If a person enjoys a book, regardless of whether or not they understood every little detail, then it's hardly spoiled. Even if you read the books in order you might not pick up on every little thing the first time around.I don't think there's anyone that's posted who has read the books out of order that has said they've regretted it. If a person is like you or me and really prefers to read the book in order and realizes that they've inadvertently read out of order, then they can go back and read in order the next time around. It's not the end of the world.
Your obsession with making sure that the series isn't "spoiled" for anyone borders on pathological. In fact it may have already crossed the border. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if someone actually cared as much about all the little details and nuances of a series as you do, that they would simply read the books in order without bothering to ask in a group like this whether or not it was important?
Your idea that it's OK to jump around is bordering on the ridiculous. You don't get it. You want others to read out of order because you didn't like some of the early books. I get that. But I also get that you haven't a clue how you are going to ruin the series for others. Just give it up.
In case you're having trouble following the posts I've actually said a number of times that I agree that it's preferable to read them in order.I don't "want" anyone to read the books out of order. At the same time I don't obsess about trying to make everyone else read the books the same way I do. I respect the right of other people to read the series the way they want to even if it's not the same as mine.
And if you feel it's making a huge mistake for them to do so, then you know what, let them make their own mistakes. Making mistakes is how people learn and grow. You learn a lot more from your mistakes than you do from getting everything right the first time.
I love you Wolfie, you have taken someone who was basically agreeing with your position and pretty much got them to come to the dark side. That amused me, you can have some if those point back for Slytherin. 3 points back
Kythe42 wrote: "This might be in horribly poor taste but I keep imagining "The Soup Nazi" from Seinfeld."You read in wrong order? No Disc for you!""
Niall wrote: "Wolfie, one tires of your one trick pony, empty rhetoric. It seems that while you read the books, you do not understand the free thinking spirit of the writer.
50 points from Slytherin."
Graham wrote: "JSWolf, if the books must be read in order then why are there YA books, like Wee Free Men, much further down the series list? Should a 8 year old have read all the previous 29 books first?"
Niall wrote: "I love you Wolfie, you have taken someone who was basically agreeing with your position and pretty much got them to come to the dark side.
That amused me, you can have some if those point back for Slytherin. 3 points back"
This conversation is hilarious. *Grabs some popcorn and sits back to watch it play out* :D
Wolfie's big point (his only point, as far as I can see) is that if you read the series out of order, it will be spoiled for you because you will not understand some of the back-references.
Let's look at that word 'spoiled'. I assume it means 'will not have had the optimum reading experience by the time you complete the series'. But what if you're the sort of reader who would enjoy some of the later books, but not TCOM? This seems quite possible, given that TCOM is a fairly straightforward S&S parody, and some of the later books are really quite complex novels that cast a fresh light on real-world problems with Pratchett's well-known wit and intelligence. Isn't there a real risk with some first-time readers that if we tell them 'you must read TCOM first', they will do so, and then conclude that the whole series is probably lightweight and not as worthwhile as many contemporary mainstream novels - a point of view which I personally would vigorously dispute, as I imagine many people here would?
This thread started with OP asking what's the best reading order. I think this question can only be answered once you've got your new reader hooked, and even then it may not be straightforward, because it may not be the same for every reader. First try to hook your reader with a DW book you think they'll like, and then, if you succeed, show them the dreaded lspace chart and let them navigate around using their own intelligence. They must have some of that, or they wouldn't have got past the first book.
Over to you, Wolfie.
Let's look at that word 'spoiled'. I assume it means 'will not have had the optimum reading experience by the time you complete the series'. But what if you're the sort of reader who would enjoy some of the later books, but not TCOM? This seems quite possible, given that TCOM is a fairly straightforward S&S parody, and some of the later books are really quite complex novels that cast a fresh light on real-world problems with Pratchett's well-known wit and intelligence. Isn't there a real risk with some first-time readers that if we tell them 'you must read TCOM first', they will do so, and then conclude that the whole series is probably lightweight and not as worthwhile as many contemporary mainstream novels - a point of view which I personally would vigorously dispute, as I imagine many people here would?
This thread started with OP asking what's the best reading order. I think this question can only be answered once you've got your new reader hooked, and even then it may not be straightforward, because it may not be the same for every reader. First try to hook your reader with a DW book you think they'll like, and then, if you succeed, show them the dreaded lspace chart and let them navigate around using their own intelligence. They must have some of that, or they wouldn't have got past the first book.
Over to you, Wolfie.
JS Wolff:"I've seen plenty of recommendations that say it's OK to read book 3 or book 4 (of a series, not necessarily Discworld) because it's stand-alone. BS it is. In most cases, that's untrue. So let new readers read in order if that's what they want. Don't try to tell them differently."Wait a second. No one here said the books must not be read in order, merely that we had enjoyed them out of order.
You actually contradict yourself; we must not tell people to read out of order, however you can tell people that the only way to read is in publishing order? So basically, the only way a series can be is if your rules are followed? It sounds counterintuitive to apply rules to Pratchett!
Don't individual readers get to decide what works for them!?!
Chris said:"This thread started with OP asking what's the best reading order. I think this question can only be answered once you've got your new reader hooked, and even then it may not be straightforward, because it may not be the same for every reader. First try to hook your reader with a DW book you think they'll like..."
Great point Chris, let others decide what path they will follow.
Hmm what is S&S? I have no idea what that's referring to... Still I read TCOM first and loved it so much I had to go out and get The Light Fantastic right away.That's a big reason why I was originally sympathetic to JSWolf's position, because in a lot of places, here and elsewhere, I see people warned away from reading TCOM because they didn't like it as much as the other books. I personally thought it was hilarious and I'd hate to think that people wouldn't give it a chance because so many are saying that you shouldn't start with it because it's not as good. So in my case I don't really care so much whether someone reads it first or not, I just worry that others won't bother reading it all based on those recommendations. My only sticking point as far as reading order would be that you probably shouldn't read The Light Fantastic before TCOM since it is a direct continuation of the story.
S&S is short for Sword and Sorcery, the subgenre of fantasy to which the Lankhmar novels of Fritz Leiber and the Conan stories of Robert E.Howard belong, which Terry parodies in TCOM.
Thanks for the info. I read the wikipedia article and I can't say I really have much familiarity with any of the examples given, but clearly I didn't need to in order to enjoy TCOM.
Chris wrote: "Wolfie's big point (his only point, as far as I can see) is that if you read the series out of order, it will be spoiled for you because you will not understand some of the back-references."I'm so happy, Wolfie is now an official petname.
Kythe42 wrote: "Thanks for the info. I read the wikipedia article and I can't say I really have much familiarity with any of the examples given, but clearly I didn't need to in order to enjoy TCOM."
Fritz Leiber Lankhmar stories well worth a read. TCOM is a brilliant book, and if you read Leiber you will see what a clever, fond send up TCOM is.
Mitali, it keeps me out of trouble with real people :)
Thanks I'll definitely look into reading those, especially if I plan to reread TCOM again.
Niall wrote: I'm so happy, Wolfie is now an official petname.
I'd prefer 'nickname' to 'petname'. I find the idea of a pet wolf somewhat unnerving. My collie dog is quite enough of a handful.
I hope Wolfie isn't offended by his nickname. He can always call me by a nickname in return. Being a modest sort of chap, I would happily answer to 'Lord Vetinari', or 'The Patrician'.
I'd prefer 'nickname' to 'petname'. I find the idea of a pet wolf somewhat unnerving. My collie dog is quite enough of a handful.
I hope Wolfie isn't offended by his nickname. He can always call me by a nickname in return. Being a modest sort of chap, I would happily answer to 'Lord Vetinari', or 'The Patrician'.
Naw it's a pet name, his argument has no teeth to it, so not dangerous at all (until we hear about he got that gnu licence and had to be taken from the library after a three day stand off, muttering, "they wouldn't listen, I told them there'd be consequences to reading out of order")
Gnu licence?
As in 'I've got a gnu, and I'm not afraid to use it'?
It's the horns, I suppose...
Though actually, I think gnus are fairly harmless. Unless they've drunk a lot of alcohol - there are few things more dangerous than a loaded gnu.
As in 'I've got a gnu, and I'm not afraid to use it'?
It's the horns, I suppose...
Though actually, I think gnus are fairly harmless. Unless they've drunk a lot of alcohol - there are few things more dangerous than a loaded gnu.
Niall wrote: The smoking gnu (going postal)
Okay, I'll stop trying to make jokes. Terry has always got there first.
Micha wrote: we're not allowed to use the word 'petname'?
Didn't say that. Was stating a personal preference.
Micha wrote: I've been reading in publication order, but I'm going to mix it up a little just for Chris.
Beware of the Wolfie.
Okay, I'll stop trying to make jokes. Terry has always got there first.
Micha wrote: we're not allowed to use the word 'petname'?
Didn't say that. Was stating a personal preference.
Micha wrote: I've been reading in publication order, but I'm going to mix it up a little just for Chris.
Beware of the Wolfie.
Water balloon thrown, ducks behind a hedge.
The first book I picked up was Thud, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Next was Monstrous Regiment, then I found the reading order. The Rincewind Novels are better if read in order. Re-reading the series I can see the development of each character. The references to other novels in the series give me a chuckle the second time around.
Well now that the ire has died down, I'll add that I've only ever advocated a specific order to someone because she really only wanted to read one series (the death books), and definitely didn't want to read another (the witch books). Having someone around that she can ask, "hey, which books fall into which category?" was helpful for her so that she could read the ones she wanted to, and skip the ones she didn't. Other than that, I'm of the opinion that anybody should read whatever they want when they want to, because I'm an American and Freedom.
Intriguing. What does she have against books about witches?
Chris wrote: "Intriguing. What does she have against books about witches?"It's not so much the witches, as that she doesn't get the references. Granted, she doesn't get most of the references, but the witch books have so many and the references make up most of what makes the book enjoyable.
Lamar wrote: "It's not so much the witches, as that she doesn't get the references. Granted, she doesn't get most of the references, but the witch books have so many and the references make up most of what makes the book enjoyable."What about the Watch series? Not too many references there (relatively speaking), and most of them can be read as pretty good standalone detective novels, even by those who don't know / don't want to know the rest of Discworld.
Water balloon thrown, ducks behind a hedge.
Personally I think its best to read them in publication order because when you get to the latest one that has come out, you'll be forced to read them in publication order anyway. If you had started reading the books from when the very first one came out then that is how you would read them, so that is kind of how they were 'intended to be read'Its the best way for me, it just seems logical and you don't miss anything but I equally enjoy re-reading all the watch books or all the witches books. I would definately recommend first reading them in publication order but hey, each to their own. (as long as their own is also my way, obviously :P)
Read them in publiication order, after that for a re-read THEN go in series order.. just my opinion.. but I also think TCOM is actually the best and funniest book ever written... how any so-called Discworld fan could think otherwise is beyond me..why even read them if you dont like the Rincewind stories? They are the backbone of the entire series..
there are a number of great resources for how to read these books. i use one from the l space page that breaks the books down into various storylines which makes it fun to revisit in a new way. I am at heart though one who reads each book as it comes out in order and tended to reread them all exactly the same. I have loved reading them all over and over and over no matter which order I choose.
Dale wrote: "Read them in publiication order, after that for a re-read THEN go in series order.. just my opinion.. but I also think TCOM is actually the best and funniest book ever written... how any so-called ..."Publication and series order are the same.
If totally new to Discworld and Pratchett start with Going Postal.
I started with the Watch books in order:2. Men at arms
3. Feet of clay
4. Jingo
5. The fifth elephant
6. Night watch
7. Thud
8. Snuff
But for sure, Going Postal would give you a good taste.
Sorry about my post above and do not know why it decided to format like that. First book in the Watch series is Guards, Guards. Then from 2 on, the list above is correct.
What we have here is a link to THE OFFICIAL FULLY ENDORSED guide to the reading order of the Discworld, I'm sure some lupine contributors will have an aneurism, but this is it. So deal with it and enjoy. https://www.scribd.com/doc/278398369/...
I want to get my daughter her first discworld novel, and I am aware some are aimed at younger readers, but what would be the right reading order for those, once you exclude the ones aimed at older readers?
Try the Tiffany Aching books. In order they are:Wee Free Men
Hat Full of Sky
Wintersmith
I shall wear Midnight
The Shepherd's Crown
Yes I was immediatly thinking of the Tiffany Aching books! Another one that is also a good to start with is equal rites, but the Tiffany Aching books will probably keep her busy enough for a while :).
Discworld
Books mentioned in this topic
The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents (other topics)The Color of Magic (other topics)
Pyramids (other topics)
The Color of Magic (other topics)
The Truth: Stage Adaptation (other topics)
More...
"You read in wrong order? No Disc for you!"