When Snuff came out last year and was discussed here, several commenters made the point that Pratchett’s writing doesn’t read quite as it used to read, which is true – perhaps he has evolved as a writer, perhaps something to do with his Alzheimer’s, perhaps the fact that he is dictating to his assistant rather than writing himself, or maybe it is a mix of some or all of these elements. (I tend to believe this last one.) The point being: his Discworld books do not “sound” as they used to, and for longtime fans this is problematic.
In any case, Dodger is, in some respects, a clever workaround of that issue, as it is basically a Discworld novel transplanted to a mostly-real-history setting. Dickensian London rather than Ankh-Morpork, Charles Dickens rather than William de Worde, Joseph Bazelgette rather than Leonard da Quirm, Robert Peel rather than Sam Vimes (this one is not too subtle at all, since Vimes is of course derived from Peel), Angela Burdett-Coutts rather than Vetinari. Where Pratchett indulges in fiction he pulls more from Dickens than from Discworld (appropriately, as his writing has, I think, drifted more Dickensian as he’s grown older): Dodger himself is of course an Artful Dodger-as-hero archetype (with more than a bit of a mix-in of Pip from Great Expectations), but Solomon Cohen is very clearly a riff on Fagin and Simplicity reminds me quite a bit of Agnes in David Copperfield, personality-wise. The only distinctly Discworldy thing in the book is the identity of the Outlander, and that reveal works splendidly.
But is it a good book? Mostly, yes. As said, it doesn’t read in the way that Pratchett wrote at his peak; instead it is more in his later, meandering style, but that style is matched to a perspective character (Dodger) who is a meandering sort of person in the “goodnatured but ethically bendy” sort of way. The result is a book where, truthfully, not a lot really happens – you can describe the narrative in a paragraph – but the journey is pleasant, and that makes the difference. Recommended.
Related Articles
7 users responded in this post
I think my biggest problem with Snuff is how insufferable I’ve found Vimes’ ‘I used to not be rich” quirk to be.
Yes, Sam. We get it. You used to be poor, but many people who used to be poor and no longer are don’t define themselves by this like you seem too. To me it feels like his character has largely stalled – he still sees himself as the outside man long, long, long, loooong after this stopped being remotely true. I’m not asking him to start spitting on peasent, i’m asking him to realize that the “us and them” mindset of his is wrong. Sam, you’re the ‘them’ now, and you’ve been that way for ages. You might not share all their prejudices and awfulness, but in all the ways that truly matter, you’re ‘them.’ If I were your wife, I’d slap you for feeling the need to constantly snark and belittle everything about my family, peer group, friends, and life in general. It’s not like Sibyl goes around constantly bemoaning how gutter rats always like to spit upon the sewer dregs, does she now?
I will admit I didn’t get very far into the book, but not because I hated it, but university came up and I’ve been too busy to finish it.
So what, in your opinion, is Pratchett’s “peak”?
I really liked “Mort”, but honestly I’ve found many of the Discworld books to be a bit repetitive.
I’ve heard “Nation” was good. I am, however, one of the five people on the planet who thought “Good Omens” was unfunny and dull, but I blame that mainly on Gaiman’s involvement in the story, not Pratchett’s.
Peak #1 is from Small Gods to Interesting Times (1992-1994). He drops off a bit after that but is still good, and then gets back to peak form from Night Watch through to Thud! (2002-2005).
“Thud!” is such a fantastic novel in that you don’t really have to read his earlier stuff to enjoy it. All the history you need is in there, and I’d say it’s as good a point as any to jump into the Discworld series.
@Steph: So what, in your opinion, is Pratchett’s “peak”?
87-88: Discworld #3: Equal Rites, #4 Mort, & #6 Wyrd Sisters
I am sorry that I stopped reading Discworld way before Thud! but I may take a look at it with such a strong recommendation from -evan.
The last couple of times I’ve read through the whole Discworld series, one of my absolute favourites has been Jingo – which a lot of people list as one of their least favourites. *shrug* Nonetheless, I agree more or less with the general range of the selection.
Also, don’t neglect his two early standalone SF works, Strata and Dark Side of the Sun – both quite enjoyable, and in my opinion better than his Discworld stuff before Pyramids. (One of them also explains the joke behind The Broken Drum.)
My problem with Snuff, and to a similar extent Unseen Academicals, is that Pratchett used to be excellent at the building of plot and mood through the implied – the actions of the character, the natural conversations they have, their thoughts and so on. Snuff especially seems to have forgotten “show, don’t tell” and tends to stop the plot for great chunks of expository dialogue.
Also, there’s an awkwardness to the language that is jarring when compared to his earlier stuff.
Oddly enough, I didn’t have such problems with I Shall Wear Midnight – it felt a bit woolly and disjointed, but by no means as disappointing as the last two “adult” novels.
I didn’t find it bad at all, but far from amazing. I’ve read almost every Pratchett novel, seeing the evolution of his writing has been very interesting. My favorite novel of his is Nation. I’ll admit I was hoping for something on the quality of Nation, and it’s just not that good. But better than Unseen Academicals, maybe better than Snuff? Not quite sure. It is paced a lot slower than his other work. Tough for me say what his peak is.