Personally I'd say that Pratchett has gone from writing decent parody, through humorous fantasy into shallow philosophy to appeal to the comfort zone of his market. To refer to him as a satirist is flattery and unfair on more proper exponents. Although the actual quality of his writing has improved despite the mass production, the content has dropped markedly. But then, I liked Stone of Tears better than Wizard's First Rule, and thought that as he has progressed he has become one of the more misogynistic authors around (which is going some). So what do *I* know? Reading is distorted by expectation, which is perhaps why I am struggling a little with Louise de la Valliere, hoping for a D'Artagnan action story rather than a court melodrama with unlikeable characters. Ho hum. Long time listener, first time caller etc... Jim --- Gomi no Sensei <gomi at speakeasy.net> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:49:27 -0800 (PST), David Silberstein > <davids at kithrup.com> wrote: > > > They accept evil not > > because they say *yes*, but because they don't say *no*." > > -- Patrician Vetinari on humanity > > This is highly reminiscent of Edmund Burke's statement that "all it > takes > for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." It would not > surprise > me if Pratchett had read Burke at some point -- he's one of the great > > English thinkers, and Pratchett has evolved from a purveyor of light > and > even somewhat sophomoric fantasy into a satirist proper -- I do not > exaggerate when I say he's of similar caliber to Twain at the top of > his > form ('Small Gods,' 'Hogfather,' 'Feet of Clay'). Anyone who gave up > on > Pratchett because of the frankly dull opening books in the Discworld > series > really should take another shot at it -- the three above are, I > think, his > best, but 'Maskerade,' 'Lords and Ladies,' and 'The Fifth Elephant' > are all > solid as well. > > paul e. http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile - Exchange IMs with Messenger friends on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile phone.