How do you keep reading the book...

[usable001]

For those reading Terry Pratchett for the first time, I strongly recommend the short story Troll Bridge, but only if you promise to read it all the way through (which is why I recommended a short story).

If you read the silliness at the beginning and stop, you'll have the impression that his writing is all silliness, like Monty Python. You'll miss the point when the silly situation takes a left turn and gets deep. Troll Bridge is a microcosm of Terry Pratchett's longer works.

 

[sirhugs]

For those reading Terry Pratchett for the first time, I strongly recommend the short story Troll Bridge, but only if you promise to read it all the way through (which is why I recommended a short story).

If you read the silliness at the beginning and stop, you'll have the impression that his writing is all silliness, like Monty Python. You'll miss the point when the silly situation takes a left turn and gets deep. Troll Bridge is a microcosm of Terry Pratchett's longer works.

IMHO, Monty Python is MUCH more than "all silliness". They were among the greatest social and poliical philosphers of our time, making their observations widey accessible, packaged in a way that subtly snuck up on viewers, while provoking thoughtfulness and conversation on important issues, like the absurdity of governments .

And, as a one time history major, I applaud all the goofy goodness that The Holy Grail did by poking fun at history, while promoting interest in history.

Calling them "all silliness" is like calling George Carlin "just a stand-up comedian".

Viva los revolucionarios!

 

[JuicyLittleKitty]

Short answer: I don't.

Long answer:

I still remember picking a book years ago, and finding there was an entire chapter early on that consisted of the Evil Bad Guy sitting alone in a room. He spends something like 20 printed pages just thinking about his Incredibly Subtle Evil Plans, so the reader knows the situation.

It was some of the clumsiest writing I've seen in an actual published book. Not just the almost bizarrely-labored exposition, but the fact that all surprises for the hero were eliminated, by the author, on page 50 or so.

I put it down and never picked it up again.

Excuse me, but that is quite hilarious. xxx

 

[Kelliezgirl]

IMHO, Monty Python is MUCH more than "all silliness". They were among the greatest social and poliical philosphers of our time, making their observations widey accessible, packaged in a way that subtly snuck up on viewers, while provoking thoughtfulness and conversation on important issues, like the absurdity of governments .

And, as a one time history major, I applaud all the goofy goodness that The Holy Grail did by poking fun at history, while promoting interest in history.

Calling them "all silliness" is like calling George Carlin "just a stand-up comedian".

Viva los revolucionarios!

Python, and Pratchett are creators who can be experienced on different levels. Which is an obtuse way of saying you are both right.
You can appreciate the silliness and blow right past the depth, or you can plumb the depths and ignore the silliness.
Ideally you do both, but it isn't necessary to enjoy/appreciate them.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've read two of the O'Brien/Aubrey books so far and enjoyed them a lot. The nautical terminology can be a bit daunting, but the first book has a section that smartly goes through a lot of it, and is useful if you pay attention. I have two more of his books sitting on my shelf, waiting to be read.

I'm in the midst of finally reading William Gibson's Neuromancer, and so far it hasn't done much for me. The writing style is jacked-up cyberpunk/detective noir but I don't find the story or the characters that gripping.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I've read two of the O'Brien/Aubrey books so far and enjoyed them a lot. The nautical terminology can be a bit daunting, but the first book has a section that smartly goes through a lot of it, and is useful if you pay attention. I have two more of his books sitting on my shelf, waiting to be read.

I'm in the midst of finally reading William Gibson's Neuromancer, and so far it hasn't done much for me. The writing style is jacked-up cyberpunk/detective noir but I don't find the story or the characters that gripping.

Neuromancer suffers from being the first of its kind - cyberpunk has been done better since IMO, but its existence was necessary.

See also epic fantasy and LoTR...

 

[sirhugs]

I'm a huge William Gibson fan, which is odd because his niche is pretty far outside my usual wheelhouse, but I think I've read everthing he's written. I just enough the word play I think.

 

[Britva415]

The writing style is jacked-up cyberpunk/detective noir

You're talking about the very novel that jacked that style up in the first place

People (maybe not you, but "people") in 2026 call shit that isn't even noir at all "cyberpunk" anymore. It's a travesty!

 

[SimonDoom]

You're talking about the very novel that jacked that style up in the first place

People (maybe not you, but "people") in 2026 call shit that isn't even noir at all "cyberpunk" anymore. It's a travesty!

I don't read much of that type of science fiction, although I've read lots of classic noir detective fiction, so I can see those elements in the story. My feeling about the book so far is it's stronger on attitude than substance, and it leaves me feeling a bit meh about it. But I'm not done with it. I'll give it a fair shake.

 

[Britva415]

My feeling about the book so far is it's stronger on attitude than substance

You found it. "Style over substance" is a pretty strong element of, not only the cyberpunk aesthetic, but in fact the cyberpunk message itself.

It's a prediction, a warning, about cultural values, far more than about technology. And look how much of it has come true since 1984, the year Neuromancer came out. I'd go so far as to say that it's a show-not-tell, regarding what its own substance is. Or, I wouldn't argue too hard with someone who insisted "no, it just isn't substantial." I'd lift a finger, but I wouldn't try to win.

I'm not saying you should appreciate that and like the book for it. Just saying, it's there for a reason, and, in my opinion, if that and noir are absent from a particular piece of work, it isn't cyberpunk at all, it's just futuristic science fiction with dystopian snark.

 

[wet_ann]

Not good behavior on my part, but as a prolific reader across genres and mediums, I can sometimes tell where a story is going if the plot or foundational writing is not great. Even if I can't, I don't feel invested in the journey, so...I skip, scroll, thumb my way to a point down the line, to see if the writing is better or if the plot has developed.

If I'm attached to the characters and want something better for them than crappy writing, I drop the book like a hot tater tot, and I make up different journeys and endings for them while I run. This is how I trained for and ran a marathon. Caution, do not try at home, mixed results.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

But his best sea story is, in my opinion, The Good Shepherd. COMPLETELY gripping. A well-researched and well-told story of stress, worry, and danger, continuously ratcheted up.

I wonder if I am too spoiled by modern writing, and if my standards have become too high.
Anyway, on your recommendation, I found the book and started reading it. What followed was 2.5k words of initial description and exposition, before any action or dialogue took place. And it's a 65k-word novella, not War and Peace. I honestly don't know if I can make myself continue.

One of the things many of us here often advise is avoiding lengthy initial exposition. Grabbing the reader's attention with an interesting scene before you allow yourself to truly set the stage and indulge in long description, if you feel that's needed. But when I revisit old books, I often find them beginning with a very lengthy description.

I am not sure if it's just me, or if it's just that the authors of old didn't need to fight for the reader's attention so aggressively.

 

[Duil2]

I am not sure if it's just me, or if it's just that the authors of old didn't need to fight for the reader's attention so aggressively.

I don't think it's just you. With the advent of instant everything I believe it's already been observed that people's attention span has decreased sharply over the last fifty years or so.
After all why would you invest your time reading something you don't like when there are tons of alternatives out their to choose from?

 

[Voboy]

I wonder if I am too spoiled by modern writing, and if my standards have become too high.
Anyway, on your recommendation, I found the book and started reading it. What followed was 2.5k words of initial description and exposition, before any action or dialogue took place. And it's a 65k-word novella, not War and Peace. I honestly don't know if I can make myself continue.

One of the things many of us here often advise is avoiding lengthy initial exposition. Grabbing the reader's attention with an interesting scene before you allow yourself to truly set the stage and indulge in long description, if you feel that's needed. But when I revisit old books, I often find them beginning with a very lengthy description.

I am not sure if it's just me, or if it's just that the authors of old didn't need to fight for the reader's attention so aggressively.

It's an unconventional story, told unconventionally, about an unconventional protagonist doing unconventional things in an unconventional situation.

Having read similar stuff in the same genre, the book's "special-ness" is perhaps more apparent to me than to people who don't read as much WWII naval literature. The 1950s were awash (ha.) in WWII adventure novels, and most are told far more conventionally. This one is good because it is different.

Sorry it didn't work for ya!

 

[DTales]

What are your thoughts on Michael Crichton?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton_bibliography

I've enjoyed all the Crichton I've read. Rising Sun, Next, Congo, Sphere...

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Sorry it didn't work for ya!

Definitely not working out.
I pushed forward, only to encounter another lengthy exposition. The author simply overdescribes everything, from the way the MC grabbed his coat to his mental process when a U-boat is spotted, and so on. It's possibly an interesting read for an active navy captain, but for me it's way, way too much.

Still, I am thankful for the perspective it has given me.

 

[DTales]

I'm a huge William Gibson fan, which is odd because his niche is pretty far outside my usual wheelhouse, but I think I've read everthing he's written. I just enough the word play I think.

I got through Neuromancer, and I made it about a third through Mona Lisa Overdrive that I bought at my local bookstore, but goddamn, do I not get anything out of it. Maybe I'm too dumb.

 

[Voboy]

Definitely not working out.
I pushed forward, only to encounter another lengthy exposition. The author simply overdescribes everything, from the way the MC grabbed his coat to his mental process when a U-boat is spotted, and so on. It's possibly an interesting read for an active navy captain, but for me it's way, way too much.

Still, I am thankful for the perspective it has given me.

I'm re-reading it now, and I still love it.

I think Forester's an excellent stylist with a real feel for the rhythm of words. In this story, the "overdescription" is deliberate: he is showing the reader how complicated these problems are so that we can understand how impressive it is that Krause is able to make his decisions so fast. His need to constantly maintain situational awareness in a complex environment with several dimensions is meant to make you marvel at his sangfroid and his attention to detail.

It works well for me. I still find it very gripping.