 |
|
|
|
|
The Color of Magic: Discworld #1, by Terry Pratchett | |
 his
is the second Pratchett novel I've read, after starting off with the
26th book in his Disc World series a few months ago. My review of
that novel, Thief of Time, can
be seen here. I gave it a 7.5 and was surprised how much I enjoyed
it. I didn't like this one as well, obviously, but it was still an
entertaining read. In a strange sort of reversal, I would probably
have given this one a higher score if I had not read Thief of
Time first.
The logic behind that statement is that much of my score for Thief of Time was based on it coming together in the end. It's cleverly-written, full of satire and humor and wild plot twists and outlandish characters, and that's all I thought it would be, in the end. Just a series of wacky events, with no real way to tie them all together. And then the last 50 pages of Thief of Time proved me wrong, when, despite an overlong action digression in the climax, all the loose threads came together, everything made sense, and the novel actually had a larger plot than just the petty squabbling of the principle characters. To the scores:
The Color of Magic is a very different novel than Thief of Time was, and it's much more conventional in some ways, while still being very funny and inventive. But the main reason I didn't give it a higher score was because it was basically just a long series of satirical events set in the world of fantasy, with no larger theme or even a plot that pulls disparate elements together for a big finale. There is a sequel to this first Discworld novel though, The Light Fantastic, and it apparently picks up shortly after the first novel ends, with the continuing adventures of Rincewind the inept Wizard. I do not know if the books are companion pieces, sort of like the 3 volumes Lord of the Rings was published in, or if they're really free-standing separate titles. I bring this up because I didn't think Color of Magic really wrapped up very well; just sort of ending in the middle of yet another manic fantasy adventure, but if the 2 novels can be read back to back to form a longer and more cohesive whole, that would possibly boost my score for both books. It's a bit like the situation I found myself in when reviewing A Game of Thrones, the first novel in George R.R. Martin's brilliant and on-going fantasy series. It's a pretty good book, but it's just the first 800 pages in his overall story, and it could have ended 200 pages sooner, or 200 pages later with no real difference in the overall tone of things. Since I wrote my review of A Game of Thrones after I'd read the first three books in the series, it was hard to review since my scores for the 3 books together would be 9s and 10s, but since much of the first book was just introducing characters and setting the stage for the awesome stuff that comes to pass later on, I had to score it by what it was, rather than what it was going to become. And if the 2nd Discworld novel continues right where book 1 left off and more of the faint plot threads develop and the whole situation turns into something larger than just the wacky adventures of Rincewind, Twoflower, and his sentient luggage, I'd view Discworld #1 more favorably than I do now.
As for Color of Magic itself, I enjoyed a lot of it, and only the lack of anything bigger than just the point A to point B to point C adventures kept me from scoring it higher. It was fun, it had great characters, but it took me a week to read since there wasn't really any ongoing narrative pull or rising action. That's the problem with most comedies though, movie or book; it's really hard to string all of the amusing comic scenes and situations into a cohesive whole. Most comedy films are a series of short skits starring the same characters, and that's pretty much how most of Color of Magic felt to me. Except that the skits often star new characters, introduced just for that segment and the wacky interactions they're going to have with the main characters. They are very funny skits though, and the whole book is basically a big satire of every convention of fantasy literature. Treasure-grubbing super strong barbarian heroes, wizards who can't actually do anything but pretend to be mystical, thieves who all end up killing each other trying to steal a great treasure, unkillable demonic monsters with ridiculous Achilles' heels, scheming princesses and dying kings, magical dragons viewing their situation with logic and objectivity, gods watching the struggles of men and interfering for their own amusement, and on and on. I won't detail the gags since that would spoil the novel, and honestly I couldn't do them anything resembling justice with a short description here. They'd sound silly and trite in synopsis, since it's really the way Pratchett sets them up and turns the conventions upside down that makes them so funny in the novel. You've got to read it, and since your local library almost certainly
Overall, Discworld #1 reminded me of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe #1, which basically satirized Sci-Fi clichιs the same way Color of Magic satirized Fantasy clichιs. I liked Discworld more, but how much of that is just due to me liking fantasy more than scifi? Hard to say, but I was fine not reading any other Hitchhiker novels after the first one, while I am interested in reading some more Discword novels. I've got #2 on my library book list, and will pick it up at some point.
A mail from JR about this review:
They de-UK'ed the spelling here, and it's "color." If any Pratchett books include the word "humour" you can be sure the US version will drop the "u" as well. This is America, we have no time for extra U's! This reminds me though, of years ago when I was first creating the Dii.net items section, and as I prepared to do the page header graphics for the Armor pages Elly and I engaged in a lengthy debate as to whether we should spell it "armor" or "armour." The issue would never have come up except that it was her website and she is English, where they spell lots of words with an extra "U." I eventually won out on my "armor" spelling since after all, that's how it's spelled in the game; there ain't no UK localized version of D2. I wouldn't have minded "armour" though, just because it has that extra classical/medieval oomph. It also reminds me of the minor controversy when the first Harry Potter book was changed to The Sorcerer's Stone in the US, rather than The Philosopher's Stone as it was called in the UK. There was much tut-tuting about the illiteracy of the US reader, but I never paid the issue any attention at the time since I wasn't reading the books. I have since read them as well as seen the first movie, so I am now entitled to have an opinion. Flux says... good job on the change; it makes the book sound more exciting and mysterious, and also, I have no idea why it was ever called "Philosopher's" at all. In my mental lexicon a philosopher is someone like Socrates or Hegel or Nietzsche ; a guy who thinks and analyzes and comes up with new theories about society and human behavior. There was no one at all like that in Harry Potter 1 and frankly, the book should have been called "The Alchemist's Stone" if you want to be literal about it. I see Sorcerer's or Wizard's as reasonable substitutions though, since you might debate about who the pronoun is referring to: the alchemist who made the stone? Or one of the four sorcerers who seek it: Harry, Dumbledore, Voldemort, or even the Dark Arts teacher as Voldemort's agent? In any case, I didn't read about any alchemists in HP1, so the UK version of the title would have left me confused, unless that word is commonly used as a synonym for "wizard" or "sorcerer" in the British Isles? |
||
| Return to the Reviews Index. |
|
All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007. |
