Colour of Magic - poll

Welcome to the Sir Terry Pratchett Forums
Register here for the Sir Terry Pratchett forum and message boards.
Sign up

The Colour of Magic

  • Love it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Like it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • OK

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't like it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hate it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#21
Because I have to.... :laugh:

Jeff - in Tolkien academia (yes seriously! :p ) The Hobbit is not counted as part of the Prof's official body of high literary work. He conceived and wrote it as a bedtime story for his kids and had to pay a whopping great tax bill is the bottom line :laugh:

It was written before any of us on this forum were born (probably - anyone born in 1937 or earlier?) and when kids books really were for little kids. As such it's actually quite PC in some ways and certainly more entertaining and better written than the Narnia stories by his friend and rival C.S. Lewis (they're terribly patronising books looking back!). For his later books based in Arda TH just can't be made to 'fit', mainly on the elven side and so it's only the Gollum/Ring incident that links it to the rest. Strictly speaking even the LotR trilogy isn't regarded as spectacularly canon - he had another tax bill... :laugh:
 

CJDobs

Constable
Sep 10, 2009
67
1,650
#22
Jan Said: Strictly speaking even the LotR trilogy isn't regarded as spectacularly canon - he had another tax bill...


Oooh Jan . . I'm sure you missed the 'winky smiley' off your post next to the laughing one!

Without wishing to hijack the thread, If you get a chance to read Tolkiens letters (edited by Humphrey Carpenter) you can see how much pressure he was under through the 40's to finish the book by the publishers who were keen for a Hobbit sequel, but it was a pure labour of love that he couldn't rush (often driving Stanley Unwin to distraction!).

Anyway, back to the thread . . . TCOM - Love it, you've got to. It's the first - not the best - but still the first.

I still advocate chronologically is the best way to read DW because you get to experience Terrys style change and back at the very start, the discworld felt young and unexplored (as it was to us).

I have greatly enjoyed all my vacations in Discworld and wouldnt want to skip any of them.
 

Tonyblack

Super Moderator
City Watch
Jul 25, 2008
30,856
3,650
Cardiff, Wales
#23
How can The Hobbit NOT be part of the LOTR canon? o_O

Without that story there would be no ring, no Golum and no Bilbo with his wandering feet.

The events of The Hobbit are frequently mentioned in the LOTR - they Hobbits even rest in the place where the trolls turned to stone - an event that took place in The Hobbit.
 
Jul 27, 2008
19,480
3,400
Stirlingshire, Scotland
#25
raisindot said:
Exp. Date said:
I am now giving all readers and order here: YOU HAVE TO LOVE COLOR OF MAGIC! Why do you have to love it? Because with out this one book there would be no Discworld books! How can you not love the one book that started it all off! So as I said: YOU HAVE TO LOVE COLOR OF MAGIC! Or me and my little rat friends will find you and run up your pant legs…. Then you figure out the rest! :twisted:


:laugh:
Sorry ratboy (or ratgirl). Just because something is first in a series or introduces a concept doesn't mean it has to be "loved." The late Robert Parker's classic "Spenser" series started off rather mundanely with the forgettable "Godwulf(sp.) Manuscript," and it took him close to four sequels before he started producing classics (unlike PTerry, however, the quality of his books declined rapidly over time). Not sure whether "The Hobbit" was written before the LOTR trilogy, but (to me at least) it's not a particularly great book and certainly contains nothing of the depth and sweep of the trilogy. PG Wodehouse's first Jeeves books were quite awful compared to the classics he started creating in the mid-20s. Just because you acknowledge that a certain book started a series of concept doesn't mean it's lovable. COM and TLF aren't loveable at all.


:laugh:

J-I-B
That is a matter of opinion I loved them both and still do but I would not try to persuade anyone or not to change their view. And the 1st inkling of the Discworld books style were in the two sf novels he done before COM.
 

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#26
poohcarrot said:
I don't think Jano's read it properly. :laugh:
Bog off out of it smartypants :laugh:

Tony, Tony, Tony - ;) the officers of the Lore on Tolkien forums make the canon nazis on other fantasy fandoms look like the Vienna Boy's choir :twisted: :laugh:

Yes - of course Bilbo and Gollum are part of LotR canon, but I was reading this up on the some of the really anal lore sites earlier and apparently after TH began to make money and Tolkien realised he was in danger of getting another even bigger tax bill he was intending to publish the Trilogy and the Silmarillion as 2 volumes but he had a shitload of revisions to do and realised that TH wouldn't stand up at all in some places to fit the Sil and therefore the later storyline and so the early re-print editions of TH both contained as much revision as he could get away with without completely destroying the storyline to bring it more in line with the adult books without spoiling the kiddies take.

Some 'major' things the Tolkien Officers of the Lore will not accept in TH -
1. Elrond - he's referred to as an 'elf-friend' up front, but I think they slipped in somewhere (in a muttery aside from Gandalf possibly) that he was half-elven. Elrond according to the Sil is certainly of very mixed blood, including human, but he's mostly elven (by nearly 60%) and he could, had he wanted to, have claimed High Kingship of the Elves through both his parents bloodline. He was a very posh elven prince. Elf friends have no elven blood, but can claim good buddy status, so most of the Fellowship (and Bilbo) were elf-friends (except Goldilocks).
Finally Elrond wielded the most powerful of the 3 Elven Rings and by right of blood and ability he was the chief battle commander of the elves. The ring would not be in the care of an elf friend because they wouldn't have the magical wattage for a start.

2. some of the timelines were screwed - for Thorin's father being found imprisoned, I think that had to be moved from Moria to Dol Guldur (Sauron's HQ in Mirkwood which will take up the slack for there to be 2 Hobbit movies starting in 2012).

3. Rivendell elves. Totally, totally and absolutely wrong. No falla-lal-lallys I'm afraid! :laugh: They might have done for Mirkwood or Lothlorien elves in less 'dark' times but Imladris was mainly a community for the remaining Noldor who were high caste warrior exiles (including Galadriel who lived in Rivendell too at various times as her daughter was Elrond's wife). Other sorts of elves were there too but in the timeframe for both books, they were about to be in a state of mobilising for getting elves out of Middle Earth altogether, which is why they did not actually fight with the other races during the War of the Ring (except for Goldilocks) because there weren't that many elves left there by then.

4. Trolls - not the same in any way to the Trolls in LotR. They had trouser pockets and talking purses for heaven's sake! :eek: :p Trolls in the LotR and certainly in the Sil are barely sentient, certainly don't talk or wear clothes as such and are mainly used almost as beast of burdens and as battering rams more or less (the films did get them right mostly). The Hobbit ones by comparison are geniuses and on the scrawny side and would have had people from Rivendell coming out with heavy magic artillery High Elves to see 'em off.

5. Military mobilisation - as holders of the 3 elven rings at the time the dwarves and Bilbo were in Rivendell, Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel were getting ready to 'take out' the Necromancer of Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood which is why they stayed there for several days to revictual and for Elrond to take a butchers at the map (he could do what Gandalf couldn't and told them about the secret door). Once they'd got through the mountains and enter Mirkwood, Gandalf leaves them because he's off to meet up with Elrond and Galadriel's husband to assault the Necromancer who they know is Sauron and succeed in making him 'flee' his fortress in Mirkwood for Mordor. This isn't part of TH story as such but it also puts the kybosh on the fluffy elves thing. Rivendell would have been full of warriors at that stage and not camp chorus elves. Sorry :rolleyes:

So far as Tolkien scholars are concerned TH has just enough canon to fit LotR, but it is for kids and it cannot be used for most serious lore purposes as kosher canon because it's essentially a fairy story for hobbits with some dwarves in there too.

I'm not a purist and think Tolkien lore geeks are mostly boring and usually very sad sods, so that list is not exhaustive and relatively low key - I have seen people ready to disembowel in some threads over the elf-friend designation for Elrond and when you get onto more controversial areas like orcs, origins thereof and especially whether or not balrogs can fly and you would realise that forum trolls on Tolkien sites fight with thermo-nuclear weapons... :laugh:
 

CJDobs

Constable
Sep 10, 2009
67
1,650
#30
Tolks

Jan - I've frequented many a Tolkien board over the years (understatement) including *shudders* Ringbearer before the invasion of the Elijah Wood fan club.

These Tolkien scholars to which you refer, are obviously 'nobs'.

:laugh:
 

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#31
Re: Tolks

CJDobs said:
Jan - I've frequented many a Tolkien board over the years (understatement) including *shudders* Ringbearer before the invasion of the Elijah Wood fan club.

These Tolkien scholars to which you refer, are obviously 'nobs'. :laugh:
Put an 'end' onto nob and yes you're spot on CJ :laugh:

smartypooh - don't quote me (why break the habit of a lifetime ;) ) but if balrogs could fly they were bloody crap at it. :laugh:

All the ones the Prof actually wrote about fell from great heights and didn't engage their flight feathers or indeed their brakes/parachutes once. I think there's a definite passage somewhere or other (well actually more likely half a sentence) about balrogs riding on dragons, but then not all the dragons could fly either... :twisted:

See - if you're set on being a creator fantasy writer you tend to get bogged down in far too much detail and everyone blames you for it! :twisted:
 

Verns

Lance-Corporal
Jun 19, 2010
217
1,775
London
#32
Jan Van Quirm said:
Finally Elrond wielded the most powerful of the 3 Elven Rings and by right of blood and ability he was the chief battle commander of the elves. The ring would not be in the care of an elf friend because they wouldn't have the magical wattage for a start.
Now I know Gandalf had plenty of magical wattage, but he wielded one of the rings and was no elf, so wouldn't he count as an 'elf-friend'?

Sorry, sorry, way off topic, but I couldn't resist. :oops:

Back to the Colour of Magic, I voted 'ok'. I may have my favourites in the series, but I honestly can't think of any one book that I could say I don't like or (heaven forfend) hate. There's always something good to find in even the most meh book (yes, Making Money, I'm looking at you).
 

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#33
:laugh: Gandalf certainly was an elf-friend but he was also a wizard who were really shape-shifting spirits (or angels) called Maia - he just looked like a man, but in that 'incarnation' he was around 2000 years old which is a bit of a clue ;)
Saruman, Radagast and also Sauron were also Maiar but of varying abilities with Sauron arguably the most powerful since he was the original Dark Lord's right-hand spirit. ;)

The elves were allied to, but not as powerful as the Maiar who lived in the West (in fact they 'made' Valinor) and so as they had a spare ring left over after the 1st defeat of Sauron, when the wizards eventually arrived in ME 1000 years later - just as Sauron re-surfaced and began to crawl his way back into power around 1000 Third Age :p - the 3rd Ring (of Fire :laugh: ) was given to Gandalf.

Elrond also had a smidge of Maia blood through the maternal line as he was descended from Luthien Tinuviel the daughter of King Thingol by the Maia Melian.... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, :twisted: :laugh:
 

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#34
Won't use the 'R' word. But all joking aside Terry has a fair bit in common with Tolkien as a writer, even in terms of output (will come back to that one), but they are both products of their 'age'. They both effectively 'made it all up', heavily influenced by other sources - Tolkien with existing myth (not all of it Nordic) and Terry with other types of fantasy since the genre was more widespread by the time he came to it (remember he was born in 1948 over 10 years after the Hobbit published).

Their stylistic differences are self-evident, but they both use humour suited to their respective era and their writings all contain deeper motifs of a philosophic nature which are essentially humanist, although Tolkien follows more religious-based themes, sometimes in a very modern manner (those elves again - although highly monogamous, had no central concept of socially recognised marriage, just the physical consummation and exchanged vows of fidelity between the 2 principals were all that was required and could be easily, albeit rarely, dissolved ).

So The Hobbit and CoM/LF have quite a bit in common, in that they are less than satisfactory for most fans, compared to later works, but were commercially successful in their own right. They're not too different in 'conceptual' terms also. Neither of them come up to the mark in terms of the functionality of the worlds they're introducing, but both describe it well enough to draw the readers into it and it has enough charm to enchant them into staying with it and to read the following book(s). The real differences as authors, is not in output, but approach. Tolkien wrote as least as much as Terry has, but most of it is only of academic interest and a lot of that is language-based. Arda was Tolkien's passion - an intellectual 'hobby' project he lived and breathed. Terry's approach is also scholarly, but more science than art in some respects and although it's probably his passion as well, it's also his living.

So finally affection... I read the LotR before I read The Hobbit about 18 months later when I was already obessed with Middle Earth. I read Discworld from book 1 and was hooked almost from p.1. Maybe it's that simple - you pick up your first book, 'click' with it and read the rest, so reading order is important in some respects. If Jeff and Sharlene had picked up CoM back in 1983, when there were no other better crafted Discworld books in existence, then they possibly wouldn't have bothered to pick up any more of them as they appeared, because they would still have thought CoM was badly written rubbish with a horrible cover (in Sharlene's case ;) ).

I don't hate or even mildly dislike the Hobbit - it's a wonderful kid's book, fun, pacey and not too 'easy' or wrapped in cotton wool and like the Potter books (sort of... :rolleyes: ) appeals to adults too - if I'd had kids I would definitely have read it to them. I don't compare The Hobbit to the LotR and certainly not the Silmarillion (which I have no affection for whatsoever, but value very highly as a reference book) and definitely not to the Children of Hurin story (it was merely boring in the Sil and not even the incest plot shocker of brother unwittingly marrying his unknown younger sister could make this cobbled together, mix and match book anything more than completely pointless - it has great illustrations though :laugh: ). I just enjoy the 'proper' books for what they are and use the rest to 'play' with and make good RP characters. :laugh:
 

raisindot

Sergeant-at-Arms
Oct 1, 2009
5,139
2,450
Boston, MA USA
#35
Jan Van Quirm said:
If Jeff and Sharlene had picked up CoM back in 1983, when there were no other better crafted Discworld books in existence, then they possibly wouldn't have bothered to pick up any more of them as they appeared, because they would still have thought CoM was badly written rubbish with a horrible cover (in Sharlene's case ;) ).
Hmmmm...interesting hypothesis. Had I read it at that time, I probably would have thought it to be a poorly written imitation of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which I still think it is), but I might have continued reading on because it might have been just amusing and novel enough to continue on. It's only when you know how far Pterry had advanced from that time that the obvious deficiencies of COM and the really early books become apparent.

As I said before, with a few exceptions, most series authors start strong and then their efforts grow weaker over time. I find the last two books of the Hitchhikers' quartet to be far inferior to the first two. After starting off well with "The Eyre Affair," the last three books in Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series are almost unreadable. Asimov kept the quality of the Foundation series up pretty high through the original trilogy, but when he attempted to add on to it decades later the results were less than impressive. Pterry is the only 'series' author I can think of who started off unpromising but just kept on getting better and better over the years. The Shakespeare analogy is throroughly appropriate.

:laugh:

J-I-B
 

Jan Van Quirm

Sergeant-at-Arms
Nov 7, 2008
8,524
2,800
Dunheved, Kernow
www.janhawke.me.uk
#36
No question on the Shakespeare analogy - in fact the Bard's earlier efforts were even stinkier then CoM (from your perception not mine :p ) but then senior school over here puts the average person off Shakespeare for life anyway... :rolleyes: :laugh:

With the Douglas Adams thing - at the beginning my friend Robin and I were almost convinced it was DA using a nom de plume for a fantasy series - one of the friendly crit comments said something like - "if this book had been written before HHGTTG Ford Prefect would have been left standing at Barnard's Star with his thumb stuck out..." CoM really did remind me of Hitch-hikers.

I also agree with you on the third and fourth Hitch-hikers books - DA had to pay for his 'party' lifestyle somehow :laugh:
 

User Menu

Newsletter