SPOILERS Dodger **Spoilers**
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
Okay, my review on another BBS, posted in spoiler brackets on chris.ph's Dodger thread.
BTW, do we ever have any idea of what country's prince "Simplicity" was married to? They say Germanic or something similar, but even I know that Germany wasn't a single country in those days. Or is it just one of those things Pratchett leaves up in the air? And I was a little surprised that, given that this takes place during the early years of Victoria's reign and Dickens' career, that William Honeisn't mentioned.
Love the Sweeney Todd cameo, and it's actually refreshing to see Dodger not being the Artful Dodger.
BTW, do we ever have any idea of what country's prince "Simplicity" was married to? They say Germanic or something similar, but even I know that Germany wasn't a single country in those days. Or is it just one of those things Pratchett leaves up in the air? And I was a little surprised that, given that this takes place during the early years of Victoria's reign and Dickens' career, that William Honeisn't mentioned.
Love the Sweeney Todd cameo, and it's actually refreshing to see Dodger not being the Artful Dodger.
Having now finished Dodger, I'd have to pretty much agree with Q's review. In many ways it could almost have been a Discworld novel and in some ways A-M seems to be a nicer place than old London. I understand that Terry, as a boy, read Henry Meyhew's book, 'London Labour and London Poor and it was a great influence on his creation of Ankh-Morpork and many of the characters in there. Robert Peel, after he'd taken the Bow Street Runners and made a professional police force from them is rather like Sir Samuel Vimes after he'd taken the night watch and made them into the characters we know and love.
And what about Dodger? The boyhood of Harry King perhaps.
I'd describe Dodger as a ripping yarn. Very readable and enjoyable but perhaps without the depth of some of his other books. The message in this book as in Unseen Academicals seems to be that you can make a better life for yourself if you are prepared to work for it.
As to your question (Q) about the Germanic state in question - I kind of think that Terry picked that exactly because there were so many states and monarchies in that area so he could be ambiguous without actually treading on historic facts. As he says in his afterword - it's historical fantasy not an historical novel.
If you enjoyed Dodger you might very much enjoy 'Gallows Thief' by Bernard Cornwell.
And what about Dodger? The boyhood of Harry King perhaps.
I'd describe Dodger as a ripping yarn. Very readable and enjoyable but perhaps without the depth of some of his other books. The message in this book as in Unseen Academicals seems to be that you can make a better life for yourself if you are prepared to work for it.
As to your question (Q) about the Germanic state in question - I kind of think that Terry picked that exactly because there were so many states and monarchies in that area so he could be ambiguous without actually treading on historic facts. As he says in his afterword - it's historical fantasy not an historical novel.
If you enjoyed Dodger you might very much enjoy 'Gallows Thief' by Bernard Cornwell.
I liked the way that Terry sympathetically dealt with the story of Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street. It's unlikely that Todd was a real person, more a character in a Penny Dreadful, but Terry has given a whole new slant to this story and one that hadn't occurred to me before. He effectively makes Sweeney a victim of sorts. Of course it is likely that, as a barber surgeon, Todd would have served in the Napoleonic Wars, some of the most bloody in British history, where the standard way of dealing with a wound was amputation. Terry gives Todd a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that, if not excusing his behaviour, goes some way to explaining it.
I think it's an excellent bit of writing to turn someone who is normally seen as a character of horror into a victim.
I think it's an excellent bit of writing to turn someone who is normally seen as a character of horror into a victim.
Sweeney Todd did first appear in a penny dreadful. I've a facsimile copy soemwhere at home. But Terry's twist on the character is really good and I like the idea that the villian hero divide is not always black and white ( i would use the cliche shades of grey but its been ruined now).
I quite liked the Forest Gump style influence Dodger manages on the historical figures . It could have been cheesy but Terry manages to get it about right.
As a warning the first sod to join using Dodgers real name as there forum name will have to deal with me and Mr Todds razor
I quite liked the Forest Gump style influence Dodger manages on the historical figures . It could have been cheesy but Terry manages to get it about right.
As a warning the first sod to join using Dodgers real name as there forum name will have to deal with me and Mr Todds razor
Just reserved Henry Mayhew's book (at least, Vol 1) from my local library.
For those of us who were worried about Pterry's alzheimer's affecting his writing, we needn't have worried. Another great read.
On page 132, last line of 2nd paragraph is the word Jprobably - is this a typo? In which case, has the proofreader been whipped? or is it just a silent J?
The other thing that I thought was incorrect - but is far more likely me just learning something new as I always seem to do reading Pterry's books, is that the wine at the dinner party was described as a sauvignon blanc. I thought it only very recently that the actual grape variety has been used in describing wines and most wines were described by where they came from. Was this not the case in the 19th Century?
For those of us who were worried about Pterry's alzheimer's affecting his writing, we needn't have worried. Another great read.
On page 132, last line of 2nd paragraph is the word Jprobably - is this a typo? In which case, has the proofreader been whipped? or is it just a silent J?
The other thing that I thought was incorrect - but is far more likely me just learning something new as I always seem to do reading Pterry's books, is that the wine at the dinner party was described as a sauvignon blanc. I thought it only very recently that the actual grape variety has been used in describing wines and most wines were described by where they came from. Was this not the case in the 19th Century?
Yes, I had that typo too. I fail to see how the editors miss such a thing. I find something like that very off putting.
As to the wine question - I wondered that too. The grape seems to have existed then, but I'd have expected it to be referred to as a white Bordeaux.
Still, it's hardly worth quibbling about.
As to the wine question - I wondered that too. The grape seems to have existed then, but I'd have expected it to be referred to as a white Bordeaux.
Still, it's hardly worth quibbling about.
Tonyblack said:
Yes, I had that typo too. I fail to see how the editors miss such a thing. I find something like that very off putting.
As to the wine question - I wondered that too. The grape seems to have existed then, but I'd have expected it to be referred to as a white Bordeaux.
Still, it's hardly worth quibbling about.
As to the wine question - I wondered that too. The grape seems to have existed then, but I'd have expected it to be referred to as a white Bordeaux.
Still, it's hardly worth quibbling about.
I'm watching for this one in paperback. Nation remains the only Pratchett book I've never finished ( although I've never read the Neil Gaiman ones ), and I thought Snuff was well below par, mainly because the whole Sam Vimes/Summoning Dark arc seemed to have been taken as far as it could go in Thud! , Willikins seems to act completely out of character at times, the Fred Colon cameo was irrelevant and the Nobby Nobbs/Tears of the Mushroom sub-plot, plain squick.
Making Money seemed, as quite a few others have commented, a re-tread of Going Postal and I'm not much looking forward to further Moist von Lipwig stories.
Making Money seemed, as quite a few others have commented, a re-tread of Going Postal and I'm not much looking forward to further Moist von Lipwig stories.
Okay, I've finally finished this one, and I suppose I'm going to be in the grumpy minority again, but....
For me, Dodger really confirms what I've been dreading all along--that the deterioration of Pterry's writing skills, that, for me at least, has been evident since Unseen Academicals and was thoroughly manifested in Snuff, seems to be permanent. I do believe, as I've said before, that this decline has been due to Pterry's need to "dictate" books rather than type them, which tends to lead to verbosity, cluttered thoughts, and repetition. This and the fact that it appears the books Pterry writes on his own (not in collaboration) or that are not heavily edited (as his children's books are) suffer.
What Dodger is Pterry's attempt to write a Dickens novel, or specifically a variation of "Oliver Twist," that literally uses both the names of Dickens' characters (Dodge, Pip, and Dickens himself) and borrows from the plots of his works. Pterry seems to find this format--and the format of the Victorian novel itself, which he used in Snuff--suitable to his new dictating writing style. However, this format also carries the flaw of allowing its author to overwrite, overwrite, overwrite.
This is perhaps the first Pterry book where I've actually skipped whole paragraphs because they were full of repetitious exposition. How many times do we need to get explanations of the tosher's life? How many long-winded portrayals of characters who have less than a paragraph of 'action' do we need? Why do we need pages and pages of uninteresting trips to tailors and haberdashers? Why did the scene in the coroner's office have to go on endlessly? Why the unhealthy obsession with toilets, excrement and urine--which might have had a little bit of amusement in Snuff since pooh-collecting was young Sam's hobby, but here it's just vulgar and serves no purpose.
The plot here is as tired and cliched as a penny dreadful. Dodger is like the Sam Vimes of Snuff--indestructible, wily, with no flaws at all. Simplicity is a complete cipher; she's supposed to be deeper than she is, but there's nothing to her. We're supposed to believe that she's manipulating Dodger to achieve her goals, but she is such a weak character that, other than her looks, it's hard to imagine why someone as sharp and streetwise as Dodger would fall for her. The only memorable character in the book is Solomon, who Pterry's very carefully tries to craft as the "anti-Fagin," but even his monologues become long and boring after awhile.
And why do we even need the one chapter in the book without Dodger in it where the "mysterious villain" gives Sharp Bob his orders? It makes no sense, breaks up the continuity, and no other similar scene occurs.
This is also a book where even Pterry's footnotes don't make sense. Near the end, he puts in a footnote telling readers to go to Google to look up the meaning of the dog's name Onan--does he think we're all so stupid that this wouldn't occur to us? And why, when he's creating a novel that's supposed to immerse us in 19th century Britain, does he need to direct us to the Internet?
A good editor would have trimmed this by at least 50 pages, mainly by getting rid of the 'expository fat' that deadens its pace. Dickens was extremely good at exposition; he was also motivated to write more because he was a serial writer, and the longer the book, the more 'chapters' he could sell. Long-winded exposition has never been one of Pterry's strengths. In fact, one of his key strengths in the best DW books is that he knew how to write exactly enough, and to make sure that
every sentence counted. He has lost this ability, and his recent "solo" works are showing this.
If this were not written by Pterry, it probably would be considered an unmemorable, YA 'history-fantasy' book that would be quickly forgotten. Because Pterry's name is on it, it's given a higher level of scrutiny. But, that should also make any criticisms valid. It is still amazing that he can produce books in spite of his limitations. However, he is no different that any other writer whose work is published in that the work should be judged on its own merits (or lack thereof). Dodger may be an enjoyable read, but it's not a particularly original or good book.
For me, Dodger really confirms what I've been dreading all along--that the deterioration of Pterry's writing skills, that, for me at least, has been evident since Unseen Academicals and was thoroughly manifested in Snuff, seems to be permanent. I do believe, as I've said before, that this decline has been due to Pterry's need to "dictate" books rather than type them, which tends to lead to verbosity, cluttered thoughts, and repetition. This and the fact that it appears the books Pterry writes on his own (not in collaboration) or that are not heavily edited (as his children's books are) suffer.
What Dodger is Pterry's attempt to write a Dickens novel, or specifically a variation of "Oliver Twist," that literally uses both the names of Dickens' characters (Dodge, Pip, and Dickens himself) and borrows from the plots of his works. Pterry seems to find this format--and the format of the Victorian novel itself, which he used in Snuff--suitable to his new dictating writing style. However, this format also carries the flaw of allowing its author to overwrite, overwrite, overwrite.
This is perhaps the first Pterry book where I've actually skipped whole paragraphs because they were full of repetitious exposition. How many times do we need to get explanations of the tosher's life? How many long-winded portrayals of characters who have less than a paragraph of 'action' do we need? Why do we need pages and pages of uninteresting trips to tailors and haberdashers? Why did the scene in the coroner's office have to go on endlessly? Why the unhealthy obsession with toilets, excrement and urine--which might have had a little bit of amusement in Snuff since pooh-collecting was young Sam's hobby, but here it's just vulgar and serves no purpose.
The plot here is as tired and cliched as a penny dreadful. Dodger is like the Sam Vimes of Snuff--indestructible, wily, with no flaws at all. Simplicity is a complete cipher; she's supposed to be deeper than she is, but there's nothing to her. We're supposed to believe that she's manipulating Dodger to achieve her goals, but she is such a weak character that, other than her looks, it's hard to imagine why someone as sharp and streetwise as Dodger would fall for her. The only memorable character in the book is Solomon, who Pterry's very carefully tries to craft as the "anti-Fagin," but even his monologues become long and boring after awhile.
And why do we even need the one chapter in the book without Dodger in it where the "mysterious villain" gives Sharp Bob his orders? It makes no sense, breaks up the continuity, and no other similar scene occurs.
This is also a book where even Pterry's footnotes don't make sense. Near the end, he puts in a footnote telling readers to go to Google to look up the meaning of the dog's name Onan--does he think we're all so stupid that this wouldn't occur to us? And why, when he's creating a novel that's supposed to immerse us in 19th century Britain, does he need to direct us to the Internet?
A good editor would have trimmed this by at least 50 pages, mainly by getting rid of the 'expository fat' that deadens its pace. Dickens was extremely good at exposition; he was also motivated to write more because he was a serial writer, and the longer the book, the more 'chapters' he could sell. Long-winded exposition has never been one of Pterry's strengths. In fact, one of his key strengths in the best DW books is that he knew how to write exactly enough, and to make sure that
every sentence counted. He has lost this ability, and his recent "solo" works are showing this.
If this were not written by Pterry, it probably would be considered an unmemorable, YA 'history-fantasy' book that would be quickly forgotten. Because Pterry's name is on it, it's given a higher level of scrutiny. But, that should also make any criticisms valid. It is still amazing that he can produce books in spite of his limitations. However, he is no different that any other writer whose work is published in that the work should be judged on its own merits (or lack thereof). Dodger may be an enjoyable read, but it's not a particularly original or good book.
