Moderately good news...

[RathDarkblade]

...it depends on how much you like this sort of thing. Me, I like it very much. *squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!*

A new Discworld novel will coming out next year... well, not that new. It will be Small Gods: A Discworld Graphic Novel.

Not that many details yet, but if the previous graphic novels are anything to go by, then this should be fun!

What are your views, eh?

 

[RathDarkblade]

Anyone?

 

[Tonyblack]

I only have one of the graphic novels - Guards! Guards! It's interesting, but it's not something I'd get super excited over. I'd rather read the novels as I'm not sure the graphic novels add anything.

 

[pip]

I think I preferred the books originally intended as Graphic novels, Eric and The Last Hero, rather than the novels adapted to it.

 

[DickSimnel]

In many ways it's the same problem as with radio programmes that transfer to TV or film. It's very unlikely that the pictures you see are the same as those you developed in your head so there's a jarring element. I have two of the graphics novels and they're OK but I, too, much prefer the pictures in my head.

Keith

 

[Tonyblack]

I always think the radio is the best medium for fantasy.

 

[RathDarkblade]

There's that, true. Speaking for myself, I believe the graphic novel adds to, rather than detracts from, the original novel.

TB, I also have the G!G! graphic novel, as well as the one based on TCOM & TLF. They're both pretty good. I also read the one based on Mort, which was lots of fun.

Although I've been speaking it for 25 years, English is not my first language, which means that some of the jokes sometimes go 'whoosh' over my head because they rely on the reader knowing bits of English culture or language. (In particular, I was left scratching my head the first time I read Reaper Man - I just couldn't make out the

Spoiler

supermarket

bits. I was also a bit unimpressed the first time I read Hogfather, because I didn't know and couldn't understand the Christmas references. Once I saw the film, I went back to the book and understood it much better!)

So to each their own...

 

[Mixa]

I agree with you all, especially with DickSimnel. Once you’ve created your own graphic novel in your mind, it’s so difficult to adjust your eyes to different interpretations, as well as it happens with movies and TV series.

Nevertheless, practically any Discworld news is good news for me as well, Rath, so thanks for sharing! Keep us up to date about it!

Mx

 

[RathDarkblade]

Well, the book is now available for pre-order on Book Depository - but it won't be out on BD for another 222 days, which is 7 months, 3 weeks and 5 days. :twisted:

In other words, the release date is 14 July 2016. Poo.

 

[=Tamar]

I'm of several minds about graphic novels. When the work first appears as a graphic novel, that's fine with me. It's when a purely text work is converted to graphic form that I quibble. Some novels are more action-based and lose very little in the transition. Others are subtler and have scenes that are difficult to draw without being merely dull. (Cover artists hate it when the most intense scenes are intellectual realizations that happen in total darkness.)

While I prefer the written word because it can create subtle elements that are impossible to draw, I know that some graphic novels can include some written descriptions from the text, so it isn't entirely lost. Philosophically I prefer to make my own images but we are not all alike. Some people can make their own images, some people can't, and some people don't get much from images and require descriptions in words.

When enough of the words are included so you don't lose the undrawable, I can see the value in providing pictures for people who have trouble making their own. An old friend of mine couldn't imagine the pictures as she went along; she had to stop reading and deliberately build the image in her mind before reading on. Graphic novel versions might encourage people who would otherwise give up before finding out that they really like the story and it's worth the effort. That sound awful, as though I'm saying graphic novels are only for the handicapped. I don't mean that. I enjoy some aspects of graphic work, for instance, the way a good graphic novel can indicate multiple actions and reactions in the same scene without having to go on for paragraphs of text. In that way it's very compact and can repay careful attention and multiple rereadings.

 

[Catch-up]

When the work first appears as a graphic novel, that's fine with me. It's when a purely text work is converted to graphic form that I quibble.

This sums it up perfectly for me.

 

[RathDarkblade]

Hmmmmm. As I've said in several places, although I've been speaking it for 25-odd years, English is not my first language. I can follow along with a book most of the time, but when Pterry (or anyone else, for that matter) throws in a philosophical concept, I have to slow down and re-read it (sometimes more than once) to get the point.

Right now, I'm reading a book about the mistakes that were made during the American Civil War. It's a heavy read, made heavier by the fact that it is not accompanied by any battlefield illustrations or maps or anything of that nature. If there was, that would make it easier.

I've also been writing a book about an imaginary Britain, set in the late Viking period. The story is complete with Norse place names and Anglo-Saxon place names and the like, so to help readers, I asked an artist to draw a map for me. I cannot draw, but I'm always impressed by people who can.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that maps, illustrations, and pictures have their place. If they help a reader grasp a particular concept, where's the harm? And if a graphic novel gives people enjoyment, again - where's the harm?

 

[Tonyblack]

There's no harm at all. It's about personal preference. I think it would be a shame if someone only read the graphic novel version of an original book. It's fine to use this sort of book as a supplement to the original, but not as a replacement. That's how I feel about it. It's a different matter if the story had only ever come out as a graphic novel.

To use your analogy about the historical books. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using other books/maps/illustrations as an aide to understanding, but as a supplement, not as a replacement. I read a lot of historical fiction and have always appreciated having a map to make the experience richer. If the novel is based on something that really happened, then a brief look at the history behind the subject is also very helpful. Bernard Cornwell's historical fiction frequently comes with maps and the old names for particular areas as well as an historical note at the end of the book, explaining where his story departed from reality and why.

If you haven't already read them, you might enjoy the series of books that Bernard Cornwell is currently writing, set in the period of Alfred the Great. This is a perfect example of having maps and old place names.

 

[Catch-up]

Oh yeah, no harm at all! Just personal preference. It doesn't matter to me what personal preference others have.

I'm with you on the maps. I really appreciate them, especially when I'm reading historical fiction like Bernard Cornwell. I also REALLY appreciate it when they include pronunciations of names and places, especially if the pronunciation differs significantly from the spelling.

 

[steeljam]

I like Graphic Novels but not whole books.
Ben Aaronovitch is writing a series based on his Rivers of London novels. He has done 5 so far.
I quite like the idea of Ankh-Morpork CSI stories as a series of Graphic Novels.