Thoughts on Lords and Ladies

[akfarrar]

These are some thoughts I posted on the OU's book of the month discussion when we did Lords and Ladies (at my suggestion):

Maybe time to bite the bullet:

Why do some people have difficulty reading 'Lords and Ladies'?

I think there are a number of factors which, despite some of the views implied in some people's posts, quality is not one.

Firstly Gender.

I am suprised no one picked up on this: Pratchett's readership is (in my experience) essentially male. This is possibly true of the Fantasy Genre in general, but I would maintain is important in this work - the conventions associated with 19th Century novels developed with an essentially female readership. (Open to correction on that one - but want evidence/references, in triplicate, in blood.) I have noticed a reluctance in the English Lit. classroom for males to engage with these works - quite possible to overcome with good teaching - but certainly a gender division I have found in several countries around the world, including the UK.
I have found young adult males much more easily 'tune-in' to play scripts.

Many of the usual conventions of the 19th Century novel are missing in Pratchett's book. And, as I said in an earlier post, the structure is much more theatrical (or film like) skipping between scenes, shifting locations.

A second feature, which people did mention, is the lack of character development. Because this is part of a sequence of books, the assumption is that this was done in previous books and therefore you need to have read these books. I just think we are given chracters who, if they develop at all, do so simply. Again, I find this very "Shakespearean": The great psychological depths some people find on the page in some of Shakeybaby's characters are 19th century-novel-reader interpretations - there are far more 'types' and stock characters in the plays than people nowadays realise. You waste your time trying to understand why Iago is evil - he is, that's it - that is the point of Iago, to be evil.
Pratchett simply takes this and names the characters "Witch", or "Wizzard". Then he adds essentially human characteristics. In the theatre this is done by the actors/director - it is not in the script.

Another Shakespeare-like element I find is the "All the World's a Stage" effect - or the Brectian 'strangemaking': The constant reminder that this is fiction, that this is only a book, that you have to use your concious intellect a lot more than your auto-response emotions. The, to some, irritating footnotes, are a major weapon in this: Physically forcing you to break the rhythm of reading the line, as well as taking you intellectually off the rails.

(At this point, I have to go off to Tescos - it's a five km walk and it is going to rain tomorrow.)

 

[Sibeling]

The only difficulty I had when reading the book was the author's idea about what or who is an Elf. I, as a Tolkien fan, have quite a clear picture about that, and other perceptions of the notion interfere with my vision of the world.

But I can see why some people might have difficulties with reading the book: it is typical Pratchett's style when the book begins with account of several events happening simultaneously and the reader is for a moment confused and does not understand which story line is the most important.

I would not say there is no character development. Magrat, for example, overcomes her insecurities and at the end of the book commits a couragous act. Anyway, this is not the kind of book where character development is the most important thing - it is more about showing the author's idea in an interesting way.

And it is not a 19th century novel, so why should it be similar to 19th century novels?

 

[akfarrar]

The only difficulty I had when reading the book was the author's idea about what or who is an Elf. I, as a Tolkien fan, have quite a clear picture about that, and other perceptions of the notion interfere with my vision of the world.



And it is not a 19th century novel, so why should it be similar to 19th century novels?

The Elves are taken back into a much darker vision - that of a 'negative-Shakespearen' view. One of the reasons I find this and a couple of other El Pratts fascinating is precisely the squinted look he takes on Shakespeare - he is TRUE to what Shakespeare wrote, but he sees the negative and exploits it - the sugar sweet Tolkien (sorry, not a fan ) stems much more from the Victorian reduction of Shakespeare.

Your second quoted point is spot on: I blame the schools myself (I am allowed to, I was a teacher) .

The conventions of 19th century novel writing are taught as if they are the conventions of writing fiction - Shakespeare suffers as much as modern writers because of this.

Treating these Pratts as films is a much more profitable and pleasurable experience I find.

 

[Sibeling]

I have not read much of Shakespeare (or anything except Hamlet and that lovestory about those teenagers), so I really wouldn't know about his ideas concerning the supernatural.

I always considered Lords and Ladies deals with mythological view on the problem - people create some myths and forget what the real events were. In fact, the ideas expressed in L&L are quite similar to Tolkien's, both books deal with the fact that the magical world is disappearing because people are more concerned with technology, only in Tolkien's case this is sad, and TP shows it is good because the elves were not exactly like the fairy-tales describe.

 

[The Ace]

Sorry, am I in the wrong place ? I just read it and laughed .

I have to admit, though I admire Magrat, all her adult life, she's been on the wrong end of Granny but twice, WA and LL, she had to face powerful, terrifying opponents. I was a bit surprised when she sent the sisters back to hell, but decking the elf-queen ? And remember, this wet hen was about to shorten the Queen by a head when the King intervened.

 

[akfarrar]

Sorry, am I in the wrong place ? I just read it and laughed .

Goodness - what else should you do?

The best way to deal with any Pratchett!

Sad sods like me have to justify ourselves, the rest of you get on with reality (even a flat, disc shapped one).

 

[High Eight]

The Elves are taken back into a much darker vision - that of a 'negative-Shakespearen' view. One of the reasons I find this and a couple of other El Pratts fascinating is precisely the squinted look he takes on Shakespeare - he is TRUE to what Shakespeare wrote, but he sees the negative and exploits it - the sugar sweet Tolkien (sorry, not a fan ) stems much more from the Victorian reduction of Shakespeare.

Your second quoted point is spot on: I blame the schools myself (I am allowed to, I was a teacher) .

The conventions of 19th century novel writing are taught as if they are the conventions of writing fiction - Shakespeare suffers as much as modern writers because of this.

Treating these Pratts as films is a much more profitable and pleasurable experience I find.

Not just Shakespeare. The Elves in 'Lords and Ladies' go back to the elves of folklore - Just listen to traditional songs like 'Tam Lin' or 'Thomas the Rhymer' (Both of which are referenced in the text. In fact there are loads of references to 70's and 80's folk and folk-rock, especially that of Steeleye Span and Fairport Convention.)

 

[Faceless Woman]

Agreement, High Eight. pTerry's elves are the elves who kidnap children, lead the wild hunt and wiped out the Fomori (or how ever you spell that...). Tolkeins, well... lovely, to be sure, but I suspect considerably further from the truth.

What is all this about difficulty? I never had any trouble. I loved it, as I love all pTerry. Oh well, each to thier own, I guess... *wanders away, looking confused*

 

[Allegra]

Difficulty? I've never had difficulties reading any of pTerry's books. Lords and Ladies is one of the most hilarious discworld books, along with Maskerade, in my opinion.

 

[Steffi]

Oh...the bit where Nanny Ogg has to have a bath after catching an elf was a scream....I nearly fell off my chair.

 

[Faceless Woman]

The bit where the elf gets attacked by King Henry was my favourite. I adore Hodgeaargh.

 

[Allegra]

Me too! I laughed so much on every Hodgeaargh's last word.

 

[bitteroldhag]

I disagree that Pratchett's readership is mostly male. I was introduced to his novels by a female graduate student. I am a 60 year old female full professor. I have a problem with the idea that readers of science fiction and fantasy are teenaged males. I think that interesting ideas transcend gender and age, and Terry Pratchett's ideas are not only fascinating, but hilarious. I recommend his books to everyone I meet and a few take me up on it. But many readers can't get past his puns to see the satire in his books. Too bad for them. I own all of the Discworld novels and will buy anything else published about Discworld because I really enjoy the humor, but I also enjoy the morals of the stories, especially his insistence that one should never treat people like things. Of course, my area of concentration is Victorian social protest novels so I like the moral of the story.

 

[akfarrar]

Re: Male readership.

Did say "in my experience" - and it is essentially male.

I tried to get some of the OU Book clubers to read this book, and, true to my experience, an essentially negative response from the majority female members- some sighting the essential teenage maleness of the text (which I don't happen to agree with).

In the pub it was the 'men' who would get on to the subject of Pratt.

I certainly think there is a much wider potential readership - and love it when the books connect, but it is still 'male' dominated, I suspect.

 

[Joel007]

Perhaps the later Pratchett books have become more female oriented? I have to say I know an equal number of men and women of all ages who read his books.