> ====
>
> A bit about books and popular authors:
>
> One thing I decided to do was pick up a few Terry Pratchett books, based on some of the raves I've read here. I'm not certain what happened, but his writing just doesn't seem to be as good as I thought I would have been. I've read _The Color of Magic_, _The Light Fantastic_, _Equal Rites_, and _Small Gods_. Color took a while to build up, but as a first novel (or at least the first novel of the Discworld series), I was able to forgive Pratchett. He really hit his stride near the end of the first book, and seemed to keep up the, um, zaniness that I was expecting in the second book. (Although I didn't like how physical descriptions of the characters didn't appear until the second book. To me, Rincewind was slightly overweight and short and Twoflower was the tall, lanky one. Telling me a little bit into the second book that Rincewind was gangly >and Twoflower was rotund is too late.)

I read Interesting Times first so I never quite got a picture in my mind of Twoflower until I started again at the beginning, but I always pictuered Rincewind as Tall and thin. My major problem was always that I kept imagining him much older than he is.

>
> However, his third book, _Equal Rites_, while an interesting story, didn't seem to be anywhere near the humor level of the earlier books or _Good Omens_ (the book he co-wrote with Neil Gaiman). _Small Gods_ read as if it was even >more serious, with spots of humor.

Equal Rites wasnt' that funny. Personally, I didn't think any of the ones with the witches in them(or those I've read so far) were that funny. I liked them however for the fantasy aspect... For which I'm sure most of the Rink regulars would probably flay me alive :P I always preferred the Rincewind books and I adore the ones with death in them. I think he's one of my favorite characters of all. But if you didn't like Good Omens(I'm not talking about the humor, I liked the plot of that...) then you might not want to take my opinion too seriously.

>
> Tell me, are all of his books like this? Perhaps I just read some of the Discworld books where the comedy aspects were at their weakest?
>

I think it varies from book to book. Also it varies on what you think is funny. The Rincewind books and Interesting Times is good if you love a coward or just magic that goes wrong. Maskerade and some of the later witch ones(I mentioned I didn't think the origional witch ones were funny) are funny if you laugh at people with low self esteem. Any of the Watch books are good if you like a character who is really smart, tough, manages to get himself deeply embedded in crimes or who has a high position which he detests. The Death books are good if you like to see a character who is fighting their natural calling. Like I said, it varies.

> Anyway, I think that Pratchett is an entertaining author, but (so far) I haven't read anything in Discworld that was as zany/madcap/funny as _Good Omens_.
>

I've never read Good Omens. Was that good?

> Much better than Terry Brooks (he typed, adding fuel to the fire). While at O'Hare and stuck with the prospect of a two-hour flight without reading material, I hopped into one of the news shops to pick up some reading material. Amidst all the various Michael Crichton, Tom Clancy, and Ken Follett novels, there was one Terry Brooks novel called _Running with the Demon_. To let you know where I was coming from (Colorado! Ha! I slay myself sometimes!), I hated the Shanarra series, likening them to _The Lord of the Rings_ with a few names changed here and there. I also hated his writing style in his first original novel (_Magic Kingdom for Sale - Sold!_) so much, I dropped the book about three chapters into the book. Here I was, thinking that Mr. Brooks had written over a dozen books and, hopefully by now, his writing abilities would be stronger than what I read before. Sadly, I was wrong.
>
> Oh how I wish I had a red pen with me on that flight. On page two of the story proper, the protagonist stops to examine herself in a mirror in order to get a physical description of her in there. (A particular literary pet peeve of mine.)
>
> My creative writing professor would have ripped up the first scene between the grandmother and the grandfather and thrown the scraps into the trash. Terry Brooks shows that there's an emotional distance between these two characters and then adds this clunker of a sentence to close out the paragraph:
>
> "The length of the silence between them implied accurately the vastness of the gulf that separated their lives."
>
> No kidding. You just spent about a page and a half explaining that. Mind putting that sledgehammer down, sir? My forehead hurts.
>
> Did you ever see the long version of Lynch's _Dune_? Do you remember the scenes where, when a new character entered the movie, the movie would just sort of stop and wait for the narrator to finish a three-minute introduction? The same thing happens in _Running with the Demon_.
>
> Brooks is simply a mediocre writer who somehow managed to luck into fame and fortune. That's all I'm going to say about that. (Unless people want to discuss it.)
>
> -Faux "doesn't claim to be an author" Pas


Brooks I can take or leave. I read the prequel to the Shannara books, loved it, skipped to Scions and read through Talisman and loved it and then got The Sword and couldn't ever pick up any of the others again. Is it just me, or is that book the most boring in existence??
I've read all of the Landover ones. I got really into them, but rereading them I'm not so enthused. They're okay, but not really as deep and interesting as some I've read and reread.
As for Running with the Demon, I spent several days trying to find something interesting and worthwhile in it and failed. I saw the second(or third one I don't know) and it sounded interesting, but I couldn't even bear to read the first, so I didn't dare the second.

Anyway, I seem to be the only one who cared about the book section. Talk about unique.

Mel"Or possibly everyone has already talked interesting books to death, and my newness makes me the ignorant one"anie