> 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?

The thing which strikes me the most about his books is the ... no ... "satire" isn't the right word. "Satire" implies a slightly nasty and cynical edge which Pratchett manages to avoid. The reason I like his books is that he so accurately observes human nature, types of people we all have met, situations, history, the whole thing - and manages to poke fun at them while still giving the impression of a genuine love of people.

I would regard him more as a satirical writer than a straight-out humourist, though. The trouble with satire is that, if you aren't familiar with what is *being* satirised, the jokes don't even show up.

If you don't have a good knowledge of "Richard III" and "Macbeth", you're losing 90% of what's funny in "Wyrd Sisters". If you haven't read the Dragonriders of Pern series or any Conan books you're losing a lot of "The Colour of Magic." Unfamiliar with cinematic history? Don't bother with "Moving Pictures" then, you won't get 90% of the jokes. If you haven't seen "Phantom of the Opera" (and ESPECIALLY if you are unaware that Michael Crawford, who made the role of the Phantom famous, previously made his name as the silly and ineffectual bereted loonie in the TV series "Some Mothers Do Have 'Em"), there is absolutely NO point in reading "Maskerade".

The depth and intricacy of the in-jokes in Pratchett's Discworld books never fail to amaze me. So often, I have read a Discworld story, then months later seen a movie or read a book and suddenly thought "WHOA!!!! So that bit in "Small Gods" (or whatever) was a joke about THAT! Hahahahahaha, I get it now!"

Usually these were references I didn't even recognise AS jokes when I first read the book. I just read Mervyn Peake's "Gormenghast" over Christmas, for the first time, and suddenly recognised a large further amount of "Wyrd Sisters" as being really, really funny.