Another disgraceful article on the Guarniad

[RathDarkblade]

...a followup to Pip's thread, here.

It appears that Jonathan Jones couldn't leave well enough alone. He has now read Small Gods - hurray, Mr Jones has actually belatedly READ A BOOK BY AN AUTHOR THAT HE HAS RUBBISHED!!! - and then proceeded to rubbish pTerry all over again. He then proceeded to point to Nemesis by Philip Roth - specifically to a scene where a boy masturbates in the bathroom with the door locked, while his worried parents knock on the door - as an example of what he calls "literature".

Sorry, Jonathan. Your article is an example of a critic 'pleasuring himself' at the expense of an author that he's supposed to be reviewing. I hope the Guarniad decides to appoint a new literary critic, because I don't want to have to read your elitist excreta any more.

Meanwhile, in response to last week's complete bollocks by Mr Jones (and particularly in his contrasting pTerry with Jane Austen - what?), The Conversation has published a reasoned and reasonable comparison between TP and JA. Read and enjoy.

 

[Dotsie]

Not everyone has to like Terry's writing, but it would seem strange for a critic to do an about-turn, so I wouldn't expect him to admit he found it more than just an entertaining read.

I do have an issue with him quoting out of context Terry though. But even if he had used clichés, “The reason that clichés become clichés is that they are the hammers and screwdrivers in the toolbox of communication.”

Comfort yourself with the knowledge that Terry made more people happy (and more money) than this fellow.

 

[Tonyblack]

You want to try reading Shakespeare - that is full of clichés.

 

[RathDarkblade]

Sure, Shakespeare is full of clichés. But then, Shakespeare invented lots of expressions that we now take for granted. Same with John Wycliffe, a 1300s scholar who translated the Bible from Latin into English for the first time - and in so doing, created many expressions that we now use without thinking of them (e.g. "Am I my brother's keeper?", "And God said, let there be light...", "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth..." and so on).

But I digress, and I take your point... *G*

 

[Tonyblack]

Erm . . . yes. Hence the --> <-- at the end of my post.

 

[simmonds91]

 

[Mixa]

Totally agree with you, Dotsie… I think you have hit the nail on the head!

Mx

 

[shelfie]

Not everyone has to like Terry's writing, but it would seem strange for a critic to do an about-turn, so I wouldn't expect him to admit he found it more than just an entertaining read.

I do have an issue with him quoting out of context Terry though. But even if he had used clichés, “The reason that clichés become clichés is that they are the hammers and screwdrivers in the toolbox of communication.”

Comfort yourself with the knowledge that Terry made more people happy (and more money) than this fellow.

I agree! I wish Terry could respond to the headlining quote: "But I still believe the best prose lives in the real world". His response would have been epic.

 

[Antiq]

I don't consider Sir Terry a great writer nor a literary genius - nor Austen nor Dickens, for that matter, nor many other beloved popular authors. What he is is enormously appealing, and that requires cliches from time to time, like life requires a nice cup of tea sometimes. Some people's use of cliches is lazy and irritating, others are like getting a hug. If I was to nitpick everything I read, I would get no joy from any author.
What are critics anyway but people with an opinion? Some few have great literary experience and insight, many just pander to fashion and their own egos I'd rather Pratchett, warts and all, than some avante garde shite that happens to be the flavour of the day. To use an apt cliche, time will tell, time will tell. Mr. Jones will be forgotten, Terry Pratchett won't.

 

[janet]

Well said, Antiq and Dotsie.

 

[RathDarkblade]

Question re: The Guardian... sorry, but I'm "only" an Aussie, and I've never been to GB. That said, I've heard some people discussing it - one of my workmates (an Irishman) occasionally shows me articles from The Guardian and The Mail - and, of course, I've read Anthony Jay and Jonathan Lynn's superb "Hacker Diaries" (aka "The Complete Yes Minister" and "The Complete Yes Prime Minister"), as well as watching the series etc.

Anyway, my question is this: am I justified in calling this paper "The Guarniad"? I know that in the 70s and 80s, The Guardian was infamous for silly spelling mistakes. Has it got any better since, or is it still making mistakes like this? Just wondering...

 

[Penfold]

I still refer to it as the 'Grauniad' if that's any help (only a slight variation but that is the version I was brought up with).

 

[The Mad Collector]

The paper is still famous for the speeling mistooks and other errors however this is mainly because they draw attention to them in subsequent editions by publishing apologies in their corrections and clarifications section, they are often quite funny

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/series/correctionsandclarifications