Skip to main content

Review: Terry Pratchett - A Life with footnotes - Rob Wilkins ****

When someone gave me a copy of this book I was rather doubtful. Not because the chances are it's only going to be of interest to Pratchett fans, because that why I was given it in the first place. I have more Pratchett novels on my bookshelves than those by any other author - and most of them are hardbacks, suggesting I couldn't wait for the paperback, a sure sign of fandom. However, I find it easy to separate the creator and their creation. Just because I enjoy a particular book, or piece of music, or artwork - or even foodstuff - doesn't mean I have any real interest in the person who created it. They are quite distinct entities.

The starting point, then, has to be whether the subject's life story is interesting as a standalone thing. And I think it's fair to say that in Terry Pratchett's case, that it was quite interesting. Not in any outstanding way - his wasn't an extraordinary life by any means - but there is no doubt that some of the aspects of his personality that come through in his writing also came through in the quirks of the way he went about life in general, especially in his social life and jobs before he became a full-time writer.

As a piece of writing, the biography does have some flaws. It's far too long. I got about half way through the more than 400 pages and started flagging, finishing it off much more slowly than the first half, because I had to force myself to go back for more, rather than returning to it eagerly. Rob Wilkins, who was Pratchett's assistant for a good number of years knew him well, had access to Pratchett's fragmentary autobiography and was probably uniquely well placed to put together this book. He writes well, though when he attempts humour it feels like he is trying too hard and can be a little wince-making. But the positives weren't enough to make the length enjoyable.

The other issue with the second half, other than it took me so long to get there, was that with success, inevitably, Pratchett's life becomes more detached from everyday experience than in his struggling years, and as such was harder to relate to. 

I'm giving the book four stars because I think Wilkins does a good job, and in parts it is genuinely interesting - but it hasn't persuaded me of the benefit to a fan like me of reading a biography of the author. What I'll always treasure is Pratchett's novels. I'm quite happy to leave an author's life to the individual and their family.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
You can buy Terry Pratchett from Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and Bookshop.org.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

  1. I find this review rather astonishing in its dismissal of the second part of the biography, which is also the tale of Terry Pratchett’s struggle & decline due to an Embuggerance (early onset Alzheimer’s). For me, this was the most wrenching & rewarding read: how Terry Pratchett fought with/accommodated & suffered from his terminal illness. I personally found the description of his last years both poignant & heroically brave. Immense courage was required & shown by Pratchett & his colleagues, including the author, whom I consider related this time both vividly & sensitively.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid I've never understood the appeal of what the publishing trade refers to as 'misery memoirs' or 'misery lit'. I don't find the description of other people's suffering entertaining or uplifting. I'd also say that if someone close to you is going through a similar experience this is not necessarily something you want to read about.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense