BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Critics Should Read Terry Pratchett Before Calling His Work Mediocre

Following
This article is more than 8 years old.

Fantasy novelist Terry Pratchett passed away recently. Many kind things were said about the Discworld author, whose many humorous fantasy novels charmed readers for decades.

Pratchett died at the age of 66 after suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

Perhaps because his name has been in the news, and perhaps because he's a popular fantasy novelist, The Guardian's Jonathan Jones decided now would be a good time to call Pratchett's work mediocre, and stand bravely athwart history shouting "Stop!" to the encroaching tide of "middlebrow culture."

And that's fine, as far as these things go. If you read someone and find their work mediocre, calling it that is fair game. As an avid reader of fantasy, Pratchett was never my favorite, though I enjoyed some of his books.

But here's the twist, in Jones' own words:

It does not matter to me if Terry Pratchett’s final novel is a worthy epitaph or not, or if he wanted it to be pulped by a steamroller. I have never read a single one of his books and I never plan to. Life’s too short.

There's a fine line between snobbishness and sheer stupidity, but Jones walks it admirably.

This isn't the first time I've seen a critic pull the "I haven't read/seen/played it" card, of course.

Just recently, Penn State professor Dennis Jett wrote an opinion piece for The New Republic about the horribleness of Clint Eastwood's American SniperThe key line in that essay was Jett's admission that, "I have not seen American Sniper. But if the trailer is any indication..."

Why write such a thing?

It's the toddler's declaration: "I have not tried broccoli but I'm quite certain it tastes awful!"

Wouldn't it simply make more sense for The New Republic to publish an essay by a critic who had seen the film? Or for Jett to spend several dollars and two hours of his life to actually see it himself?

Shouldn't The Guardian expect its own critics to read at least one book from an author before calling him, and the genre he represents, mediocre?

Before calling his novels part of "a very disturbing cultural phenomenon" you'd think Jones could stoop to actually reading one from beginning to end, if only for his own sake.

"Actual literature may be harder to get to grips with than a Discworld novel, but it is more worth the effort," Jones writes, having never read a Discworld novel. "By dissolving the difference between serious and light reading, our culture is justifying mental laziness and robbing readers of the true delights of ambitious fiction."

To Jones, we should all read the books of Very Serious People. Jane Austen and Charles Bukowski and the like.

I have no problem with this type of literature. Then again, at one point in our not-so-distant past the novel itself was frowned upon by another, now long-dead generation, of Very Serious People. Culture shifts and changes, no matter how badly some people wish it wouldn't.

Regardless, it's one thing to talk about the sort of fiction or art or music that you like and find worthwhile and another altogether to dismiss the tastes of others without even making an attempt to understand or experience them. It's a matter of basic human decency and respect, and the very least that's expected of a critic. This says nothing of the cruelty of dancing on graves for clicks.

"I did flick through a book by him in a shop," writes Jones, "to see what the fuss is about, but the prose seemed very ordinary."

Ah, but do you know what's worse than "very ordinary" dear reader?

Horrible, trashy click-bait masquerading as criticism.

Unlike Discworld, I'm sure you'll be just fine skipping that.

Follow me on TwitterCheck out my website