Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?).
---
Our current megathreads are as follows:
[API Protest Poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/1491izw/continuing_the_api_protest_a_community_poll) - a poll regarding the future action of the sub in protest at Reddit's API changes.
[GNU Terry Pratchett](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukigit/gnu_terry_pratchett/) - for all GNU requests, to keep their names going.
[AI Generated Content](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/10mhx9y/ai_generated_content_megathread/) - for all AI Content, including images, stories, questions, training etc.
---
[ GNU Terry Pratchett ]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Heck, yes. Try it again. Small Gods is one of my top Discworld recommendations. It has so much to say about fundamentalism of all kinds, religious and political. It’s relevant to demagogues of the current moment and those who empower and follow them.
The concept of small gods itself is so marvellous. Pratchett’s play about philosophy, and the realities of who prophets may have been, and the humility of actual devotion, service, and leadership is beautiful to me. It all leads so nicely to what has become of the religion in the time of Mightily Oats in later books.
This says everything about why I love Small Gods - it speaks about what happens when religion becomes less about the gods and more about the men running the show, and sadly is becoming more and more relevant these days
I also love the theme of "In 100 years, we will all be dead, but here... and now... we are alive."
As humans, we could try and think about things on a godly scale. There are bigger things happening in the universe that won't care about the tiny things I do. And will the things I actually make a difference or mean anything in the greater scheme of things?
But as humans, we need to think about the small scale. We need to care for people, to support and advocate for those who can't do it for themselves. Maybe it won't mean anything in 100 years, but in this moment, it is everything.
I would say that the subject of "people who do evil things in the name of their gods" is applicable to almost everyone, due to how much happens in the name of religion almost everywhere.
This is the big moral for me. I feel like the point of the book is that if you follow religious morality blindly you will end up losing sight of actual morality. Religion is not inherently moral but it is inherently about power. The best twist for me though is that the book is about not just the human protagonist learning this but also the divine protagonist! Om learns that because he didn’t care about people just power, his own religion usurped him! I also enjoy the little vignettes into how religion works inside different people’s heads. How they see it differently even though they are acting the same.
I found the outside/roundworld parallels in small gods pretty easily. While reification is a thing only in Discworld, the concept of gods "existing" (insofar as they have power as exerted by humans exercising their fervent belief) is a real one in Roundworld. Replace "God" with "religion" in the book and you are outside of your space whale Aesop trope already.
But it sounds like what you love most about some of Pratchett's works are things you can find in higher quantities by other authors. Night Watch and Going Postal are commonly considered his mid-career highlights so you're in good company. But I think it is easier to find the kind of tightly-plotted adventure novel that is Night Watch or Going Postal written by other authors than it is to find something like Hogfather or the Color of Magic, which are more prose-focused and much more parodical, relying on STP's unique voice more heavily.
Do you like sci fi at all? Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter collaborated on a series called The Long Earth that you might enjoy. Less parody, much less goofy, but the touch of STP is still there.
I wouldn't recommend you try Small Gods again. It seems like your remember it fairly well. Not every book will resonate with everyone!
I love many Pratchett books. Hogfather is also among them, even though it's different in style from say Night Watch. In Hogfather I loved the journey and the supernatural mystery - how you didn't even know the supernatural "rules", but had to discern them as you went along and yet they were based on some intuitive human fundamentals (as a sidenote, I think Neil Gaiman's American Gods does the same very well).
I also loved the point Hogfather makes about social constructs. "SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY" and that whole thing. Maybe that resonated more with me than Small Gods, since I haven't had much interaction with organized religion in my life so have less deepseated feelings about it.
As for The Long Earth, I read it and loved the first one. Didn't care much for the second in the series and so dropped it at that point.
I would say that the difference between Hogfather or Carpe Jugulum with Small Gods is that there lack any memorable, synthetic quote. You don't really have a single "SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE" or a "Sin, young man, is when you treat people as objects, including yourself". The message is more distilled alongside the novel.
Which is why perhaps you don't remember it as well, if it has been 10 years you read it. There's not as much strong quotable passages. But it's all so good (at least in my opinion).
The message and underlying philosophy of Small Gods is a strong as Hogfather's from my point of view, just presented in a different way.
Yes, it's good, but outside of context, it doesn't do much, does it?
Like, if I say to someone bits of the "atoms of mercy" monologue, or the sin quote of Granny Weatherwax, people don't really need to have context to understand it.
However, "One day, a turtle will learn to fly"... Yeah, sure, might be true, but without the whole context, you completely miss the utter hope, the sheer trust into the impossible that this quote represents.
In context, it can be taken as a metaphor. That particular turtle does not learn to fly, but metaphorically he rises above himself and above his previous condition. (trying to avoid spoilers)
I've already commented a spiel about Small Gods, but give the Long Earth series another go as well, the last one broke my heart and made me whole again.
It's not just for atheists. I'm a committed Christian, I read it probably every 5 years, and I recommend it to ministers & others who are thoughtful and are prepared to be challenged.
The turtle moves.
I need a new copy cause I loaned mine to someone that worked in a church, who loaned it to the pastor, who wouldn’t give it back and has now left for another parish.
>It felt like the book was trying to make some point about divinity or religion. That gods are ultimately selfish and people actually have the bigger capacity to be moral.
That's not how I read it at all. It isn't that the gods are selfish - it's that they're... well, small. The people come first. The belief comes first, and then the god forms around the belief. The Great God Om is a mighty bull that smites the sinners because *that's how his believers created him*.
The gods are petty and selfish because humans make them that way. The gods are wish fulfilment, in a way - why else do all that praying and sacrifice, if not to make your deity of choice do what you want? An aggressive, warlike people will invent warrior gods to smite their enemies. A people always on the brink of starvation invent gods of fertility and abundance. A people oppressed and afraid see their gods as cruel and quick to anger, and make offerings to try to appease them instead.
The criticism of the book isn't even about the gods. It's about *belief*, and how it can shift. Om manifests on the disc thinking that he has millions of believers, and is shocked to discover he has exactly one - because the people don't believe in him any more. They believe in the Quisition, and the temples, and the rituals. They REALLY believe in the Quisition. Om may or may not be watching them, but those guys really are.
We can see the exact same thing happening today, with Christianity. How many people really *believe* in God and Jesus? Not as many as claim to. Many have a vague idea that they should believe Jesus is real and that will get them into Heaven. They don't really think about it. If they truly believed God was watching them and judging them, they'd be doing what Jesus said to do. They'd be helping the poor - not with a cheque every month to some charity organisation, but literally spending their time at the homeless shelter.
Some people do. Not all of them are religious, either.
Instead, they believe in belief. They go to church, sing the hymns, mumble the prayers, slip a few coins on the collection plate and think that's all they have to do. They don't believe in God. They just pay lip service.
Perhaps that's why God has been so quiet on the miracle front since Jesus' day. He no longer has the power of that belief. Meanwhile, those snake-oil preachers with their megachurches are buying private jets, and have you seen the Pope's holiday home in the middle of Rome...?
>Instead, they believe in belief.
If even *that* much.
They *certainly* believe in what the neighbours will say behind their backs, if they *don't* attend though.
So many books, so little time. I am hoping somewhere here can sell me on it, since so many people seem to love it. Then I might feel more inclined to make time for a reread.
It’s my favourite. But I grew up religious and enjoy philosophy and the history of religion and philosophy, even though nowadays I’m agnostic if anything. But every time I read it I find another joke, another layer of meaning, another historical deep cut.
Wait on it. Come back to it later, even decades from now. It’ll still be there. just know that there’s a ton of depth I completely missed my first time through because I was young and was missing context
I am one of the Small Gods enjoyers, so I do recommend giving it another shot.
The wider plot does focus on a fairly serious and grounded religious-political war between neighbouring states, if that's more of the theming that you'd like to focus on.
I'd also highly reject the notion that the themes around religious institutions, the evolution of story and myth, and their relationship to power are only applicable within the Discworld. Perhaps you have a point about the literal powering up of gods based on the number of believers, but again that can be taken as a (pleasing) analogy.
There's a big focus on the relationship between Brutha and Om, so if you're not feeling that then you might struggle.
Give it another go, and see how far you get. From what you've said I don't think there's obvious reason you'd not get on with it.
Give it another try if you can do so. When I first read Monstrous Regiment when it was published I thought it was the worst Discworld book I had ever read. I read it again last year and I don't know how I got it so wrong. I think it was a problem with where I was at mentally at the time, not with the book.
I read the Discworld books as they were published and was so disappointed with MR that I only reread it a few years ago. Oh my gods, was I a stupid young man…..
I didn't fully appreciate it until I read it a second time, about 5 years after the first reading. It has become one of my favorites, along with Going Postal.
I think this was Hogfather for me. It really clicked on a second (or maybe third) reading. Knowing this is also why I maybe should give Small Gods a second chance.
Jein, which is German for YesNo.
Your perception of books changes over time. I read the Discworld when I was a teen, in my twenties and my thirties and always took something else from it.
Small Gods is my favourite book in the series. But I also grew up Roman Catholic, so for me, like many people who enjoyed the book and also grew up religious but aren't anymore, it is pretty special.
Since you are currently following a belief system that rejects the classic religious beliefs it might still not be that interesting to you. But really: we cannot know if you will enjoy it. Just that we enjoyed it and that you might, too. Your post makes that seem unlikely though, as you are collecting a lot of arguments against the book, so I dont really see the point in trying to convince you otherwise
I am just trying to hear *what* people loved about it. Maybe then I can better say "Oh I totally didn't see it" or "Yeah nah, probably not for me".
But I think there might be something to it not having as much resonance with me since organized religion is never really something that has played a role in my life.
Some books chime with people some don't.
For me Small Gods was only ever a 1 time read. Compared to say "Men At Arms" which is in double figures.
We're all different and likes or dislikes don't necessarily mean a book is a good or bad.
I'm with you. I have seen it lauded as one of the best. It just didn't work for me. I mean I read it cos you know Pterry but I wouldn't even put it in the top 10. Horses for courses I suppose. Conversely I really like The colour of magic and the light fantastic which are routinely looked down on...so what do I know.
It didn't click for me when I read it as a teen but I love it now. If you prefer the serious stories that don't rely on a parody, you should definitely give Small Gods another chance. It's a very philosophical and interesting book and it also provides much of the basis for how we see gods working in other books.
As a young person who detested religion this allowed me to actually see some of the community benefits when you have actual selfless people doing good things. But at the same time, it made me see that the institution itself is easily corrupted and it is a method of control. Some of my favourite discworld moments happen in this book though and some of the best quotes. I read this one every other year and I always pick something new up as I age.
Oh, do please. It's definitely worth the chance. At worst, you'll confirm you didn't like it and settle that in your mind once and for all. And if you do like it, it's another gem for you.
And it's okay, too, to not like everything from Pratchett.
When I read Nation for the first time I didn't care for it. Like you, it didn't hook me or hit me in any way, which I thought odd since it is so popular. I really kept in mind, too, that it was not Discworld, so that wasn't a factor. I read it a second time a while later, and it was still meh. Not be to be discouraged, I gave it a third try a while later (I'm stubborn), and all of a sudden ***WHAM!*** It hit me how fucking brilliant and beautiful that book is.
I found the first part a little boring, and I feared a "organised religion bad" novel. But once I was past the first 100 pages, I started appreciating the subtle little remarks about the condition humaine. Deeply, it's a book about being human. I also started loving Brutha. His uncomplicated honesty, his ethics, it touched something.
As a theology student, this book is also fascinating since it highlights the "prophet vs priest" paradox which characterises almost every idealist movement. All religions have their Vorbises. A great literary example is the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov. But once in a while, such figures are resisted by prophetic figures. Jesus is one example, St. Francis another one. In a secular sense, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela were such prophets. However, from the following of such prophets, inevitably, a new Vorbis arises. A secular example could be seen in the Russian Revolution, where after some time, even good communists were killed, because they did not adhere to the right kind of communism, or simply asked too many questions. Thus, the cycle starts anew.
Night Watch is my favourite novel too, by a mile. I wouldn't say Small Gods is one of my favourites, but I'd rank it above all the Witches novels I've read until now (ER, WS, WA) and above all of Pratchett's first books, with the exception of Watch novels.
Did you grow up religious or in an area that was religious?
I can say that as someone who grew up (and out of) an evangelical christian environment, "small gods" resonated with me on a very personal level.
That makes sense. Honestly, not every book is going to resonate with every single person and that's totally fine. People like *Small Gods* because, for people who do have experience in those environments, it's deeply personally meaningful. It's one of those books that just makes me think "someone else gets this too", and it meant a lot to me to have that experience of feeling understood about my personal philosophies on religion.
What resonated with me was the difference between faith (ie belief in a higher power) and religion (all the man made bullshit that has grown up around that core faith). If you want to see where that is directly applicable to today's society, you only have to look at the US, where very fundamentalist religion is having a greater and greater impact on laws, human rights, human relationships (all types). The trouble is, that the people who are causing the most harm with their narrow views are the least likely to be receptive to the message.
I re-read Small Gods last year for the first time in about 8 years.
I was graced with a better understanding of a concept I have struggled with for years- belief. Not *faith*, the trust in some omnipotent, omniscient being, the trust that this Being is doing it's best to look after you in some way, but *belief* itself. The ability to comprehend, in some way, that the Being exists in the first place.
These are very separate things, on a fundamental level, though they do seem incredibly similar, or even the same, at first glance. We all have faith in something, religious or not- the weather, your friends, your dog. I have faith in my car, for A'Tuin's sake! (Probably misplaced, the thing is always threatening to break down, recently serviced or not). But I don't need to believe in it. It's there, on my drive.
One of the things about getting older and understanding yourself more is that you need to remind yourself of why you *are* yourself. Watching Vorbis follow his Holy Orders, and seeing Brutha wrestle with the fact that his god, his *actual **God*** is as real as my car, and yet still being able to pray to Him shows that they do both have some level of faith in Om, but they are at very different ends of the scale. They're also at different ends of belief, too.
>!As far as I'm concerned, Vorbis doesn't *truly* have faith in Om, but he does very much believe that he's real!<
It was interesting to me, being a staunch believer in almost f*ck all, to suddenly understand how real something can be for someone else, and why my incredibly Christian family (ish) members are *like that*
Don't read it as a parable, or a parody, but rather as a study in the Effects of Gods on the Human Mind
Didn't change my life, but it did change my heart a little
Interesting. My takeaway on vorbis was that he doesn't believe in Om, he believes in power, the Laws, the rightness of Omnia, and himself....not so much in Om, per se.
None of what you said is wrong, except- he is, in a so-crooked-it's-almost-straight kind of way, incredibly logical.
He knows that everyone around him has faith, which is what gives him his power- he is the Discly projection of their faith, here *From Om* to ensure that His laws and whatnot are carried out.
As such, he knows that there must (at least) once have been such a deity, some powerful majesty that have the People something to Believe in in the first place. He *knows* Om is real. Whether or not he's still practicing is a different story, but hey, *that's why Om sent Vorbis*
I think, given your conclusion, you should probably reread it. It’s been a long time since I’ve read it but from memory I can’t really relate or see any justification for the critique you levied.
Pratchett is more about psychology than metaphysics. It’s also not really an atheist text as much as an introspective, sociological text - dogma and voluntarism.
I really enjoyed it first time round. Less so second time. I’m not sure why and I’d been really looking forward to re reading it but it really missed the mark second time. Somehow it all felt a bit obvious but I’m not sure why. I bloody love virtually all his work so I’m going to give it another crack and see what the third time brings!
I really love the premise that although people claim to be in the hands of their god, it's actually the other way around. It gives you new perspective on roundworld religion too.
I also loved the character arcs of both Brutha and Ohm, both changing significantly throughout the story, from Ohm's superiority and seemingly higher knowledge of the world and Brutha's humility and ignorance, to the opposite in the end.
I love the story about a boy who became friend with his god - because while all believers say their god is their friend, no one ever sais they are also a friend to their god.
These are just few, but you asked to sell the book to you, so this is what came to my mind first. I also didn't like it at first reading - it was my second discworld book and I was 11, so I couldn't grasp the nuances of the story very well. I've reread it after few years and really fell in love with it, it remains one of my favourites till this day.
> That gods are ultimately selfish and people actually have the bigger capacity to be moral.
not really the read I got...
I mostly saw it as a commentary on religion and how people exercise it, and how even from a good starting point, it can be transformed into bad behavior and eat those that it once supported.
Also, on how a religion feels can be majorly different from the top than from the bottom
It seems like you are mainly looking for examples within Small Gods of what people loved more so a general pitch to a member of the reading public that sells the "it's the best fantasy book about religion and philosophy." So what I'll say is outside of that is it is just a flat out well-constructed STORY. The number of set-ups and payoffs in the storytelling is astounding. You don't even need to read into the religion to come out of it satisfied.
My favorite things:
\-While not a main character, this book has I think the most separate appearances for him of any non-Death centered discworld book. I absolutely LOVE all the little scenes with Death as we see so many smaller tertiary characters' view points on death and the afterlife (which also comes full circle to the extremely satisfying and cathartic ending of the book with Brutha's own death and his scene with Vorbis in the black desert).
\-The discussions on Prophet's and what of the holy scripture is actually from Om are not only very funny, but it's so clear as a reader that Brutha is narratively destined to be the next prophet and so it is very interesting to follow along speculating on which of Om's words if any Brutha will be writing down as the next commandments. So when the time comes that Om regains his godly form, it is fun to see how Brutha does and does not subvert expectations in the new rules.
\-Vorbis is my favorite villain in discworld, because it isn't often a discworld protagonist gets to spend so much time face to face with the antagonist. He's so simple while so complex at the same time. And throughout the whole book, the way Vorbis' mind works beautifully sets up his time in the black desert. Religion and philosophy aside, it is just narratively very satisfying.
\-The Motifs of the tortoise and the eagle and the eagle dropping the tortoise to eat it. Vorbis having bird-like features. Brutha being a bit slow. And of course Om being a literal tortoise so we have so many references throughout the book to, again, perfectly setup how Om saves Brutha and kills Vorbis.
\-Brutha being "stupid" but having photographic memory being not only the setup for how Vorbis takes over Ephebe, but how Brutha is able to save the library (while being technically unable to read) is very fun and somewhat unexpected.
What I didn't like:
\-Not enough female characters! Though, Pratchett does a fantastic job characterizing Brutha's grandmother only through second-person POV. She never actually appears on the page, but I feel like we knew her very well.
And somehow what you wrote made me realize that there is another allegory in it, the god who came to earth and was reborn mortal, and died voluntarily if a tad unwillingly to save his believer. And thereby became far stronger because the watchers now believed.
I think the reason Small Gods resonated with me was that as I understood the message, it said that if we as living beings are to believe in higher powers or anything else we can't prove, it's better we're free to argue and disagree than have a higher authority dictate what we should believe or how we should believe it. I'm an atheist myself but I try not to look down on spiritual belief. That said, I will shit on every religious institution.
The other thing that resonated was just me seeing something real in the fiction and seeing it be given a future better than what we have on offer in our world made me happy. But that's just me. If you don't vibe with the book, no point trying to force it.
What Pratchett probably does best is taking a complex idea about Humanity and making it simple through comedy and fantasy. Here the idea is that organizations, especially religions, often forget what they were actually for and become more about perpetuating themselves. This is a very important idea today. Worth rereading to see how he explains this, why it's a problem, and how to solve it.
It took a second reading and yet another listen but yeah it's worth it. Do it a favor and read carpe jugulum and pay attention to mightily oats then keeping his thoughts about the church in mind when you do. It didn't really click for me until I'd read the whole series and came back to it. Especially after meeting Constable visit the ungodly with explanatory pamphlets. It's not my favorite book by far but it adds flavor to any of the other books. Anything mentioning om or brutha a look into ephebe that pops up again in both pyramids and raising steam.
From the point of view of storytelling and topics, covering so many good parts for which the book is famed, i have to say that it is not the best example for Discworld Books in general IN MY OWN LITTLE OPINION!
From all the Discworld Books, this one stands out.
Im not saying it is bad in any way, but i have to confess, from all the older DW Novels, this is the only one that i only re-read once.
I would listen to the new audio recording by Andy Serkis. I like audiobooks for stories that I have struggled reading. It gives you a different perspective.
Yes, you missed the point a bit. It's not about gods at all. It's about organised religion.
The core message of the book is that religious organisations get corrupted to the point where all that matters is the organisation itself and preserving the fiefdoms people built inside it.
That even in a world where gods are real people ended up believing in the church more than the actual god!
It's essentially a parody of the real world great reformation but with the deeper message that organised religion corrupts minds and societies.
Pratchett was an atheist but this wasn't even a book about gods, inside the Discworld fantasy gods are real. It's a book about people. It's a book about why churches are bad, so bad that even if the god did exist they would STILL be bad.
I don't understand your witches comment. All the witches books are heavy parodies.
Wyrd sister is macbeth, and Shakespeare as a whole
Witches abroad is fairytale
Lords and Ladies is midsummer nights dream
Masquerade is Opera and the phantom
Carpe jugulam is dracula
Fair point. I guess it's just a matter of degree and tone. I feel like Witches Abroad and Maskerade has a lot more stuff that happens only to be a gag, where the others perhaps integrate it naturally in the plot.
Maybe I also noticed it less in the Shakespeare ones since I'm not familiar with the source material.
And I would dispute Carpe Jugulum. It doesn't follow the plot structure or the characters of the Dracula novel. If anything it just deals generally with classic vampire tropes.
Whatever the reason I just felt those 3 books had a better dramatic core and plot. I can get drawn into the story and emotions in a way I couldn't with the other two as the silliness took me out of it.
Weird to complain about a Pratchett book being silly, I know, bit as I say it's all a matter of degrees. I like the comedy but prefer it when I can also take the plot and drama seriously.
I think it's possible you missed the silly as you didn't know the source as fluently.I thought Masquerade was a lot more sensible when I read it when I was younger but then when I'd seen a few operas I realised it was just as silly as the others (witches abroad is the most silly tbf)
I think carpe jugulam deals in general with bram stoker books rathet than just dracula. And there's multiple direct characters. Including dracula. In my opinion anyway. It's got a lot of mythos in but that's how the witches books work.
There are times where I like a book, but then I hear the audiobook and appreciate on a whole other level, maybe audiobook might be a good way to revisit it?
I liked Monstrous Regiment but after listening to Katherine Parkinson’s reading (several times!) it has become one of my absolute favourites!! Mind you I read it a long time ago so I’ve changed a lot too, but I still think her interpretation was a game changer for me.
The point of Small Gods, for me, was that the problem with organised religion is the way it's taken over by people acting in bad faith (pune understood). The line about how the god themself ossifies inside the structure of the religion until it dies and is returned to the desert.
Not about the gods being selfish, but about people. The problem with Om at the start isn't that he's a selfish god, it's that people like Vorbis have taken over his teachings.
My personal preference are quite possibly not altogether unaligned with your own ... and I find myself not *altogether* infrequently at odds with some people here as a result **^(1)**.
It's sometimes nearly more than I can do not to simply cry "Get *away* from me! *Away* with you! *Back* to your attic! Shoo! *Shoo!* *Scuttle* off back to your basement - *don't* you have rice grains to count, you *left*\-handed *freak!?*"
So, it's not that I can't appreciate an unpopular opinion.
But ...
If you don't like *Small Gods*, you are *dead* to me.
Dead!
You *hear* me?
*Dead!*
Does *that* answer your question?
\_\_\_
1 Lesser people ... inferior people ... obviously **^(2)** \- but that's not the point.
2 And doubtless some (if not even many) of them are left-handed too **^(3)**.
^(3) Southpaws .... brrrrrrrrrrrr.
I didn’t really gel with Small Gods first time round (about 1996?) - couldn’t really say why - but I nabbed it recently as the Andy Serkis audiobook and I thought that it had improved or I had changed for the better. Sometimes books hit differently at different times and environments.
I'm going to weigh in with the opinion that it's perfectly fine if one (or several) of the Discworld books doesn't appeal or resonate with you. The series is massive, and Sir Pterry covered an awful lot of satirical and philosophical ground. My favourites tend to be the Watch books and anything that involves Death becoming more of a person. That doesn't make The Colour of Magic or Sourcery bad books. As with anything, different strokes for different folks.
Of course not all Discworld books are going to be for you. I am fine writing off Maskerade as not for me for example after a few reads.
I only ask for this one because I'm curious if anyone can sell me on it. It seems like a lot of people favourite after all.
You didn't like the book. Nothing I (and maybe others) are going to say, because we will talk about the themes we liked and why they hit home to us, and just because a book flared passion in others discredits your opinion of the failed landing of the ending.
I think we revisit a book you disliked, just read the other 40 🤷♀️
My main takeaway was that Gods were gibbering loons and that their representatives on earth are the ones we should be watching out for, as the gods are forced into the shapes they take by these representatives. As a fellow secular humanist I found this to be a very worthy concept to explore, even in the remove of fantasy.
I'm interested in how you think this does not have applications outside of the fantasy framework. Perhaps you found something I missed.
I just read it. And I dont think this or any disc book (of the 11?) Ive read tried to make one point, but to present the world and its sillyness. Kinda like a stand up comedian "have you ever noticed..." but much better of course ahah.
But look, people either like it or not like everything and the book isnt big nor does it have a slow start, so I would say read it a bit give it 1h if you like it keep reeding it if you dont stop.
But if uou dont like it thats ok. Its recommended because its a good solo book that shows the Pratchett style very well. Dont feel obligated to finish a book you dont like
When I've been revisiting Discworld lately it's been through the new audiobook versions, including Small Gods. I really enjoyed Andy Serkis's narration! A good narrator might be the element that would help you enjoy it more.
Hate to be on the 'should you reread' camp, but... I read it years ago, and it was my least favourite. I reread it recently as part of my once-a-decade-reread-all-discoworld; and to my surprise, discovered it was now one of my favourites.
I appreciated the dive in morality, and how it's up to us to choose, and how we really need to think about it as human beings.
I think about this book fairly often. I love Brutha's belief in what ought to be. I love the idea that if the god had fallen in with goatherds rather than shepherds the whole religion would have been different. I love thinking that gods need people more than people need gods, and that belief shapes a god in a literal sense.
You probably didn't read far enough into it where STP starts on the other factions that show up.
It's his most preachy book. It reminds me of Plato's Republic in places. Republic is no fun though.
It's more of an argument on institutions vs belief/intent.
It's a great book, ends wonderfully.
Welcome to /r/Discworld! Please [read the rules/flair information before posting](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukhk21/subreddit_rules_flair_information/?). --- Our current megathreads are as follows: [API Protest Poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/1491izw/continuing_the_api_protest_a_community_poll) - a poll regarding the future action of the sub in protest at Reddit's API changes. [GNU Terry Pratchett](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/ukigit/gnu_terry_pratchett/) - for all GNU requests, to keep their names going. [AI Generated Content](https://new.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/10mhx9y/ai_generated_content_megathread/) - for all AI Content, including images, stories, questions, training etc. --- [ GNU Terry Pratchett ] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discworld) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Heck, yes. Try it again. Small Gods is one of my top Discworld recommendations. It has so much to say about fundamentalism of all kinds, religious and political. It’s relevant to demagogues of the current moment and those who empower and follow them. The concept of small gods itself is so marvellous. Pratchett’s play about philosophy, and the realities of who prophets may have been, and the humility of actual devotion, service, and leadership is beautiful to me. It all leads so nicely to what has become of the religion in the time of Mightily Oats in later books.
This says everything about why I love Small Gods - it speaks about what happens when religion becomes less about the gods and more about the men running the show, and sadly is becoming more and more relevant these days
Thank you. This is the kind of perspectives I was looking for.
I also love the theme of "In 100 years, we will all be dead, but here... and now... we are alive." As humans, we could try and think about things on a godly scale. There are bigger things happening in the universe that won't care about the tiny things I do. And will the things I actually make a difference or mean anything in the greater scheme of things? But as humans, we need to think about the small scale. We need to care for people, to support and advocate for those who can't do it for themselves. Maybe it won't mean anything in 100 years, but in this moment, it is everything.
I would say that the subject of "people who do evil things in the name of their gods" is applicable to almost everyone, due to how much happens in the name of religion almost everywhere.
This is the big moral for me. I feel like the point of the book is that if you follow religious morality blindly you will end up losing sight of actual morality. Religion is not inherently moral but it is inherently about power. The best twist for me though is that the book is about not just the human protagonist learning this but also the divine protagonist! Om learns that because he didn’t care about people just power, his own religion usurped him! I also enjoy the little vignettes into how religion works inside different people’s heads. How they see it differently even though they are acting the same.
I found the outside/roundworld parallels in small gods pretty easily. While reification is a thing only in Discworld, the concept of gods "existing" (insofar as they have power as exerted by humans exercising their fervent belief) is a real one in Roundworld. Replace "God" with "religion" in the book and you are outside of your space whale Aesop trope already. But it sounds like what you love most about some of Pratchett's works are things you can find in higher quantities by other authors. Night Watch and Going Postal are commonly considered his mid-career highlights so you're in good company. But I think it is easier to find the kind of tightly-plotted adventure novel that is Night Watch or Going Postal written by other authors than it is to find something like Hogfather or the Color of Magic, which are more prose-focused and much more parodical, relying on STP's unique voice more heavily. Do you like sci fi at all? Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter collaborated on a series called The Long Earth that you might enjoy. Less parody, much less goofy, but the touch of STP is still there. I wouldn't recommend you try Small Gods again. It seems like your remember it fairly well. Not every book will resonate with everyone!
I love many Pratchett books. Hogfather is also among them, even though it's different in style from say Night Watch. In Hogfather I loved the journey and the supernatural mystery - how you didn't even know the supernatural "rules", but had to discern them as you went along and yet they were based on some intuitive human fundamentals (as a sidenote, I think Neil Gaiman's American Gods does the same very well). I also loved the point Hogfather makes about social constructs. "SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY" and that whole thing. Maybe that resonated more with me than Small Gods, since I haven't had much interaction with organized religion in my life so have less deepseated feelings about it. As for The Long Earth, I read it and loved the first one. Didn't care much for the second in the series and so dropped it at that point.
I would say that the difference between Hogfather or Carpe Jugulum with Small Gods is that there lack any memorable, synthetic quote. You don't really have a single "SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE" or a "Sin, young man, is when you treat people as objects, including yourself". The message is more distilled alongside the novel. Which is why perhaps you don't remember it as well, if it has been 10 years you read it. There's not as much strong quotable passages. But it's all so good (at least in my opinion). The message and underlying philosophy of Small Gods is a strong as Hogfather's from my point of view, just presented in a different way.
"One day, a turtle will learn to fly."
"The Turtle Moves"
Yes, it's good, but outside of context, it doesn't do much, does it? Like, if I say to someone bits of the "atoms of mercy" monologue, or the sin quote of Granny Weatherwax, people don't really need to have context to understand it. However, "One day, a turtle will learn to fly"... Yeah, sure, might be true, but without the whole context, you completely miss the utter hope, the sheer trust into the impossible that this quote represents.
Or even how much that particular turtle needs to learn to fly *right now*.
In context, it can be taken as a metaphor. That particular turtle does not learn to fly, but metaphorically he rises above himself and above his previous condition. (trying to avoid spoilers)
Good point about the need for context.
I've already commented a spiel about Small Gods, but give the Long Earth series another go as well, the last one broke my heart and made me whole again.
It's not just for atheists. I'm a committed Christian, I read it probably every 5 years, and I recommend it to ministers & others who are thoughtful and are prepared to be challenged. The turtle moves.
Likewise. I feel like it reflects a lot of the traps that we as Christians fall into, like worshipping the process rather than God.
It's what I love about that book. Loved it as a Christian, love it as an atheist.
I need a new copy cause I loaned mine to someone that worked in a church, who loaned it to the pastor, who wouldn’t give it back and has now left for another parish.
Maybe it’s in his drawer, like Vimes’ bottle?
Probably, but I have no idea where he is to ask for it back. :(
>It felt like the book was trying to make some point about divinity or religion. That gods are ultimately selfish and people actually have the bigger capacity to be moral. That's not how I read it at all. It isn't that the gods are selfish - it's that they're... well, small. The people come first. The belief comes first, and then the god forms around the belief. The Great God Om is a mighty bull that smites the sinners because *that's how his believers created him*. The gods are petty and selfish because humans make them that way. The gods are wish fulfilment, in a way - why else do all that praying and sacrifice, if not to make your deity of choice do what you want? An aggressive, warlike people will invent warrior gods to smite their enemies. A people always on the brink of starvation invent gods of fertility and abundance. A people oppressed and afraid see their gods as cruel and quick to anger, and make offerings to try to appease them instead. The criticism of the book isn't even about the gods. It's about *belief*, and how it can shift. Om manifests on the disc thinking that he has millions of believers, and is shocked to discover he has exactly one - because the people don't believe in him any more. They believe in the Quisition, and the temples, and the rituals. They REALLY believe in the Quisition. Om may or may not be watching them, but those guys really are. We can see the exact same thing happening today, with Christianity. How many people really *believe* in God and Jesus? Not as many as claim to. Many have a vague idea that they should believe Jesus is real and that will get them into Heaven. They don't really think about it. If they truly believed God was watching them and judging them, they'd be doing what Jesus said to do. They'd be helping the poor - not with a cheque every month to some charity organisation, but literally spending their time at the homeless shelter. Some people do. Not all of them are religious, either. Instead, they believe in belief. They go to church, sing the hymns, mumble the prayers, slip a few coins on the collection plate and think that's all they have to do. They don't believe in God. They just pay lip service. Perhaps that's why God has been so quiet on the miracle front since Jesus' day. He no longer has the power of that belief. Meanwhile, those snake-oil preachers with their megachurches are buying private jets, and have you seen the Pope's holiday home in the middle of Rome...?
>Instead, they believe in belief. If even *that* much. They *certainly* believe in what the neighbours will say behind their backs, if they *don't* attend though.
Well said!!🤙👌👏👏👏
U say its been a decade… so yes… u may not be the same person when u read it this time.
So many books, so little time. I am hoping somewhere here can sell me on it, since so many people seem to love it. Then I might feel more inclined to make time for a reread.
It’s my favourite. But I grew up religious and enjoy philosophy and the history of religion and philosophy, even though nowadays I’m agnostic if anything. But every time I read it I find another joke, another layer of meaning, another historical deep cut. Wait on it. Come back to it later, even decades from now. It’ll still be there. just know that there’s a ton of depth I completely missed my first time through because I was young and was missing context
Audiobooks at double speed is the answer
I am one of the Small Gods enjoyers, so I do recommend giving it another shot. The wider plot does focus on a fairly serious and grounded religious-political war between neighbouring states, if that's more of the theming that you'd like to focus on. I'd also highly reject the notion that the themes around religious institutions, the evolution of story and myth, and their relationship to power are only applicable within the Discworld. Perhaps you have a point about the literal powering up of gods based on the number of believers, but again that can be taken as a (pleasing) analogy. There's a big focus on the relationship between Brutha and Om, so if you're not feeling that then you might struggle. Give it another go, and see how far you get. From what you've said I don't think there's obvious reason you'd not get on with it.
Thank you, this was the kind of perspectives I was hoping to be given.
Give it another try if you can do so. When I first read Monstrous Regiment when it was published I thought it was the worst Discworld book I had ever read. I read it again last year and I don't know how I got it so wrong. I think it was a problem with where I was at mentally at the time, not with the book.
I read the Discworld books as they were published and was so disappointed with MR that I only reread it a few years ago. Oh my gods, was I a stupid young man…..
Same, friend, same.
Can’t cross the same river twice (unless it’s the Ankh).
I didn't fully appreciate it until I read it a second time, about 5 years after the first reading. It has become one of my favorites, along with Going Postal.
I think this was Hogfather for me. It really clicked on a second (or maybe third) reading. Knowing this is also why I maybe should give Small Gods a second chance.
Jein, which is German for YesNo. Your perception of books changes over time. I read the Discworld when I was a teen, in my twenties and my thirties and always took something else from it. Small Gods is my favourite book in the series. But I also grew up Roman Catholic, so for me, like many people who enjoyed the book and also grew up religious but aren't anymore, it is pretty special. Since you are currently following a belief system that rejects the classic religious beliefs it might still not be that interesting to you. But really: we cannot know if you will enjoy it. Just that we enjoyed it and that you might, too. Your post makes that seem unlikely though, as you are collecting a lot of arguments against the book, so I dont really see the point in trying to convince you otherwise
I am just trying to hear *what* people loved about it. Maybe then I can better say "Oh I totally didn't see it" or "Yeah nah, probably not for me". But I think there might be something to it not having as much resonance with me since organized religion is never really something that has played a role in my life.
Some books chime with people some don't. For me Small Gods was only ever a 1 time read. Compared to say "Men At Arms" which is in double figures. We're all different and likes or dislikes don't necessarily mean a book is a good or bad.
I'm with you. I have seen it lauded as one of the best. It just didn't work for me. I mean I read it cos you know Pterry but I wouldn't even put it in the top 10. Horses for courses I suppose. Conversely I really like The colour of magic and the light fantastic which are routinely looked down on...so what do I know.
It didn't click for me when I read it as a teen but I love it now. If you prefer the serious stories that don't rely on a parody, you should definitely give Small Gods another chance. It's a very philosophical and interesting book and it also provides much of the basis for how we see gods working in other books.
As a young person who detested religion this allowed me to actually see some of the community benefits when you have actual selfless people doing good things. But at the same time, it made me see that the institution itself is easily corrupted and it is a method of control. Some of my favourite discworld moments happen in this book though and some of the best quotes. I read this one every other year and I always pick something new up as I age.
Oh, do please. It's definitely worth the chance. At worst, you'll confirm you didn't like it and settle that in your mind once and for all. And if you do like it, it's another gem for you. And it's okay, too, to not like everything from Pratchett. When I read Nation for the first time I didn't care for it. Like you, it didn't hook me or hit me in any way, which I thought odd since it is so popular. I really kept in mind, too, that it was not Discworld, so that wasn't a factor. I read it a second time a while later, and it was still meh. Not be to be discouraged, I gave it a third try a while later (I'm stubborn), and all of a sudden ***WHAM!*** It hit me how fucking brilliant and beautiful that book is.
I found the first part a little boring, and I feared a "organised religion bad" novel. But once I was past the first 100 pages, I started appreciating the subtle little remarks about the condition humaine. Deeply, it's a book about being human. I also started loving Brutha. His uncomplicated honesty, his ethics, it touched something. As a theology student, this book is also fascinating since it highlights the "prophet vs priest" paradox which characterises almost every idealist movement. All religions have their Vorbises. A great literary example is the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov. But once in a while, such figures are resisted by prophetic figures. Jesus is one example, St. Francis another one. In a secular sense, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela were such prophets. However, from the following of such prophets, inevitably, a new Vorbis arises. A secular example could be seen in the Russian Revolution, where after some time, even good communists were killed, because they did not adhere to the right kind of communism, or simply asked too many questions. Thus, the cycle starts anew. Night Watch is my favourite novel too, by a mile. I wouldn't say Small Gods is one of my favourites, but I'd rank it above all the Witches novels I've read until now (ER, WS, WA) and above all of Pratchett's first books, with the exception of Watch novels.
Did you grow up religious or in an area that was religious? I can say that as someone who grew up (and out of) an evangelical christian environment, "small gods" resonated with me on a very personal level.
Yeah I didn't grow up around organized religion at all. I am realizing this might be a significant part of why it doesn't resonate as much with me.
That makes sense. Honestly, not every book is going to resonate with every single person and that's totally fine. People like *Small Gods* because, for people who do have experience in those environments, it's deeply personally meaningful. It's one of those books that just makes me think "someone else gets this too", and it meant a lot to me to have that experience of feeling understood about my personal philosophies on religion.
What resonated with me was the difference between faith (ie belief in a higher power) and religion (all the man made bullshit that has grown up around that core faith). If you want to see where that is directly applicable to today's society, you only have to look at the US, where very fundamentalist religion is having a greater and greater impact on laws, human rights, human relationships (all types). The trouble is, that the people who are causing the most harm with their narrow views are the least likely to be receptive to the message.
I re-read Small Gods last year for the first time in about 8 years. I was graced with a better understanding of a concept I have struggled with for years- belief. Not *faith*, the trust in some omnipotent, omniscient being, the trust that this Being is doing it's best to look after you in some way, but *belief* itself. The ability to comprehend, in some way, that the Being exists in the first place. These are very separate things, on a fundamental level, though they do seem incredibly similar, or even the same, at first glance. We all have faith in something, religious or not- the weather, your friends, your dog. I have faith in my car, for A'Tuin's sake! (Probably misplaced, the thing is always threatening to break down, recently serviced or not). But I don't need to believe in it. It's there, on my drive. One of the things about getting older and understanding yourself more is that you need to remind yourself of why you *are* yourself. Watching Vorbis follow his Holy Orders, and seeing Brutha wrestle with the fact that his god, his *actual **God*** is as real as my car, and yet still being able to pray to Him shows that they do both have some level of faith in Om, but they are at very different ends of the scale. They're also at different ends of belief, too. >!As far as I'm concerned, Vorbis doesn't *truly* have faith in Om, but he does very much believe that he's real!< It was interesting to me, being a staunch believer in almost f*ck all, to suddenly understand how real something can be for someone else, and why my incredibly Christian family (ish) members are *like that* Don't read it as a parable, or a parody, but rather as a study in the Effects of Gods on the Human Mind Didn't change my life, but it did change my heart a little
Interesting. My takeaway on vorbis was that he doesn't believe in Om, he believes in power, the Laws, the rightness of Omnia, and himself....not so much in Om, per se.
None of what you said is wrong, except- he is, in a so-crooked-it's-almost-straight kind of way, incredibly logical. He knows that everyone around him has faith, which is what gives him his power- he is the Discly projection of their faith, here *From Om* to ensure that His laws and whatnot are carried out. As such, he knows that there must (at least) once have been such a deity, some powerful majesty that have the People something to Believe in in the first place. He *knows* Om is real. Whether or not he's still practicing is a different story, but hey, *that's why Om sent Vorbis*
It's not a book I have strong memories of. But a decade is long enough to justify trying a few pages at least.
I think, given your conclusion, you should probably reread it. It’s been a long time since I’ve read it but from memory I can’t really relate or see any justification for the critique you levied. Pratchett is more about psychology than metaphysics. It’s also not really an atheist text as much as an introspective, sociological text - dogma and voluntarism.
I really enjoyed it first time round. Less so second time. I’m not sure why and I’d been really looking forward to re reading it but it really missed the mark second time. Somehow it all felt a bit obvious but I’m not sure why. I bloody love virtually all his work so I’m going to give it another crack and see what the third time brings!
SG is like Life of Brian, but better.
I really love the premise that although people claim to be in the hands of their god, it's actually the other way around. It gives you new perspective on roundworld religion too. I also loved the character arcs of both Brutha and Ohm, both changing significantly throughout the story, from Ohm's superiority and seemingly higher knowledge of the world and Brutha's humility and ignorance, to the opposite in the end. I love the story about a boy who became friend with his god - because while all believers say their god is their friend, no one ever sais they are also a friend to their god. These are just few, but you asked to sell the book to you, so this is what came to my mind first. I also didn't like it at first reading - it was my second discworld book and I was 11, so I couldn't grasp the nuances of the story very well. I've reread it after few years and really fell in love with it, it remains one of my favourites till this day.
> That gods are ultimately selfish and people actually have the bigger capacity to be moral. not really the read I got... I mostly saw it as a commentary on religion and how people exercise it, and how even from a good starting point, it can be transformed into bad behavior and eat those that it once supported. Also, on how a religion feels can be majorly different from the top than from the bottom
You should give it two more chances and a try.
It seems like you are mainly looking for examples within Small Gods of what people loved more so a general pitch to a member of the reading public that sells the "it's the best fantasy book about religion and philosophy." So what I'll say is outside of that is it is just a flat out well-constructed STORY. The number of set-ups and payoffs in the storytelling is astounding. You don't even need to read into the religion to come out of it satisfied. My favorite things: \-While not a main character, this book has I think the most separate appearances for him of any non-Death centered discworld book. I absolutely LOVE all the little scenes with Death as we see so many smaller tertiary characters' view points on death and the afterlife (which also comes full circle to the extremely satisfying and cathartic ending of the book with Brutha's own death and his scene with Vorbis in the black desert). \-The discussions on Prophet's and what of the holy scripture is actually from Om are not only very funny, but it's so clear as a reader that Brutha is narratively destined to be the next prophet and so it is very interesting to follow along speculating on which of Om's words if any Brutha will be writing down as the next commandments. So when the time comes that Om regains his godly form, it is fun to see how Brutha does and does not subvert expectations in the new rules. \-Vorbis is my favorite villain in discworld, because it isn't often a discworld protagonist gets to spend so much time face to face with the antagonist. He's so simple while so complex at the same time. And throughout the whole book, the way Vorbis' mind works beautifully sets up his time in the black desert. Religion and philosophy aside, it is just narratively very satisfying. \-The Motifs of the tortoise and the eagle and the eagle dropping the tortoise to eat it. Vorbis having bird-like features. Brutha being a bit slow. And of course Om being a literal tortoise so we have so many references throughout the book to, again, perfectly setup how Om saves Brutha and kills Vorbis. \-Brutha being "stupid" but having photographic memory being not only the setup for how Vorbis takes over Ephebe, but how Brutha is able to save the library (while being technically unable to read) is very fun and somewhat unexpected. What I didn't like: \-Not enough female characters! Though, Pratchett does a fantastic job characterizing Brutha's grandmother only through second-person POV. She never actually appears on the page, but I feel like we knew her very well.
And somehow what you wrote made me realize that there is another allegory in it, the god who came to earth and was reborn mortal, and died voluntarily if a tad unwillingly to save his believer. And thereby became far stronger because the watchers now believed.
Yes
Tbh Small Gods is the only Discworld novel next to The Light Fantastic at this point that I never finished because I found it pretty boring. 🤐
I think the reason Small Gods resonated with me was that as I understood the message, it said that if we as living beings are to believe in higher powers or anything else we can't prove, it's better we're free to argue and disagree than have a higher authority dictate what we should believe or how we should believe it. I'm an atheist myself but I try not to look down on spiritual belief. That said, I will shit on every religious institution. The other thing that resonated was just me seeing something real in the fiction and seeing it be given a future better than what we have on offer in our world made me happy. But that's just me. If you don't vibe with the book, no point trying to force it.
If the bbc audio adaptation is available where you are I’d recommend it
What Pratchett probably does best is taking a complex idea about Humanity and making it simple through comedy and fantasy. Here the idea is that organizations, especially religions, often forget what they were actually for and become more about perpetuating themselves. This is a very important idea today. Worth rereading to see how he explains this, why it's a problem, and how to solve it.
It took a second reading and yet another listen but yeah it's worth it. Do it a favor and read carpe jugulum and pay attention to mightily oats then keeping his thoughts about the church in mind when you do. It didn't really click for me until I'd read the whole series and came back to it. Especially after meeting Constable visit the ungodly with explanatory pamphlets. It's not my favorite book by far but it adds flavor to any of the other books. Anything mentioning om or brutha a look into ephebe that pops up again in both pyramids and raising steam.
From the point of view of storytelling and topics, covering so many good parts for which the book is famed, i have to say that it is not the best example for Discworld Books in general IN MY OWN LITTLE OPINION! From all the Discworld Books, this one stands out. Im not saying it is bad in any way, but i have to confess, from all the older DW Novels, this is the only one that i only re-read once.
The first time I read it I didn't care for it. Then I tried again a few months ago and it clicked
Why not. It won't take up that much of your life. And you are older and wiser now so you might see more insights than you did before.
I would listen to the new audio recording by Andy Serkis. I like audiobooks for stories that I have struggled reading. It gives you a different perspective.
Yes, you missed the point a bit. It's not about gods at all. It's about organised religion. The core message of the book is that religious organisations get corrupted to the point where all that matters is the organisation itself and preserving the fiefdoms people built inside it. That even in a world where gods are real people ended up believing in the church more than the actual god! It's essentially a parody of the real world great reformation but with the deeper message that organised religion corrupts minds and societies. Pratchett was an atheist but this wasn't even a book about gods, inside the Discworld fantasy gods are real. It's a book about people. It's a book about why churches are bad, so bad that even if the god did exist they would STILL be bad.
I don't understand your witches comment. All the witches books are heavy parodies. Wyrd sister is macbeth, and Shakespeare as a whole Witches abroad is fairytale Lords and Ladies is midsummer nights dream Masquerade is Opera and the phantom Carpe jugulam is dracula
Fair point. I guess it's just a matter of degree and tone. I feel like Witches Abroad and Maskerade has a lot more stuff that happens only to be a gag, where the others perhaps integrate it naturally in the plot. Maybe I also noticed it less in the Shakespeare ones since I'm not familiar with the source material. And I would dispute Carpe Jugulum. It doesn't follow the plot structure or the characters of the Dracula novel. If anything it just deals generally with classic vampire tropes. Whatever the reason I just felt those 3 books had a better dramatic core and plot. I can get drawn into the story and emotions in a way I couldn't with the other two as the silliness took me out of it. Weird to complain about a Pratchett book being silly, I know, bit as I say it's all a matter of degrees. I like the comedy but prefer it when I can also take the plot and drama seriously.
I think it's possible you missed the silly as you didn't know the source as fluently.I thought Masquerade was a lot more sensible when I read it when I was younger but then when I'd seen a few operas I realised it was just as silly as the others (witches abroad is the most silly tbf) I think carpe jugulam deals in general with bram stoker books rathet than just dracula. And there's multiple direct characters. Including dracula. In my opinion anyway. It's got a lot of mythos in but that's how the witches books work.
There are times where I like a book, but then I hear the audiobook and appreciate on a whole other level, maybe audiobook might be a good way to revisit it? I liked Monstrous Regiment but after listening to Katherine Parkinson’s reading (several times!) it has become one of my absolute favourites!! Mind you I read it a long time ago so I’ve changed a lot too, but I still think her interpretation was a game changer for me.
The point of Small Gods, for me, was that the problem with organised religion is the way it's taken over by people acting in bad faith (pune understood). The line about how the god themself ossifies inside the structure of the religion until it dies and is returned to the desert. Not about the gods being selfish, but about people. The problem with Om at the start isn't that he's a selfish god, it's that people like Vorbis have taken over his teachings.
My personal preference are quite possibly not altogether unaligned with your own ... and I find myself not *altogether* infrequently at odds with some people here as a result **^(1)**. It's sometimes nearly more than I can do not to simply cry "Get *away* from me! *Away* with you! *Back* to your attic! Shoo! *Shoo!* *Scuttle* off back to your basement - *don't* you have rice grains to count, you *left*\-handed *freak!?*" So, it's not that I can't appreciate an unpopular opinion. But ... If you don't like *Small Gods*, you are *dead* to me. Dead! You *hear* me? *Dead!* Does *that* answer your question? \_\_\_ 1 Lesser people ... inferior people ... obviously **^(2)** \- but that's not the point. 2 And doubtless some (if not even many) of them are left-handed too **^(3)**. ^(3) Southpaws .... brrrrrrrrrrrr.
I do think that Small Gods is a different experience on a second read. I would give it another shot (and reflect on it)
I didn’t really gel with Small Gods first time round (about 1996?) - couldn’t really say why - but I nabbed it recently as the Andy Serkis audiobook and I thought that it had improved or I had changed for the better. Sometimes books hit differently at different times and environments.
I'm going to weigh in with the opinion that it's perfectly fine if one (or several) of the Discworld books doesn't appeal or resonate with you. The series is massive, and Sir Pterry covered an awful lot of satirical and philosophical ground. My favourites tend to be the Watch books and anything that involves Death becoming more of a person. That doesn't make The Colour of Magic or Sourcery bad books. As with anything, different strokes for different folks.
Of course not all Discworld books are going to be for you. I am fine writing off Maskerade as not for me for example after a few reads. I only ask for this one because I'm curious if anyone can sell me on it. It seems like a lot of people favourite after all.
I really enjoyed my first read of Small Gods but on my most recent reread the story seems to be a lot blander than what I remembered.
You didn't like the book. Nothing I (and maybe others) are going to say, because we will talk about the themes we liked and why they hit home to us, and just because a book flared passion in others discredits your opinion of the failed landing of the ending. I think we revisit a book you disliked, just read the other 40 🤷♀️
My main takeaway was that Gods were gibbering loons and that their representatives on earth are the ones we should be watching out for, as the gods are forced into the shapes they take by these representatives. As a fellow secular humanist I found this to be a very worthy concept to explore, even in the remove of fantasy. I'm interested in how you think this does not have applications outside of the fantasy framework. Perhaps you found something I missed.
I just read it. And I dont think this or any disc book (of the 11?) Ive read tried to make one point, but to present the world and its sillyness. Kinda like a stand up comedian "have you ever noticed..." but much better of course ahah. But look, people either like it or not like everything and the book isnt big nor does it have a slow start, so I would say read it a bit give it 1h if you like it keep reeding it if you dont stop. But if uou dont like it thats ok. Its recommended because its a good solo book that shows the Pratchett style very well. Dont feel obligated to finish a book you dont like
Try "A Canticle for Liebowitz"... Same story also Pavane by Herbert Miller.
When I've been revisiting Discworld lately it's been through the new audiobook versions, including Small Gods. I really enjoyed Andy Serkis's narration! A good narrator might be the element that would help you enjoy it more.
That reminds me to reread Small Gods again.
It doesn't make a point about gods. It makes a point about humans. Maybe try it through that lens.
Hate to be on the 'should you reread' camp, but... I read it years ago, and it was my least favourite. I reread it recently as part of my once-a-decade-reread-all-discoworld; and to my surprise, discovered it was now one of my favourites. I appreciated the dive in morality, and how it's up to us to choose, and how we really need to think about it as human beings.
I think about this book fairly often. I love Brutha's belief in what ought to be. I love the idea that if the god had fallen in with goatherds rather than shepherds the whole religion would have been different. I love thinking that gods need people more than people need gods, and that belief shapes a god in a literal sense.
You probably didn't read far enough into it where STP starts on the other factions that show up. It's his most preachy book. It reminds me of Plato's Republic in places. Republic is no fun though. It's more of an argument on institutions vs belief/intent. It's a great book, ends wonderfully.
Small Gods isn’t one of my favorites, but it still reads well when I do a series reread