I think Monstrous Regiment stands pretty well solo, too.

Oh yes, that's true. And maybe Pyramids, Pyramids?

Or Cohen. That guy slays me.

If you're not careful.

Emily, that's the one I started with, too. Oh, so many years ago. And I now own every one of them, including The Last Hero. And am going to place my order for Thud! on Friday, when I have money.

Meeeechigan.

Hey! Going to be in my area at all?

My first Pratchett was Lords and Ladies, and it hooked me good.

Also, I still haven't read a Vimes book. I know, I know. But I was told to read the Night Watch books in chronological order, and my library visits never rewarded me with the first one.

Yes, but as I fly in late Friday night for a Saturday wedding and leave Sunday, I doubt I'll have much time for anything but a quick hello-goodbye to the people actually at the wedding!

I was not that impressed with Monstrous Regiment. It seemed to suffer from too much of its main premise. Truth is a good one that doesn't need a lot of backstory.

There's a couple of jokes that make more sense if you have some of the City Watch backstory, but on the whole, yeah. Same with whachamacallit, the one with Glom of Nigt.

Given the recent Discworld talk, I think some of you should check out this post from a friend of mine. She wants to organize a U.S. Discworld Con. Terry promises to come.

I'm reading a book by a male author, which is somewhat unusual for me (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. my Patrick O'Brian glom from last year). It's not that I have a conscious bias against male authors, but A) I read a lot of romance, and B) even in other genres I tend to be drawn to female protagonists, so I tend to pick mostly books by women.

I'm enjoying the book tremendously, but something about the two female characters I've met so far is really rubbing me the wrong way. It's not like they're flawed while the men are perfect--everyone in this story is pretty damn messed up in one way or another. But the women don't quite seem real, more like projections of male wishes and fears. I'm not naming the author, because it's still early enough in the book that the characterization may improve. Also, it may be that the unreality of the female characters is a reflection of the male protagonist's shallowness and immaturity at this point in the story. If further reading of this book or others by the same author lead me to that conclusion, I'll happily change my opinion from, "He doesn't get women--does he even like us?" to, "Damn, he's good. Must take notes for own growth as a writer."

But it's got me musing on the larger topic of how men write women and how women write men. While I've certainly encountered woman authors who can't write men well, I've also read many whose men seem realistic--at least going by my outside observer's perspective on what makes for a realistic man! I've had less luck with finding male authors who write women well--even some of my favorites just don't seem to quite get women.

So. I wondered how much of this is just my perspective as a woman. Do the men here have the same complaints about women authors just not getting them? Or am I just not reading the right male authors?

Susan, in too many romances I find the men to be complete fantasy projections of what the author wants (or maybe assumes her readership wants). But then the women are sometimes too romanticized for me, too.

In terms of male authors, I'm like you -- I don't read many. I always found Stephen King, strangely, to write women pretty well.