'Nation' at The National

I'm falling behind with my reporting of my doings and sayings (have I mentioned that it snowed for a few hours today?) so apologies for that, but I went to see the theatrical version of Terry Pratchett's 'Nation' at The National Theatre.

I'm a big fan of Terry's Discworld books, but haven't read 'Nation'. From the play, I assume it tries to stick pretty close to the narrative of the book which may or may not be a good idea. It was slick and professional, with good sets and lighting, but my abiding memory is the sheer volume of naked flesh on display throughout the production and the rather shouty female lead. I don't think I'm a prude but I'm not sure I've ever seen so much flesh on stage - no naughty bits, obviously, just acres of skin, male and female and a pretend baby.

I wanted to like the play - it was a Christmas treat, after all - but I'm really not sure if I did or not. This would definitely benefit from a second viewing. I liked the sections with people from two very different cultures trying to talk to each other, smiling and just agreeing that they didn't really understand, but is this the best way to explain that message? And is that what the play is really trying to explore?

I do feel rather uncharitable when I look back at the play and leaving the theatre is my best memory, not because it was bad, but because I realised that Terry Pratchett himself was seated a few rows behind us and was busy signing autographs. Is it a theatrical experience or a Pratchett love-in? And does that matter?