Douglas Adams Vs. Terry Pratchett: The War of the Writers!

[Yeahduff]

Huh, so these are two different authors.

[Komiyan]

Pratchett, no question, he's invented a fantastic and deeply interesting world full of diverse and fascinating characters.

I could barely stand Hitchhikers, it was like a bunch of comedy sketches very slightly strung together with a 'plot', and the characters didn't mean a thing to me.

[Dracomax]

Terry Pratchett has been said to be like the Douglas Adams of fantasy. Now I recently read The Color of Magic, and it really made me want to start reading the Hitchhikers' series again (especially after The Color of Magic's ending OMG!!) So I just finished The Life the Universe and Everything, and I got to tell you, I personally think Adams makes Pratchett look campy.

I have to say, mostly harmless didn't end much better.

[Vorticus]

If I had to choose I'd say Pratchett however I enjoy them both a lot. Some of Adam's other works flow better than the later hitchhiker's guide books. I've yet to get to Pratchett's later work though.

[Komiyan]

Nthing that colour of Magic isn't the best place to start with Pratchett, by the way. Pick up Guards Guards and work your way through The Watch series, you won't be disappointed.

[Pimpette]

seeing as hitchhiker's started off as a radio show that was largely made up as it went along, I think it turned out pretty good.
But Douglas Adams brand humour has me in stitches whenever I read it.

I didn't vote because I haven't read any Pratchett (yet!), but I fully intend to once autumn (and thus fewer OMG MUST DO items) rolls around. I hear so much about Discworld, it's about time I picked some up.

I go through too many pornos and re-reads anyway.

[BrownEyedCat]

Odd, I thought Thud was one of Pratchett's best books, and I hadn't read any of the other Vimes books at that point.

To be honest, the reason I put it in that category isn't for any major plot reasons - it's that Koom Valley shows up in so many other books. Any time Trolls and Dwarves come up, so does Koom Valley, usually as a one-off joke. That meant that the time Thud rolled around, Koom Valley was well established in the world building and the culture for me, and the associated payoffs were HUGE.

Thud is currently my favorite Discworld book. (I also got my copy signed in person!)

[Mo]

I had to vote Adams because I've read the Hitchhikers books several times and they still crack me up. Just something about his style never fails to entertain me.
My cat was named after Marvin.

Also, I'm more into sci-fi than fantasy, so that might have something to do with it.

[Brockway]

Your best bet is to check the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld : pick a series, then read them in order. The Witches, the City Watch, and Tiffany Aching series are all good bets. So are the 2 Moist von Ludwig books. I'd recommend the Watch series first, just cause it will eventually get you to Night Watch, and by association, Monstrous Regiment.

[Laemkral]

I've only read Adams, Pratchett is something I'll start on soon after I do some more "professional" reading (ie military books) for a while. However, I'm a passionate Adams fan. The HHGTTG series gets read every year and I love every single one of the books. I've also read both Dirk Gentlys and the Salmon of Doubt, and enjoyed those as well. The books have even made the trek to Iraq with me (and on leave).

[McDuffies]

I could barely stand Hitchhikers, it was like a bunch of comedy sketches very slightly strung together with a 'plot', and the characters didn't mean a thing to me.

Are they supposed to? No characters in "Airplane" mean anything, but it's still good. Personally I always thought that fleshed out characters stand in the way of parody and that it works best with total cliches. For the same reason, books worked best when the plot was flimsy or non-existant.

[Rkolter]

I could barely stand Hitchhikers, it was like a bunch of comedy sketches very slightly strung together with a 'plot', and the characters didn't mean a thing to me.

Are they supposed to? No characters in "Airplane" mean anything, but it's still good. Personally I always thought that fleshed out characters stand in the way of parody and that it works best with total cliches. For the same reason, books worked best when the plot was flimsy or non-existant.

The fact that you liked "Airplane" tells me something about you I didn't realize McDuffies. That was my second-favorite movie as a kid, next to The Cannonball Run.

[Komiyan]

I could barely stand Hitchhikers, it was like a bunch of comedy sketches very slightly strung together with a 'plot', and the characters didn't mean a thing to me.

Are they supposed to? No characters in "Airplane" mean anything, but it's still good. Personally I always thought that fleshed out characters stand in the way of parody and that it works best with total cliches. For the same reason, books worked best when the plot was flimsy or non-existant.

Then we're after two different things when we read books or movies. If I can't get interested in the characters, I just can't get interested in the whole thing, which is why I hated things like The Matrix (all action pieces, no character), and didn't find Airplane or Hitchhikers that good either. A string of jokes just isn't enough for me, on its own.

That said, Hot Fuzz was action movie parody all the way, and I cared about those characters..

[McDuffies]

Then we're after two different things when we read books or movies. If I can't get interested in the characters, I just can't get interested in the whole thing, which is why I hated things like The Matrix (all action pieces, no character), and didn't find Airplane or Hitchhikers that good either. A string of jokes just isn't enough for me, on its own.

That said, Hot Fuzz was action movie parody all the way, and I cared about those characters..

I don't look for the same thing in all books or movies. It's important what you're trying to achieve.
Parodies aim to deconstruct elements of original and turn them around so to show all it's faults. If a genre is known for stereotypical characters (and most of them are), then parody is best viciously playing on those stereotypes, and trying to expand those stereotypes will do disservice to the whole piece. Parody is basically a postmodern genre, and as such it's not talking about characters or plots, it's talking about fiction. Real subject of "Airplane" is not airplane disaster or people on the plane, it's airplane disaster movies.

In a character-driven book or film, I'll certainly expect genuine characters with whom I can sympathize.

Anyways I though Hot Fuzz was supposed to be an action movie with comedy elements, not a parody. Or more precise, it's an hommage to police movies, it's affectionate towards genre, unlike parodies which are usually rather critical.

The fact that you liked "Airplane" tells me something about you I didn't realize McDuffies. That was my second-favorite movie as a kid, next to The Cannonball Run.

Eh? What does it tell about me?

[Dracomax]

<snipperoonie>

That said, Hot Fuzz was action movie parody all the way, and I cared about those characters..

I don't look for the same thing in all books or movies. It's important what you're trying to achieve.
Parodies aim to deconstruct elements of original and turn them around so to show all it's faults. If a genre is known for stereotypical characters (and most of them are), then parody is best viciously playing on those stereotypes, and trying to expand those stereotypes will do disservice to the whole piece. Parody is basically a postmodern genre, and as such it's not talking about characters or plots, it's talking about fiction. Real subject of "Airplane" is not airplane disaster or people on the plane, it's airplane disaster movies.

Anyways I though Hot Fuzz was supposed to be an action movie with comedy elements, not a parody. Or more precise, it's an hommage to police movies, it's affectionate towards genre, unlike parodies which are usually rather critical.
/quote]
I think we are operating under slightly different definitions of parody. Yours is likely more technically correct, but My definition boils down mostly to "A funny version of the thing being paraodied, often making fun of elements assosiated with a work or genre" which does not preclude characters or plots which are fun and developed.

[Rkolter]

The fact that you liked "Airplane" tells me something about you I didn't realize McDuffies. That was my second-favorite movie as a kid, next to The Cannonball Run.

Eh? What does it tell about me?

Not so many people really liked Airplane. It tells me that you thought a manshaped blob of jello is funny. And that you got the funny reference to Jaws at the start. And that you got sick to death of the 'Don't Call me Shirley' joke. And that you thought the inflating autopilot was funny (and that you caught the similarity in Men in Black when they used the same gag).

See, now I know LOTS about you. I'm almost your twin. Minus fur, a tail, and like, ten-thousand posts.

[McDuffies]

I think we are operating under slightly different definitions of parody. Yours is likely more technically correct, but My definition boils down mostly to "A funny version of the thing being paraodied, often making fun of elements assosiated with a work or genre" which does not preclude characters or plots which are fun and developed.

Possibly. I'd call the other one simply a comedy that operates within the genre. Airplane guys or Mel Brooks were able to get away with a lot under the assumption that you weren't supposed to take anything seriously, that plot and characters benefited from being stereotypical, and that instead of reinforcing your suspension of disbelief, they were shattering it all the time. I think that's not too different from what Adams was doing, for instance in "Restaurant...", with it's "plot" it would hardly constitute a book if you were supposed to use the same criteriums as with most of the books.

Not so many people really liked Airplane. It tells me that you thought a manshaped blob of jello is funny. And that you got the funny reference to Jaws at the start. And that you got sick to death of the 'Don't Call me Shirley' joke. And that you thought the inflating autopilot was funny (and that you caught the similarity in Men in Black when they used the same gag).

See, now I know LOTS about you. I'm almost your twin. Minus fur, a tail, and like, ten-thousand posts.

I dunno, I just liked the jokes, specially the ones that were lame. I also like Jerry Lewis.

[Laemkral]

And that you got sick to death of the 'Don't Call me Shirley' joke.

You bastard, you called it out before anyone could reference it. It was supposed to go like this:

Are they supposed to? No characters in "Airplane" mean anything, but it's still good. Personally I always thought that fleshed out characters stand in the way of parody and that it works best with total cliches. For the same reason, books worked best when the plot was flimsy or non-existant.

The fact that you liked "Airplane" tells me something about you I didn't realize McDuffies.

Surely you jest. No movie preference could be THAT revealing.

But now it can't. It can't because you already said it.

Bastard.

[Killbert-Robby]

I could barely stand Hitchhikers, it was like a bunch of comedy sketches very slightly strung together with a 'plot', and the characters didn't mean a thing to me.

Are they supposed to? No characters in "Airplane" mean anything, but it's still good. Personally I always thought that fleshed out characters stand in the way of parody and that it works best with total cliches. For the same reason, books worked best when the plot was flimsy or non-existant.

Then we're after two different things when we read books or movies. If I can't get interested in the characters, I just can't get interested in the whole thing, which is why I hated things like The Matrix (all action pieces, no character), and didn't find Airplane or Hitchhikers that good either. A string of jokes just isn't enough for me, on its own.

That said, Hot Fuzz was action movie parody all the way, and I cared about those characters..

Simon Pegg DID mean for it to show how strong platonic love between two men can be

[IVstudios]

According to TV Tropes (Scroll down to "Ho-Yah") there was originally a female love interest for Angel who got cut, and all her lines were just given to Danny. The result was some magnificent Guy Love.