From: arc@leland.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Richard Conway)
Subject: Re: Douglas vs Terry 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 21:53:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.051147.928@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> lindap@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Linda Penington) writes:
>Roddi Walker (roddi@cs.monash.edu.au) wrote:
> 
>: While I find Terry's books most enjoyable, I must admit I prefer Douglas
>: Adams.  I also agree with the gentleman - whose name, alas, escapes me -
>: who said his books are more thought-provoking."Last Chance to See" certainly
>: was a thoughtful work - and far more subtle than Ben Elton's "Stark".
>
>If you require a sledgehammer to make you think, then this argument
>makes perfect sense. :-)
>
>I'll agree, it is an extremely thought provoking book, but I challenge
>the statement that Terry's books are less so.

I think that many of Terry's books are some of the most thought 
provoking out. Sourcery, I thought, was a more moving than funny book,
though of course it was hilarious. Only You Can Save Mankind(tm) is
very thought provoking for youngsters, if not particularly funny.
Most of Terry's books are funny because they make fun of people
in situations which are analagous to situations we could
be in ourselves, but in a background where the connection
is not immediately obvious, and it is easier to make these actions
look rediculous. Wow! did I write that sentence? Can anybody understand
it? I can't. Anyway, the difference between TPs humour and much
other humor is that TP uses realistic people in an unrealistic 
situation, rather than unrealistic people in either situation.
And he does it well.  That is why Terry is the best.
 
>: >commented that Douglas Adams gives you more to think
>: >about - I disagree.  He does, perhaps encourage you to think, in much
>: >the same way as a sledgehammer in the back of the head encourages you to
>: >lie down for a nice nap, but IMHO Terry also makes you think - but only
>: >if you _want_ to.

Agreed.

	[ Personal comments by people luck enough to be in Oz deleted ]

>: >Terry pokes fun at so many bits of life/language/humanity that we
>: >usually take for granted, and once you've stopped laughing... well...
>: >ok... while you're taking a break from laughing to gasp for air, it
>: >actually does set all sorts of subversive and serious chains of thought
>: >in motion, when you least expect it.  Well, it works for me, anyway.
>: >Possibly I'm just odd. :)

I'm odd too.

>: One thing I've always wondered - why does Terry get the boot into (I fear there
>: is no more elegant a way to put it :-) Douglas so much over how much he
>: earns?  Terry - and I've had the acute felicity of hearing him talk in
>: person - doesn't strike me as the starving artist.  Well, perhaps a chubby
>: starving artist with a good food habit :-)
>
>Hmmm...the  words of a well-paid and extremely underworked Postgraduate
>Student.  It is no wonder you fail to understand anyone objecting to
>someone being paid much money for little effort - it is a familiar
>scenario for you. :-)

Well, here follow the opinions of an overworked and overpaid PG student...

>Not that I feel that Douglas Adams puts little effort into his books,
>but Terry is, as has already been pointed out, certainly far more prolific
>than Douglas, and I personally find the laugh/page ratio to be higher in
>Terry's books.

I would say it is that Douglas appeals to a wider range of people.
Therefore more books are sold, therefore they are worth more to
the publishers.

The alternative would be to charge **MORE** for TP books than for DA
books, as they are better, and then TP could get more...


				Andrew 
				(who still hasn't found L&L in America)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.pratchett