h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Naw, I'm just messing with you.

I happen to love the writings of both these people. There's no way we can compare one to the other and say that one is better, because their writing styles are so different.

I know they get compared to one another a lot, and if I were Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett, I would be intensely irritated by the whole thing. Enjoy the books on their own level!

Douglas Adams had a very pragmatic view of the world. There were no happy endings. In fact, his writing could be compared to Ray Bradbury's, in that the character is invented and put in a situation, then let loose to explore the story on his/her own. The ending becomes almost inevitable. Douglas was good at pointing out human foibles, and how ridiculous the universe could be.

Terry Pratchett is one of the world's greatest philosophers. Where Douglas Adams explained how the world works by saying 'God has a sick sense of humor,' Terry Pratchett blames it all on mankind.

Whups.. hit post before I was done.

Terry Pratchett elevates human beings to a higher level. He writes about people making choices that make the world a better place. Pratchett is more in the style of Mark Twain - pithy thoughts disguised as funny sayings.

All that being said; I would prefer to live in neither universe. In Adam's universe, the Earth is demolished (and replaced by something that looks just like it, only different.) It's not a very happy universe. People live, try, and die. Pratchett's universe is filled with rougher, tougher creatures that grew up fighting the world and came out on top. If I were plunked down in the center of all of that, I'd be screaming to get out. No sewer systems, no electricity, no gas lines, and especially no work for a graphic designer!

hear hear.

"if I were Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett, I would be intensely irritated by the whole thing."

I think PTerry is more irritated by people who think Unseen University is a rip-off of Hogwarts...

Do people really think UU is a rip off of Hogwarts?

As it happens, I'm on a Pratchett phase at the moment and have been re-reading my Discworld books and one of the 'praise the author' comments caught my eye. It mentioned Wodehouse (why is my memory so crap?) but said that Pratchett is on a level with Wodehouse and Adams but isn't half as cynical as DNA.

This is going to bug me all day now...

People who think UU is a rip of hogwarts should be shot... repitivly, in fact all harry potter fans should be shot or at least send to room 101 for a bit of "education" and "treatment"!
Feel free to rant at me for insulting HP
Orion

Lentilla, you hit the nail on the head! Very well put. Your sagacious intelligence makes me almost want to stop insulting you in *What's Wrong With H2G2 Researchers?*..............almost!

DA only concerns hinself with a very small number of people. The Universe in his title is never realy considered. It is built on one liners.
TP has built a whole environment which encompasses the whole range of human experience. Having listened to some of Terry's early works in ISIS I am finding parallels with the recent Iraq situation. You may not want to live in TPs world but you cannot avoid it - you ARe already there. Unfortunately most of us don't experience the humour that goes with Terry's tales.

Thanks, Zoomer, I'm almost tempted to stop insulting you, too. (Yeah, right!)

I've tried to convert a couple of people into Pratchett fans, but they just didn't get it. They said stuff like 'It jumps around!' or, 'All those footnotes!' They can't follow a narrative that has more than one point of view, or moves from scene to scene, or is displaced in time a bit. I'm not going to say that it takes smart people to read Pratchett, because one of the people I tried to convert is pretty bright. It does take a certain kind of reader, that's willing to invest the time into reading a story and picking up the characters as they go along.

One of my all-time favorites is Small Gods. Not only is it a good book, it's chock-full of Pratchett's thoughts on belief structures. It's also a good book for somebody who's never read Pratchett, because many of the characters are one-offs - they're never seen again, or only referred to obliquely when quoting the Omnian Bible. But I think my favoritist book (is that a word?) is Night Watch - the newest in the Watch series. Vimes gets more and more likeable as his character develops.

Thanks, Zoomer, I'm almost tempted to stop insulting you, too. (Yeah, right!)

I've tried to convert a couple of people into Pratchett fans, but they just didn't get it. They said stuff like 'It jumps around!' or, 'All those footnotes!' They can't follow a narrative that has more than one point of view, or moves from scene to scene, or is displaced in time a bit. I'm not going to say that it takes smart people to read Pratchett, because one of the people I tried to convert is pretty bright. It does take a certain kind of reader, that's willing to invest the time into reading a story and picking up the characters as they go along.

One of my all-time favorites is Small Gods. Not only is it a good book, it's chock-full of Pratchett's thoughts on belief structures. It's also a good book for somebody who's never read Pratchett, because many of the characters are one-offs - they're never seen again, or only referred to obliquely when quoting the Omnian Bible. But I think my favoritist book (is that a word?) is Night Watch - the newest in the Watch series. Vimes gets more and more likeable as his character develops.

Yet another double post problem - it gave me an error proxy message, so I hit post again... sorry!

you made a point about not wanting to live in Douglas Adams's universe because "It's not a very happy universe. People live, try, and die." If you really believe that, i dont think you payed much attention while reading his books. And it a kind of insult to his memory. And before you get deffensive let me explain my point. Douglas adams was pragmatic and realistic and made a point of that with his stories and characters. However he did not think that life was all strife and disappointment and unhappiness. He just tried to make light of the annoying, frustrating and horrible things in life by examaning and demonstrating how rediculous they were. He also repeatedly pointed out that life was "excitement adventure and really wild things". He was one of those few people that brought light to the darkness in this world and showed you how great it could be. By reading and examening his life works it would be obvious to anyone how much he thoroughly enjoyed life. He just liked to rant on about the little things. And he did it exceptionaly well.

I totally agree - we're all Hitchhiker fans down at the radio station and thanks to our quoting whole episodes, we're slowly (but surely!) converting many a newcomer

I am a *rabid* Douglas Adams fan, ever since I discovered the radio series in junior high. As you may recall, none of his stories have a happy ending. The first segment of the radio series ends with the computer exploding and killing them all... which actually ends up creating a hole in time and space and sending them to the Restaurant, but we don't know that until the second segment starts. Life the Universe & Everything (the book) ends with Arthur and Ford on the planet Earth, stranded in time forever. They of course get out of there by finding a floating Chesterfield couch in the fourth book, jumping on it, which whisks them away to the cricket fields and present-day Earth - just before the date of demolition. The fourth book in the series ends with Marvin DYING. (After reading an apology from God about mucking up the universe.) The fifth book ends with Arthur DYING at Stavromula Beta's bar.

I'm not feeling defensive. Douglas Adams had a very pragmatic view of the universe, it's true. He was realistic. And in real life, people die. So it's not a very happy view of the universe as we know it. Humor - the good, really funny stuff - is based on truth. I think that if you were to ask him what the deal was, why he had such a bleak view of the universe, he would say that you've got to be able to look at the world realistically and see it for what it is. If we have a 'Pollyanna' view of the world and think that people will behave as they're supposed to, then it won't live up to our expectations.

And come on - if we're talking about living in Douglas Adam's universe, would you really want to live in a universe that had Vogons and the Bugblatter Beast of Traal in it? Not to mention those Hagumemnons...!

I dont think you countered anything i said at all. No his stories dont have happy endings, but there are great parts all the way through. He just lays life out there the way it is. Life is not unhappy, it just is what it is and you get what you can or make what you can out of it. Again i think you missed that whole, "excitement adventure and really wild things" deal. Mebbe you look at things in a drab and dreary way so thats what you see in his stories, but there is a sizeable amount more. We all enjoy the way he exploits the humor in the crass things in life. But he also points out there is a hell of alot more in life to exploit, "SO, GO TO IT AND GOOD LUCK". You say you are a rabid douglas adams fan and yet you seem to be missing out on a lot of the important messages he's putting out there.
I have read the hitchikers guide, all of the books, 33times, count'm, i know it practically cover to cover, i tell people its my bible to life, because i really believe it has a philosophy on life. Im not sure why you dont see it, but you are missing out on a whole lot.

I don't know, maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not coming down on Douglas Adams AT ALL. I think he's a fantastic writer and I wish he were still around.

33 times, huh? I've lost count. At one point I realized I was reading the books - all of them - about five times a year. I'd been doing this since junior high. I stopped sometime after college because it had got to the point where I just had them memorized... but I'll still read them again. They're pretty timeless. So I've read the trilogy at least fifty times, probably more.

> He just lays life out there the way it is.

That's what I'm getting at. He makes no bones about the way life is. Sure, there's unhappy parts, but there's good times too.

> Again i think you missed that whole, "excitement adventure and really wild things" deal.

That's what Zaphod says - right before they find out they're in Disaster Area's stunt ship and about to dive into the sun. 'But you said you wanted excitement and adventure and really wild things.' It's meant to be funny, and a little ironic - I don't see it as Adams' message to the world.

Arthur is Adams' Everyman. He doesn't seek adventure - adventure happens to him. Throughout all of his experiences, he's still the same person inside. He longs for the simple things - a cup of tea, being at home in his own bed. He is our proxy in Douglas Adams' world. Maybe you or I would act a little differently, but he brings out the 'gaffed fish' feeling we all experience in difficult situations.

> Mebbe you look at things in a drab and dreary way so thats what you see in his stories, but there is a sizeable amount more.

Aren't you being a little harsh? I haven't said that Douglas Adam's work is drab and dreary - just that his outlook on life is pragmatic.

> I really believe it has a philosophy on life. Im not sure why you dont see it, but you are missing out on a whole lot.

I believe it has a philosophy on life too! Obviously we don't agree on what that message is, but that's okay. Everybody gets something a little different from the Hitchhiker's series. One of the messages I get from Adams' writing is 'Don't let life get you down.' I've always taken that to heart.

DNA- dry, personal humour with flashes of insight and broad jokes.

TP- humanist, philosophical, slap-your-forehead humour.

No?

Si! Ja! Da!

They're both the kind of humorist that hopes to improve mankind by pointing out foibles - DNA with the dodo bird and our obsession with digital watches, Pratchett with just about everything.

As per the "excitement adventure and really wild things" I know Zaphod says it, he says it more than once actually, three times i believe, the one time you mentioned it and the two times he was trying to coax Trillion to join him. But the point is that Douglas put it in there.
ANd yes you are right about Arthur and what he represents but there are a number of different characters in the book and they all represent a peice of the whole. Everyone is different and experiences life in a different way or maybe the same whay but we all get a little bit of a different take on it.....sometimes...kinda..
i know that last sentence is a little vague but i think you know what i mean.
And mebbe i was being a little harsh, sorry, but thats just because I take so much of what he (D.N.A.) says to heart. His books have had a huge impact on my life, no lie, any time ive been down i read his books, they help. They remind be that it's not just me, that eveyrone gets messed up and messed with and that's just life, dont let it ruin it for you, there is allways "excitement adventure and really wild things", I take that to heart, thats how it effects me.
I know that you're a big D.N.A. Fan too and that you were trying to say that he had a pragmatic point of view on life, but what it sounded like to me when you mentioned the whole no happy endings and "you're born, you try , you die" thing, that you thought his view was all bad, THAT was was i disagreed with really. All i Was trying to say is that i think he had a GREAT but REAL, view on life, it may not be all happy endings, but life is great.

I have a bit of a one-sided view on things here, since I've only read two Terry Pratchett novels and didn't really take my time with them... but anyway, about the Hitchhikers books.
I'm another one of those people who have read them and embraced them as a sort of bible, a guide to life. DNAs message is multifacetted, but (to me) basically: life is crazy, short and you will never understand it. So don't worry about it - make the best of it.
Also, did anyone read the two detective novels by DNA? Dirk Gently, that's it. They're on a bit of a different track, more supernatural than sci-fi. Also good, but personally I prefer the HHGTTG.