Subject:
|
Re: Science Fiction (was Re: Transit Time to Mars)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Dec 1999 06:42:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
403 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Dave Schuler writes:
> > I do think it's canonical farce, up there with Harvard Lampoon's
> > "Bored of the Rings" and Gaimen/Pratchett's "Good Omens."
>
> Ugh! I found "Bored" to be perfectly dreadful!
Well, we read it aloud, and it was enjoyable that way, in a group.
I might not have enjoyed it as a solo read.
> As for Pratchett, he
> differs from Adams, and always has, in that Pratchett's work has been satire
> without being baggy-pants farce in line with the stereotypical (as commonly
> held by some Americans) "British" humo(u)r.
> "Canonical farce" is a good term, though! I still think it's best measured
> against a different scale from "conventional" scifi.
I'm trying to think of conventional sci fi that's laugh-out-loud-worthy.
Peter David writes excellent laugh-worthy stuff within shlocky
pre-existing genres like the Star Trek universe.
--
jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Science Fiction (was Re: Transit Time to Mars)
|
| (...) it (...) Ugh! I found "Bored" to be perfectly dreadful! As for Pratchett, he differs from Adams, and always has, in that Pratchett's work has been satire without being baggy-pants farce in line with the stereotypical (as commonly held by some (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
119 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
