(Wasn't all that serious about the chainsaw btw.) Actually...I've often wondered about that, who exactly can he be likened to if he's one of such a very few people to do fantasy/comedy and do it well? I mean, off the top of my head, the only person I can really think of is Piers Anthony, and even then, a lot of his work is punny to the extreme.pigeon_of_doom said:Fun as his stuff is, he hasn't redefined fiction for a new generation or invented any techniques. He's admitted as much himself. No shame in him not being a Virginia Woolf, Tolstoy or Shakespeare though.GothmogII said:*Revs up chainsaw* My eyesight is a little poor, what was that you just wrote? -_^
If that hasn't placated you then I better book my plane ticket.
Even Gaiman, whom Pratchett has collaborated with a number of times tends towards dryer humour, if there is humor used at all.
I guess the question is, why can't a book be considered 'groundbreaking' or a 'classic' if it relies on parody or humour? If the only alternative is that it has to be a dry, in-depth examination of it's subject. Then I'd agree, I'd rather the Discworld stay right where it is.