fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2305 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2305 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

[Team Starkid]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Denise Donovan, Regina Spektor]

__________________________________________________

11.

[A Very Potter Musical]

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 016 secrets from Secret Submission Post #329.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

02. http://i48.tinypic.com/11kxiyd.jpg

So it's Neil Gaiman's best and Terry Pratchett's worst? I'm really confused by this one but if that's what you mean, then I agree. I mean, I did like American Gods, but give me Good Omens any day. And yeah, I way prefer Pratchett's other works in comparison. Still, I think I say that as a fan of satirist humour.

Edited 2013-04-25 23:13 (UTC)

I'm confused who you mean for best/worst, since both names show up in both black and white in this secret image.

I'm guessing OP means whose name is on top of either white cover version or black cover version.

Generally, Pratchett = Aziraphale = white and Gaiman = Crowley = black.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m92661qBdU1qagav3o1_1280.jpg

Now I'm extra confused because most of the people commenting in this thread interpreted it the other way around.

(no subject)

caecilia - 2013-04-26 01:15 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-04-27 01:06 (UTC) - Expand

I think your color scheme is very confusing.

Ahhhhh! Ambiguous pronouns and coloring!

I'm guessing "white" is Neil Gaiman, because his name is first on the white cover, and "black" is Terry Pratchett, because his name is first on the black.

I didn't find it confusing :/

But come now. Some of those early Discworld books were pretty bad, at least compared to later ones.

This. Pratchett is like wine... or rather cheese. I'm not actually sure how long it takes wine to mature...

Pratchett is like a food that takes about ten years to mature.

It depends on the wine.

Personally, as novelists, I don't really like either of them, but at least Neil's got a ton of good short fiction, comics, and TV to make up for it, while Pratchett's only got a handful of short works.

(Pratchett has the advantage with novels - I've actually managed to make it all the way through one, and almost finish another (Wyrd Sisters and Last Continent respectively), Neil I've not managed that.)

I can't really get into either one of them on their own. /shrug.

Same here. I really enjoyed GO but, after several failed attempts, I gave up on reading their solo work.

Did you intend for this to make sense? Because it doesn't.
I suspect you mean Gaiman's best and Pratchett's worst, though this has more to do with my opinion of Gaiman's writing than your secret's design. Pratchett's worst, though? Nah, man, have you read any early Discworld? I mean, they're still Pratchett, but they were a slog to get through. Good Omens is not as good as a lot of his later books, though.

Gaiman's best and Pratchett's worst? Eeeh, on Gaiman I can agree, but Pratchett? I've only read his first seven Discworld books (...yeah, I planned on reading them all in publication order), and Sourcery was...bad. Really, really bad. IMO, at least.

Most of the early Pratchetts are pretty bad (well, his early adult works are pretty bad - the kid's stuff is pretty good, though not as good as the later YA ones). Lots of Pratchett's later work is far better than "Good Omens", but I agree it's not his worst, by a long chalk.

Honestly, I think Good Omens is one of the weakest works out of both of them. They both write better on their own.

So Prachett's best work and Gaiman's worst? Yeah, no. If anything then the opposite. I liked Good Omens but frankly it has nothing on Guards! Guards! or Small Gods or Hogfather or the best one imo The Colour of Magic.

I think I'd say it's Gaiman's best.

I think...that they're better together, at least in this book, because they balance each other out. There are certain things I find grating about Prachett, and different things I really don't like about Gaiman. Together they seem to minimize those traits so it's just easier for me to read.

Good Omens is flawless. That is all I have to add to this conversation.

I actually think Good Omens is the worst work by both of them (but only of their works I've read so far).

Why do people try to be graphically clever with these things, it never works.

No, it's just terrible. Anon for obvious reasons.