Been a while since I’ve read any fiction. Loved Good Omens, so which of the authors should I be checking out (or were contributions about equal)?
I certainly thought it was properly leavened by Gaiman. I’ve never been able to read Pratchett’s stuff. I think his intros can be brilliant but the characters aren’t my cup of tea. Good Omens, however, was a truly great book all through.
So I’m thinking Gaiman.
Pratchett by far (sorry, Jon! 
) Good Omens is much more a Pratchett-flavored book than a Gaiman. But later Pratchett…about the middle of the Watch books would be my guess. Search out the hundreds of Pratchett threads here in CS and pick a place to start.
Pratchett! I think the entire thing about Crawley & the angel was Pratchett. The kids were probably of Gaiman, since that seems unfamiliar to me.
Pratchett’s other books are more similar to Good Omens than Gaiman’s, in my opinion. The exception is Gaiman’s latest, Anansi Boys. Gaiman’s stuff tends to be alot darker and gorier than Pratchett’s.
I recall reading and interview with Pratchett where he said that he did about 2/3 or 3/4 of the actual, physical writing because he had more time to devote to the project (as Gaiman was also working on Sandman at the time), but that there were so many back-and-forth conversations and revisions that saying one or the other was responsible for more of the book would be wrong.
Personally, I think you should check out both of the authors. The two authors are interesting, because they tend to address the same sorts of plotlines but from different perspectives - Pratchett from a lighter, more human mindset and Gaiman from a darker, more magical one.
Odd. I thought the exact opposite. Crawley and the angel seem to me very like lighter versions of Gaiman’s many mythological characters, while the kids reminded me strongly of Pratchett’s Johnny Maxwell books.
You should immediately read Sandman, because everybody should read Sandman.
–Cliffy
At the National Book Festival, I had the opportunity to hear Neil Gaiman, John Irving, and Tom Wolfe read (back-to-back-to-back!). Gaiman’s talk was the most crowd-pleasing of the three, too. At the talk, he said something about Anansi Boys, which was that people were having trouble with the idea of Gaiman writing something funny. He would protest, bringing up Good Omens and they would counter with American Gods. Finally he said something to the effect of
I have read very little of Gaiman, and never read any Johnny Maxwell books.
But Death and the other three horsemen seemed straight out of Discworld. Wheras, the kids bored me sometimes, and seemed kind of …slow and boring. I assumed this was because it was a writing style I was unfamiliar with! And Crawly also reminded me a lot of Discworld characters.
Death is clearly Pratchett’s Death, not Gaiman’s.
And Gaiman certainly can be funny: there was a passage in Anansi Boys that had me laughing out loud (about what Fat Charlie’s future Mother-in-Law might think was the type of language you heard in church).
Seconded.
And I think the book’s a fantastic mixture of both (leaning more towards Pratchett’s style than Gaiman’s, admittedly).
I found out about this book in the letter column of the pages of Sandman. Now I had been a reader of both of their stuff for a while and was really excited about the book, but didn’t see how the two of them could merge.
My friend was given an advance copy because he occasionally wrote reviews for a local paper and read to me some of the passages.
I was shocked at how much of a merger it was.
So I never thought it was more one or the other, it really is a meshing of their styles.
I think so, too. My first impression was that it was Pratchett’s style superimposed on top of Gaiman’s ideas, but that was after I’d only read The Sandman and maybe one of the Discworld books. The more I read of Pratchett’s stuff, the more it seems like a true collaboration. (And throwing in the spirit of Douglas Adams as a third collaborator).
In the sense of the OP’s question, “If I like Good Omens, which would I prefer?” I’d say to read more of the Discworld books. Gaiman’s novels have always been a little bit more impenetrable for me. Pratchett’s novels are definitely easier to read (for me at least), so much so that I’d just dismissed them as well-plotted but disposable parody and satire. The more I read, though, the more I can see recurring themes and a larger world-view*.
I wonder if the fact that Pratchett’s books usually take one core theme and build the entire novel around just that, is what makes them more easily digestible. Gaiman seems to try to cram all of his ideas into a book and create an entire mythology with each one.
*Or actually, multi-verse-view.
Well, it looks more like Pratchett’s Death, but personality-wise it didn’t seem all that similar to either. He comes across as much more villainous than the Death of the Disc or the Death from Sandman.
Oh(Up yours, Binarydrone!), I don’t know…
*“You’re Hells Angels, then? What chapter are you from?”
“REVELATIONS, CHAPTER SIX.”*
Sounds like our Death to me.
Well, that’s just the thing. When has the Disc Death ever quoted scripture? In both Pratchett and Gaiman’s theology, Death is usually unconcerned with human dieties, except on the odd occasion when one of them dies. Also, Pratchett’s Death usually tries to prevent the end of the world. The Death in Good Omens seem to be much more arrogant, and actively opposed to humanity. Certainly, his fellow horsemen seem to actually delight in causing misery to humans, where as their Disc counterparts are virtually human themselves.
Different Universe, though. Death may love the Disc and hate Earth for all we know. The Good Omens Death does seem arrogant, but he also shows a concern for understanding, otherwise he wouldn’t have commented on Elvis the way he did.
I dunno, I’ve always thought the author you should check out if you like Good Omens was Douglas Adams…
I think it was absolutely Pratchett-like in its plot and characters, but it feels like Gaiman did alot of the actual writing.
For instance: Most characters in Good Omens could be described as “lovable/dopey person with a dash of evil/grumpiness/bad-family-history who’s desperately trying to play it by the rules set out for him, which constantly creates funny situations due to the differences between the role/thing he is supposed to play/do and what actually should be done according to prophecy/common sense”. This also happens to fit most characters in Pratchett’s Discoworld series too. Not to diss the series, I think they’re some of the funniest writing you can find.
However, I just felt that the writing was very Neil Gaiman-like. I choose not to give any evidence to this because I’m lazy.
In conclusion, though, the book was more Pratchett than Gaiman.