cioran: Why Adams is not read more in literature courses boggles the mind. Great, great writer. After Wodehouse, probably the premier English comedic novelist.
Aliasalpha: What about Terry Pratchett? Better than adams could ever hope to be
Technically, not really. Pratchett still doesn't understand the whole concept of chapters (though I've heard that after writing for thirty years or so he eventually picked them up, but haven't seen it in any of the books I've read). His writing is relatively unstructured. Honestly, I don't even think he's a writer. More like a storyteller that remembered to write his best yarns down. Some of them are decent enough and his sense of humor is often funny in spite of his lack of discernible writing skill (he strikes me as a fairly funny fellow), but he's an atrocious writer on a technical level. Similar ballpark to someone like Malachy McCourt or Philip K. Dick. Good storyteller, lousy writer. No sense of plotting.
Also, I find his parody grating, repetitive, and ultimately derivative. His themes are intrinsically adolescent and lack the kind of philosophical flourish present in Adams. I'm not alone on this one. Look at the back of the books - YA Fiction? His mythological and mythopoeic references are also flagrantly beat-you-over-the-head apparent unless you're completely unfamiliar with folklore and the literary genres he's parodying. Always makes me roll my eyes.