Reply to thread

I get what you're saying, though I think what you described was what I actually loved about the book. The complete and utter nosensicality of it (like the word nonsensicality itself). Even though there were some witty moments, I found the humor to often be nothing more than verbal slapstick and didn't feel the need to take anything away from it except a few cheap laughs and a few really good gags.

I did find the movie funny, I thought it was a rather competent rendition of a book that wasn't really meant for the medium of feature length screenplay. It was funny and it did nail a lot of what the book was conveying.

But that's the great thing about art. It's purpose is to be experienced and to stimulate one to a response whether positive or negative (I hope nobody quotes this next time I'm in a opinionated TPA debate).

Funny thing though is that coincidence is almost the central focal point of the books. As it very much is about probability and improbability.

I didn't know the radio show came first.