sigh - Terry Pratchett rip off

[Ron Miel]

I am very disappointed. The latest strip totally steals the million-to-one joke from Pterry.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html

[Theodoriph]

And Terry Pratchett stole it from even older works in which the trend is for one of the unlikeliest events possible to happen. I don't really see your point.

If probability always held true in stories, they would be boring stories.


I mean hell, here's a poem from 1841:

I never had a slice of bread,
Particularly large and wide,
That did not fall upon the floor,
And always on the buttered side.[1]


1877:

It is found that anything that can go wrong at sea generally does go wrong sooner or later, so it is not to be wondered that owners prefer the safe to the scientific.... Sufficient stress can hardly be laid on the advantages of simplicity. The human factor cannot be safely neglected in planning machinery. If attention is to be obtained, the engine must be such that the engineer will be disposed to attend to it.[2]

1908:

It is an experience common to all men to find that, on any special occasion, such as the production of a magical effect for the first time in public, everything that can go wrong will go wrong. Whether we must attribute this to the malignity of matter or to the total depravity of inanimate things, whether the exciting cause is hurry, worry, or what not, the fact remains.[3]


Then of course you have the slightly more modern variations: Murphy's Law


Combine that with the incredibly common expression "the odds are a million to one" ("Million to one as a type of "long odds" is attested from 1761.") and Elan's genre saviness and voila! No Pratchett required.

[Zordrath]

True, but I think V's lines more than make up for it.

[Zukhramm]

Rip off?

It's not like anyone's going to say "I was going to read Terry Pratchett's books, but the latest OotS made one of the jokes so now I don't need to."

[SPoD]

This observation has been made about a million times since the advent of postmodernism. Terry Pratchett has no greater claim on it as original than Rich does.

[SuperSnotling]

Ooh, I'll take 'Defending Terry Pratchett' as a first post, why not? :D

I'd call it an homage myself. The guy's a genius and deserves all the references he can get.

Although previous posters are right, it goes back far past Pratchett, he's just the best known.

[NerfTW]

Rip off?

It's not like anyone's going to say "I was going to read Terry Pratchett's books, but the latest OotS made one of the jokes so now I don't need to."

Not to agree with the opening post, but your definition of "rip off" does not resemble our Earth definition.

[Ron Miel]

And Terry Pratchett stole it from even older works in which the trend is for one of the unlikeliest events possible to happen. I don't really see your point. ...

It is found that anything that can go wrong at sea generally does go wrong sooner or later ...

Then of course you have the slightly more modern variations: Murphy's Law



No, there's a difference between a general observation that bad luck happens, and a specific joke that million-to-one chances almost always work.

The line in the comic is almost identical to Pratchett's joke. The other lines you list are nothing like Pratchett.

[Porthos]

No, there's a difference between a general observation that bad luck happens, and a specific joke that million-to-one chances almost always work.

The line in the comic is almost identical to Pratchett's joke. The other lines you list are nothing like Pratchett.

Which makes a reference not a ripoff.

I mean, do you consider the name of this website to be a ripoff? :smallamused:

[Jayngfet]

Exactly, reference.

[Ron Miel]

Which makes a reference not a ripoff.

I disagree.

A reference is when you take the original thing and change it in a funny way

for instance : http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0560.html

reference Lost, change Dharma initiative to Greg initiative
reference Batman, change bat into ninja
reference Spiderman, change radioactive spider into radioactive Ninja
reference The Oddessy, change Cyclops one eyed giant to Cyclops X-Man


A rip-off is where you copy someone else's joke, without changing it or adding to it.



I mean, do you consider the name of this website to be a ripoff? :smallamused:

Of what? what is it copying?

[SPoD]

A rip-off is where you copy someone else's joke, without changing it or adding to it.

By your own definition, then, this is not a rip-off. The true joke here is Vaarsuvius' comment at the very end, the one-in-a-million thing is just the set-up for that joke. By adding V's very witty line about Probability servicing Drama like a cheap whore, it becomes not a rip-off.

Really, if you want to be morally outraged, go right ahead, but I doubt anyone else cares. As T.S. Eliot said, "Mediocre writers borrow; great writers steal."

[OverWilliam]

Really, if you want to be morally outraged, go right ahead, but I doubt anyone else cares.

...But don't expect that to stop us from filling fifteen pages of slowly coming to the realization that, actually, we agree with each other enough that it takes the fun out of arguing it back and forth. :smallbiggrin:

[Porthos]

Of what? what is it copying?

It is a direct reference to Babylon 5.

[ThreeEyedOni]

The situation here is both very vauge an very common in this line of humor.

Elan is basically the party expert on "Physics of Drama" as I'll call it; as a bard in a fantasy setting he's well aware of how the rules/important rules of reality work around important events/individuals (or, basically, the very existences of PCs). He's not insane for this specific trait (though he's obviously a little far from the beaten path of reality), and he's not the only one in this world that is aware of these "rules". Numerous other characters (both allies and monsters alike) have made comments to this effect, including comments when noting that the characters are specifically PCs.

The similarity is in how Terry Pratchett's Diskworld pretty much entirely works on these matters. "Science of Diskworld" covers a lot of this at great length (as having my favorite set of rules of reality for our own world, including "there are no turtles" and "it's all so depressing", but I digress), and in a little more of a direct way than some of the other books.

As someone that somehow didn't find out about the Diskworld books until well after reading a lot of older material, Pratchett didn't create anything in this line of though other than hone it to one god-damn-sharp katana-that-cuts-through-tanks edge. In modern literature he can pretty much unarguably be listed as the master of this form, but are you forgetting about the earlier use of it (in a difference sense) by Douglas Adams? Or the much subtler use in "Villains by Necessity", for another example.

Comparable? Yes. Reference? Maybe, but not necessarily. Rip-Off? Not even close.

[Teatime]

I'm a huge fan of Terry Pratchett. Obsessed, even. I have every one of his ~40 books and have read most of them multiple times (of note is the fact that my username here and most everywhere else is in reference to one of his characters). And I consider this thread to be completely stick-up-the-bum unnecessary.

[Ryuuk]

:smallbiggrin: I just have to say that, having just finished Guards! Guards!, the million-to-1 added to the comic.

Besides, Elan is already known as genre savy, it fits perfectly.

[WarriorTribble]

Huh, this one figured Pratchett took the wording for his rule from Star Wars ("Great shot, kid, that was one in a million!").

[TheElfLord]

I am very disappointed. The latest strip totally steals the million-to-one joke from Pterry.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html

You're wasting your time. It's an unwritten rule around here that you can't say anything negative or criticise the Giant. People will swarm any attempt with all the reasons why you are wrong. It's a sad truth of these boards.

[Spiky]

Ron Miel,
You need to relax. This is what OOTS does. It is also what Pratchett does, quite a bit more than OOTS, actually. Where exactly is the source of your ire? Is the Giant catching up to Terry with the number of pop culture references and that offends you?

Seems I have a ways to go. I've only read around 16 Discworld books. Currently in the middle of the first Tiffany book.

[Deuce]

At least it was just a 1,000,000 to 1 chance and not infinitely improbable. :smalltongue:

- Of course they would have needed some very hot tea . . .

[Porthos]

You're wasting your time. It's an unwritten rule around here that you can't say anything negative or criticise the Giant. People will swarm any attempt with all the reasons why you are wrong. It's a sad truth of these boards.

Or, stange as it might sound, we might actually just disagree with the OP.

*waits patiently for the check from The Giant to arrive for being part of his Squish All Dissent Brigade*

PS: Whenever someone pulls out the No One Can Be Negative About "X" On This Board Card, they've automatically lost the debate.

It's like an Internet Law or something, I think. :smalltongue:

[FujinAkari]

... considering how prevalent pop culture references are in the comic, how does this one offend more than any other? O.o


You're wasting your time. It's an unwritten rule around here that you can't say anything negative or criticise the Giant. People will swarm any attempt with all the reasons why you are wrong. It's a sad truth of these boards.

... what? No, people can openly critisize the giant, and just as you (and they) have the right to their opinion, other posters have the right to their own point of view.

Their right to disagree with you is not a mark of injustice or conspiracy, but rather the definition of open discussion.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Terry Pratchett? Isn't he the guy who writes the Discworld books? I think?

I've never ready ANY Terry Pratchett works. At all. Sure, Discworld sounds interesting. but I've never actually read any of 'im.

On this note, take this into account: I read Elan's "Million-to-one" line as "Typical Genre-Saavy Elan saying something with typical Genre Saavy."

Chillax and think before you call something a rip-off.
Which this most definatly is not (I see no cowardly wizards with sentient interdimensional stowage devices running around on a flat planet carried on the back of a turtle and four elephents. That would be a rip-off. This is not.)

[Teron]

Huh, this one figured Pratchett took the wording for his rule from Star Wars ("Great shot, kid, that was one in a million!").
Star Wars is so very, very far from being the first work to use a variant of the phrase "one-in-a-million odds."

[Admiral_Kelly]

Can we have both quotes brought forth and compared please?

[Spiky]

... what? No, people can openly critisize the giant,

That's right, do that all day long, no problem. Now, mention politics and....WHAMMO!!

[FujinAkari]

That's right, do that all day long, no problem. Now, mention politics and....WHAMMO!!

Politics seems to have little to nothing to do with Order of the Stick. It isn't unusual that it a topic which is considered out of place on the Order of the Stick forums. :rolleyes:

[Spiky]

{Scrubbed}

[chiasaur11]

Or, stange as it might sound, we might actually just disagree with the OP.

*waits patiently for the check from The Giant to arrive for being part of his Squish All Dissent Brigade*

PS: Whenever someone pulls out the No One Can Be Negative About "X" On This Board Card, they've automatically lost the debate.

It's like an Internet Law or something, I think. :smalltongue:

Can I join?
Do you have hats or jackets?
I like the strip, I enjoy squishing dissent, and I like money.
It's the perfect job!

[Adrian]

If probability always held true in stories, they would be boring stories.


I mean hell, here's a poem from 1841:

I never had a slice of bread,
Particularly large and wide,
That did not fall upon the floor,
And always on the buttered side.
That occurs precisely because of probability. The object of a slice of toast has a spin of about 2 1/2 rotations per metre. Since the average table is about a metre high, and toast is usually on the table butter side up, when it falls off it has a high probability of landing butter side down.

[busterswd]

"1 in a million" is a pretty common phrase, as is the "infinitesimal chance equates to certainty of happening" trope. It's not very hard to arrive at this independently.

[Arbitrarity]

One in a million isn't just discworld, though that is prominent... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MillionToOneChance)

Aha, I am a Fast poster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ninja)

[FujinAkari]

{Scrubbed}

... what does {Scrubbed} even MEAN? It seems like a personal attack, which confuses me as there is absolutely no cause for it.

I'm also not sure how you can be said to be agreeing with me, as I hadn't discussed politics in any way, shape, or form. You can't claim to be agreeing with me when you introduce an utterly new and unprecedented subject to a conversation (a conversation in which it doesn't belong, incidentally.)

[DreadSpoon]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MillionToOneChance

It's a well-known facet of dramatic story telling that any time a character says "a million to one odds," it comes true. Terry Pratchett didn't make the damn idea up, he just made a joke about how that sort of thing always works out. Rich Burlew make a joke about how that sort of thing always works out. A bunch of other people also have made jokes about how that sort of thing always works out. In fact, if you check that link, making fun of the million-to-one odds trope is so common that it's considered trope to make fun of it!

The real problem here is that you personally are uncultured enough to have only heard the joke in two places, and are naive enough to somehow think that the first place you yourself read it is the first and only place it has ever existed before now.

[Porthos]

Or, stange as it might sound, we might actually just disagree with the OP.

*waits patiently for the check from The Giant to arrive for being part of his Squish All Dissent Brigade*

PS: Whenever someone pulls out the No One Can Be Negative About "X" On This Board Card, they've automatically lost the debate.

It's like an Internet Law or something, I think. :smalltongue:


Can I join?
Do you have hats or jackets?
I like the strip, I enjoy squishing dissent, and I like money.
It's the perfect job!

We have something better than hats.... We have jackboots. :smallcool:

That is if such a society existed. Which it doesn't. So we don't.

Just send leave the application with the secretary between 1pm and 3pm on Thursdays. :smalltongue:

[WarriorTribble]

Star Wars is so very, very far from being the first work to use a variant of the phrase "one-in-a-million odds."Indeed, but I was refering specifically to "one-in-a-million odds." We all know drama trumping logic/probability is ancient, but I was thinking the name of the Pratchett law was probably influenced by that freakishly popular movie.

SW probably wasn't the first ones to say that (though I can't find any older examples in the tvtropes article), if you know of any they'll be very interesting.

[chiasaur11]

We have something better than hats.... We have jackboots. :smallcool:

That is if such a society existed. Which it doesn't. So we don't.

Just send leave the application with the secretary between 1pm and 3pm on Thursdays. :smalltongue:

Right.
No such organization. If it did exist, would it have ray guns?

Just asking.

[Porthos]

Right.
No such organization. If it did exist, would it have ray guns?

Just asking.

I am not, repeat not, dropping a brochure that would answer any and all of your questions. :smalltongue:

*something small and paperlike drops from pocket*
*walks away innocently*

PS: Steampunk Style Clothing is optionable, but highly recommended. :smallcool:

[Kurald Galain]

This reminds me of something...

In one of Pratchett's books, the war cry for the Nac Mac Feegle is "today is a good day for someone else to die!!!"

Pratchett was derided for this being an obvious rip-off of Star Trek...

Until he pointed out that the original war cry stems from Native American tribes, and Star Trek took it from there.

[Estovus]

NO TERRY PRATCHETT DID IT FIRST BECAUSE I'M HIS GREATEST FAN SO I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU JUST CAN'T APPRECIATE HIS GENIUS.

/facepalm

[Thufir]

This reminds me of something...

In one of Pratchett's books, the war cry for the Nac Mac Feegle is "today is a good day for someone else to die!!!"

Pratchett was derided for this being an obvious rip-off of Star Trek...

Until he pointed out that the original war cry stems from Native American tribes, and Star Trek took it from there.

Actually that's a Dwarf war cry, not a Feegle one.

[hamishspence]

First said by Cheri Littlebottom, in series.

[Chicken Little]

That occurs precisely because of probability. The object of a slice of toast has a spin of about 2 1/2 rotations per metre. Since the average table is about a metre high, and toast is usually on the table butter side up, when it falls off it has a high probability of landing butter side down.

Do your calculations take into account the weight of the butter? What about the force administered to the slice of toast to cause it to fall?

[Spiky]

{Scrubbed}

[Lissou]

I took it as a "famous enough that it doesn't need to be explained" kinda thing. I mean that it can't be used as a ripoff if everybody already knows the original line. It can still be a direct quotation and it won't be a ripoff.

I mean, do you think Eugene ripped off Shakespeare here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0039.html)?

I don't see it as a ripoff at all, personnally, but feel free to think it's one.
I mean, some people though the Giant ripped off Monkey Island when creating the Dashing Swordman prestige class, and it turned out he'd never played the game and didn't know what the hell they were talkin about.

So maybe it wasn't on purpose (it's not like such a sentence is hard to come up with by yourself) or maybe it was, and he didn't think it needed mentionning. I don't know, just ask him if it's that important to you.

[RMS Oceanic]

I always thought the 1/1000000 thing was one of the oldest in the book. It's not something you can really steal.

[Lissou]

That occurs precisely because of probability. The object of a slice of toast has a spin of about 2 1/2 rotations per metre. Since the average table is about a metre high, and toast is usually on the table butter side up, when it falls off it has a high probability of landing butter side down.

What if it doesn't fall off a table?
Either way, I've always though it normal for the butter-side to fall first, as it's heavier/denser or whatever the word is.

[hamishspence]

"A million to one chance is a sure thing" isn't really a ripoff (its a trope)

Having Elan specifically adjusting chances so that his chance of taking it down in one shot is a million to one, failing, and him falling, surroundings exploding, and the chance of surviving THAT being exactly a million to one? That would be a bit more dubious.

[AtomicKitKat]

Either way, I've always though it normal for the butter-side to fall first, as it's heavier/denser or whatever the word is.

Agreed. I've always considered it to be because of the change in mass distribution.

[Occasional Sage]

Ooh, I'll take 'Defending Terry Pratchett' as a first post, why not? :D

I'd call it an homage myself. The guy's a genius and deserves all the references he can get.

Although previous posters are right, it goes back far past Pratchett, he's just the best known.

The best known? I... think you have too narrow a view of what people are familiar with. Even within the sf/fantasy genre, there's always


At least it was just a 1,000,000 to 1 chance and not infinitely improbable. :smalltongue:

- Of course they would have needed some very hot tea . . .

(and by the way Deuce, you win for that post)

I can take the concept back to BCE:



The poet should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities.


Aristotle's comment wasn't even original:



Such an event is probable in Agathon’s sense of the word: "It is probable," he says, "that many things should happen contrary to probability."


Agathon was a generation earlier. Whether Aristotle met him or not I don't know, but Agathon was a friend of Aristotle's teacher Plato, so he'd certainly have been familiar with the guy's ideas.

ETA: With a quick check of Wikipedia for Agathon's birth and death, we're back about 2500 years here.

[Lamech]

I think these are two different jokes, in disc-world a million to one chances are a sure thing. This apparently is not the case here seeing as how V said the chances were not a million to one. The joke in OotS is the common, "unlikely things always seem to happen", but has a disc-world reference thrown in, and a continuation of Elan being genre savvy.

[Linkavitch]

I don't even read TP, but if it's such an old idea(which it is) anyone can use it, whether posters like it or not:smallbiggrin:

[Matuse]

I've never read anything written by Pratchett, and I'd long since heard of this.

Hell, go look up the Infinite Improbability Drive used by the Heart Of Gold in the Hitchhiker's books. The entire premise for that technological device is this literary device.

Ripping off Pratchett? Oh please.

[hamishspence]

I like Pratchett, but feel phrase would need to be exactly the same to justify suspicions. "crop up nine times out of ten" not "are a sure thing"

[Ron Miel]

Okay, It seems as if everyone disagrees with me. Me just consider this quote.


After a while he shifted his weight uneasily and said, "I’ve fought of a problem,"
"Wassat, Sarge?" said Carrot.
Sergeant Colon looked wretched. "Weeell, what if it's not a million-to-one chance?" he said.
Nobby stared at him.
"What d'you mean?" he said. "Well, all right, last desperate million-to-one chances always work, right, no problem, but. . . well, it's pretty wossname, specific. I mean, isn't it?" "You tell me," said Nobby. "What if it's just a thousand-to-one chance?" said Colon agonisedly. "What?"
"Anyone ever heard of a thousand-to-one shot com¬ing up?"
Carrot looked up. "Don't be daft, Sergeant," he said. "No-one ever saw a thousand-to-one chance come up. The odds against it are-" his lips moved- "millions to one." "Yeah. Millions," agreed Nobby. "So it'd only work if it's your actual million-to-one chance," said the sergeant. "I suppose that's right," said Nobby. "So 999,943-to-one, for example-" Colon began. Carrot shook his head. "Wouldn't have a hope. No-one ever said, 'It's a 999,943-to-one chance but it might just work.' "
They stared out across the city in the silence of fe¬rocious mental calculation.
"We could have a real problem here," said Colon eventually.
Carrot started to scribble furiously. When ques¬tioned, he explained at length about how you found the surface area of a dragon and then tried to estimate the chances of an arrow hitting any one spot. "Aimed, mind," said Sergeant Colon. "I aim. " Nobby coughed.
"In that case it's got to be a lot less than a million-to-one chance," said Carrot. "It could be a hundred-to-one. If the dragon's flying slowly and it's a big spot, it could be practically a certainty." Colon's lips shaped themselves around the phrase,
It's a certainty but it might just work. He shook his head. "Nah," he said.


there are numerous variations of this joke throughout Pratchett's books

We've got :
1) odds of exactly a million to one are a certainty
2) highly likely things never happen.


Rather a greater similarity there than toast landing butter side down, isn't it?

[Occasional Sage]

Okay, It seems as if everyone disagrees with me. Me just consider this quote.




there are numerous variations of this joke throughout Pratchett's books

We've got :
1) odds of exactly a million to one are a certainty
2) highly likely things never happen.


Rather a greater similarity there than toast landing butter side down, isn't it?

What we're all saying is, the dramatic concept of "If it virtually cannot happen then it will, in the interest of a good story" has been around for at least 2,500 years. The phrase million-to-one is a fairly recent one, but that specific phrasing doesn't invalidate our point. It's the same idea. Million-to-one odds is just a currently used expression for the identical idea.

[Ron Miel]

I don't think I'll bother arguing the point.

[SensFan]

Because there is no point.

[Sly Reference]

I am very disappointed. The latest strip totally steals the million-to-one joke from Pterry.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html

Eh. This is just proof of my theory that people who love Terry Pratchett haven't read any other books.

[Admiral_Kelly]

The original poster has a point.

The two jokes are very similar - the joke being the genre savvy guy knowing the improbable is improbable; but also knowing one-in-a-million is a sure thing. I read something before about Terry Pratchett using this on TVtropes before, which disappointed me. I will not say ripoff, however, since that implies Burlew stole the work but I will say coincidence.

A one-in-a-million chance coincidence =P.

[Penquin47]

Love Terry Pratchett.

In order for it to be a ripoff, we'd have to see the joke told the same way.

The joke in Guards! Guards! is not about the one-in-a-million chance, it's about the absurd lengths the three guards go to to make their odds exactly one in a million, only to have the one in a million chance crop up completely accidentally when they really need it.

Qarr, Elan, Vaarsuvius, and the Big Boomie Demon don't plan it out to be exactly a million to one chance only to have it fail. Pratchett doesn't make any jokes about sending Probability 'round to Mrs. Palm's to pay its Seamstress Guild dues after servicing Drama.

Therefore, different joke, same trope.

[busterswd]

The original poster has a point.

No, he really doesn't. It's possible he read it from Pratchett, but it's also just as possible he picked it up somewhere else. "One in a million" or "one in a billion" is a very common phrase. I've never read Pratchett before, and I've heard it numerous times. A million/billion are usually common numbers for hyperbole, as are plays on the words. It's why you've heard people make up words to make them sound even higher, based on those words (gazillion, etc.)

The observation that things that almost never happen usually do has already been shown a couple times before in this very comic.

In the end, expressing outrage over plagarism that and implying that Pratchett actually coined the phrase/concept is laughable.

Had Burlew actually mentioned 999,943, or had Varsuuvious launch into actual calculations, it would've definetly been an homage to Pratchett, but as it is, it's like saying Roy is a rip off of Mace Windu, seeing as they're both bald, black swordsman; it neglects the ubiquitousness of black men with shaved heads, and in both their respective genres, having a melee weapon is fairly common.

[drummerman]

Completely true. You can tell Burlew's been reading Pratchett. The Thieve's Guild, the probability joke, and so much more... the problem is, Pratchett has amazing jokes that are really hard not to steal.:smallannoyed:And, as long as Pratchett makes them seem original, I guess they're all right... I really wish though that he would give some sort of acknowledgement to Pratchett. If Burlew were to just mention Terry Pratchett, I would be far less angry.

[drummerman]

No, he really doesn't. It's possible he read it from Pratchett, but it's also just as possible he picked it up somewhere else. "One in a million" or "one in a billion" is a very common phrase. I've never read Pratchett before, and I've heard it numerous times. A million/billion are usually common numbers for hyperbole, as are plays on the words. It's why you've heard people make up words to make them sound even higher, based on those words (gazillion, etc.)

The observation that things that almost never happen usually do has already been shown a couple times before in this very comic.

In the end, expressing outrage over plagarism that and implying that Pratchett actually coined the phrase/concept is laughable.

Had Burlew actually mentioned 999,943, or had Varsuuvious launch into actual calculations, it would've definetly been an homage to Pratchett, but as it is, it's like saying Roy is a rip off of Mace Windu, seeing as they're both bald, black swordsman; it neglects the ubiquitousness of black men with shaved heads, and in both their respective genres, having a melee weapon is fairly common.

No, Burlew's recent writing shows more rip-offs from pratchett than just the "million to one" thing. The "Thieve's Guild" was originally devised by Pratchett, and there are others. I just can't think of them at the moment, but they're there.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I am pleased to see two people have already posted from TV Tropes. I'll reiterate that point (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MillionToOneChance).

Furthermore, Rich has proven himself to be extremely Genre Savvy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy), and his character, Elan, is in fact, built around this concept.

No, I don't say that Rich is a devotee of TV Tropes (unless he begins speaking in TV Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourVocabulary), but one can only hope :smallwink:) but this particular instance, like many, many others, is Older Than You Think (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OlderThanTheyThink?from=Main.OlderThanYouThink).

[Porthos]

No, Burlew's recent writing shows more rip-offs from pratchett than just the "million to one" thing. The "Thieve's Guild" was originally devised by Pratchett, and there are others. I just can't think of them at the moment, but they're there.

This would be the human concept known as sarcasm, yes? :smallsmile:

[bdh5533]

This whole strip is about poking fun at an entire genre and telling an amazing story at the same time. For Terry Pratchett to be included is to say that Terry Pratchett is a large Force in this entertainment genre.

It's Just like getting your song remade by Wierd Al, You know you've hit the big time when it happens.

[Xeticus]

I am very disappointed. The latest strip totally steals the million-to-one joke from Pterry.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.htmlPersonally I prefer to think that instead of a rip off that it's a tribute. It would have been nice if Rich could have made it clearer.

[Arbitrarity]

No, Burlew's recent writing shows more rip-offs from pratchett than just the "million to one" thing. The "Thieve's Guild" was originally devised by Pratchett, and there are others. I just can't think of them at the moment, but they're there.

No. Just no.

Because I can say "Hello World"(tm), does that mean every programmer, ever, is ripping me off? No.

There's a dragonlance book called thieves' guild, a pratchett book by the same name. Who's ripping off who?
Morrowind? Oblivion? Oh snap, they have guilds of people who steal things!
Guess what they are called? Why, thieves!
Board games, artists, comic books, etc.

Heck, the Giant's "Thieves' Guild" isn't even remotely similar in nature! Polite? No. Arranged robberies? Not happening. Claiming that a reasonably common phrase is the sole intellectual property of Pratchett is ridiculous. Also, This (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Thieves_Guild), while inaccurate, may be amusing.

[The Wanderer]

About the Thieves Guild:


Thieves' Guilds are a common feature of organized crime in fantasy fiction and role-playing games. The term first appeared in the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser story, Thieves' House, by Fritz Leiber, in 1943.

As per wikipedia.

Now shut up.

[Oberon]

No, Burlew's recent writing shows more rip-offs from pratchett than just the "million to one" thing. The "Thieve's Guild" was originally devised by Pratchett, and there are others. I just can't think of them at the moment, but they're there.

Umm.... are you seriously claiming that Terry Pratchett came up with the concept of a thieves' guild? Because that's even more ridiculous than the original claim. Unless there's some something specific about the OOTS thieves guild and the Pratchett thieves' guild that I'm not aware of (I've never read any Pratchett).

I've played DnD for years, and the Thieves guild is a pretty common thing. And it didn;t start with Pratchett. If you don't believe me look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thieves_guild).

Sly Reference, about youe theory that Terry Pratchett fans have never read any other books, I think you're right.

I'll admit that these Million-to-one jokes are somewhat similar, but theres nothing here that prove Rich Burlew had ever seen a Terry Pratchett book before (especially considering how common a phrase "millions-to-one" is). This joke is obvious enough that two people could easily some up with it independantly of one another, which is probably what happened here. OOTS is known for Genre-savviness and Meta-humour which lend themselves to this kind of joke. Now can we end this discussion?

On a side note: Oracle hunter, the Giant does speak in Tropes at times. Remember Redcloak's lampshade hanging (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html) comic? Or the one called "in azure city, shark jumps you" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0542.html) (comic's title in archive).

Edit: whoopsm looks like it took me awhile to write this rant and couple people beat me to the "thieves guild" thing. Sorry guys!

[Halvormerlinaky]

Terry Pratchett? Isn't he the guy who writes the Discworld books? I think?

I've never ready ANY Terry Pratchett works. At all. Sure, Discworld sounds interesting. but I've never actually read any of 'im.

On this note, take this into account: I read Elan's "Million-to-one" line as "Typical Genre-Saavy Elan saying something with typical Genre Saavy."

Chillax and think before you call something a rip-off.
Which this most definatly is not (I see no cowardly wizards with sentient interdimensional stowage devices running around on a flat planet carried on the back of a turtle and four elephents. That would be a rip-off. This is not.)

I see what you did there.

PS - I'm currently reading Witches Abroad. Just finished Pyramids. Yes, I'm late to the party, but I've read Good Omens at least 3 times so that should boost my street cred.

[busterswd]

No, Burlew's recent writing shows more rip-offs from pratchett than just the "million to one" thing. The "Thieve's Guild" was originally devised by Pratchett, and there are others. I just can't think of them at the moment, but they're there.

Wow, I'd start flaming you, but I think another poster said it best:


This is just proof of my theory that people who love Terry Pratchett haven't read any other books.


PS: Apparently Hannah Montana steals from Terry Pratchett too. THE NERVE. (http://www.metrolyrics.com/one-in-a-million-lyrics-hannah-montana.html)

[only1doug]

Eh. This is just proof of my theory that people who love Terry Pratchett haven't read any other books.

Hey!

I like Pratchetts stuff but i read plenty of other stuff too (well maybe too much other stuff too). Just because some Pratchett fans don't realise that all authors "borrow" from multiple sources doesn't mean that all of us are ignorant.

Typcasting, Tttttt Ttttt

[SPoD]

OK, this is just getting ridiculous. Now Thieves' Guilds were invented by Terry Pratchett?!? Utterly ludicrous. Thieves' Guilds have been a part of D&D since the thief class was introduced, and as pointed out above, existed in fantasy fiction before that.

What is this obsession with trying to "catch" Rich stealing jokes from somewhere? Why look for tenuous connections when none exist? There's no proof of anything here, because there's no proof that Rich has ever read Terry Pratchett. Lots of people haven't. I've never read even one of his books. I'm sorry, but he's not the universally-appreciated grandmaster of fantasy his fans seem to think he is. He's very popular in Britain and significantly less so elsewhere.

One writer who writes comedic fantasy stories made one joke that is sort of similar (but not exactly similar) to one joke one other author who also writes comedic fantasy stories has made in the past. OMG! Call the Originality Police!

[Kaytara]

Wow, that IS ridiculous. XD From the top of my head:

Raymond Feist's Midkemia universe has a Thieves Guild, they're called the Mockers.
Trudi Canavan's Magician trilogy also had an underground thief organization.
There are games, too. The Quest for Glory series had a Thieves Guild.
Morrowind and Oblivion both have Thieves Guild.
And what about actual DnD-based games, like the Neverwinter Nights series and Baldur's Gate? Like those didn't have organized Thieves Guilds.

Please. Lots of games that allow the player to take a non-linear approach, such as climbing a window instead of walking through the door, also have an organized party dabbling in illegal activities that supports and encourages such actions.
Likewise, a lot of books set in criminally active cities feature some sort of underground crime organization.

It's nothing new under the sun. It's based on the real world, after all. People may pay protection money and be extorted but also have the benefit of having someone to turn to with concerns that they wouldn't take to a state official. Fantasy took it one step further. There's no way Pratchett invented that idea. XD

[Admiral_Kelly]

No, he really doesn't. It's possible he read it from Pratchett, but it's also just as possible he picked it up somewhere else. "One in a million" or "one in a billion" is a very common phrase. I've never read Pratchett before, and I've heard it numerous times. A million/billion are usually common numbers for hyperbole, as are plays on the words. It's why you've heard people make up words to make them sound even higher, based on those words (gazillion, etc.)

The observation that things that almost never happen usually do has already been shown a couple times before in this very comic.

In the end, expressing outrage over plagarism that and implying that Pratchett actually coined the phrase/concept is laughable.

Had Burlew actually mentioned 999,943, or had Varsuuvious launch into actual calculations, it would've definetly been an homage to Pratchett, but as it is, it's like saying Roy is a rip off of Mace Windu, seeing as they're both bald, black swordsman; it neglects the ubiquitousness of black men with shaved heads, and in both their respective genres, having a melee weapon is fairly common.Did you stop reading my post after the first line, dismissing whatever else I had to say?
The original poster has a point.

The two jokes are very similar - the joke being the genre savvy guy knowing the improbable is improbable; but also knowing one-in-a-million is a sure thing. I read something before about Terry Pratchett using this on TVtropes before, which disappointed me. I will not say ripoff, however, since that implies Burlew stole the work but I will say coincidence.

A one-in-a-million chance coincidence =P.See? It is more than just using the phrase 'one-in-a-million' but also using the same joke. Read also I do not accuse Burlew of ripping off Pratchett but say it is just coincidence.

[Kurald Galain]

Just to put things in perspective,

Quest for Glory - 1989
Terry Pratchett - 1983
Raymod Feist - 1982
Fritz Leiber - 1939

I'm not saying Fritz Leiber invented thief guilds either, he's just the earliest example I could think up. But remember that such guilds have their counterpart in actual history. It is the second oldest profession, you know.

[ThreeEyedOni]

Did you stop reading my post after the first line, dismissing whatever else I had to say?See? It is more than just using the phrase 'one-in-a-million' but also using the same joke. Read also I do not accuse Burlew of ripping off Pratchett but say it is just coincidence.

Did you read any of the thread detailing examples of the same idea going back 2500 fricking years? The idea of "million to one odds are sure things" (if not the exact wording, which is not a point here seeing as how the exact wording is not the same anyhow) has been around in one form or another for thousands of years. It is not a concept that anyone in contemporary literature can claim or be attributed to have invented; it is a staple of so many genres that even fantasy literature cannot lay claim to it.

The idea that Pratchett came up with thieves guilds; or even the concept of thieves guilds that work in an unorthodox way such as the many more "humorous" thieves guilds you'll find in fiction; is a downright nutty claim. It's undefendable and pretty much just plain wrong.

[Ron Miel]

Did you read any of the thread detailing examples of the same idea going back 2500 fricking years? The idea of "million to one odds are sure things" (if not the exact wording, which is not a point here seeing as how the exact wording is not the same anyhow) has been around in one form or another for thousands of years.


My goodness you're right. I never saw it like that. That really opens my eyes.

And of course when this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_eYl20dwpY) talks about having a drinking problem, he too is just using a phrase that has been around for decades.

He absolutely is not ripping off a joke from "Airplane." I thought he was at first, but I see now that he wasn't.

Lots of people talked about drinking problems before Airplane. Airplane didn't invent the trope. So his use of the phrase can't be copying Airplane, can it.

I see it all now.

[Knaight]

OK, this is just getting ridiculous. Now Thieves' Guilds were invented by Terry Pratchett?!? Utterly ludicrous. Thieves' Guilds have been a part of D&D since the thief class was introduced, and as pointed out above, existed in fantasy fiction before that.

Granted both of them only steal from specific people and are paid off by others, and are insistent on being the only thieves in town. But thats just good business sense, and probably shows up among criminals in real life. To say its stolen is a real stretch.

[hamishspence]

If line if word for word Pratchett, maybe call shenanigans. Otherwise, wait and see. A homage is not the same as a ripoff.

If Thieves guild methodology was explained as "unlicenced thieves are met with the full force of Injustice, which is a stick with nails in it" would sound suss.

[only1doug]

My goodness you're right. I never saw it like that. That really opens my eyes.

And of course when this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_eYl20dwpY) talks about having a drinking problem, he too is just using a phrase that has been around for decades.

He absolutely is not ripping off a joke from "Airplane." I thought he was at first, but I see now that he wasn't.

Lots of people talked about drinking problems before Airplane. Airplane didn't invent the trope. So his use of the phrase can't be copying Airplane, can it.

I see it all now.


Good, glad thats all sorted, we can stop discussing it now, last one out lock the thread and turn out the lights :P

Yes, i do realise that Ron was being sarcastic.

[SPoD]

Granted both of them only steal from specific people and are paid off by others, and are insistent on being the only thieves in town.

This is pretty much the MO for all organized crime, though. Protection money from those who will pay, destroy/steal from those who won't, competition is eliminated.


My goodness you're right. I never saw it like that. That really opens my eyes.

And of course when this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_eYl20dwpY) talks about having a drinking problem, he too is just using a phrase that has been around for decades.

He absolutely is not ripping off a joke from "Airplane." I thought he was at first, but I see now that he wasn't.

Lots of people talked about drinking problems before Airplane. Airplane didn't invent the trope. So his use of the phrase can't be copying Airplane, can it.

I see it all now.

"But guys, this other guy (who has no relation to anything) did the exact thing that I accused Rich of doing. This conclusively proves that Rich did it, too."

[Occasional Sage]

Good, glad thats all sorted, we can stop discussing it now, last one out lock the thread and turn out the lights :P


Goodnight, Gracie!

[Admiral_Kelly]

Did you read any of the thread detailing examples of the same idea going back 2500 fricking years? The idea of "million to one odds are sure things" (if not the exact wording, which is not a point here seeing as how the exact wording is not the same anyhow) has been around in one form or another for thousands of years. It is not a concept that anyone in contemporary literature can claim or be attributed to have invented; it is a staple of so many genres that even fantasy literature cannot lay claim to it.That is true for the phrase one-in-a-million, not the joke I underlined.

[hamishspence]

In that sense, Pratchett said million to one chances aren't a sure thing, since they only crop up nine times out of ten. The big joke was, they set up the million-to one chance, and it didn't actually work.

[SPoD]

That is true for the phrase one-in-a-million, not the joke I underlined.

That's only true if you broaden the joke to its simplest form; the exact actions, words, and results are all very different. It's like saying two knock-knock jokes are the same because they all include the set-up of knock-knock, who's there?, a seemingly random word, a-seemingly-random-word-who? and then some unexpected pun on that word. You can have two jokes on the same concept without it being the same joke.

This joke is almost impossible NOT to arrive at when you have a genre savvy character and the long-recognized fact that one-in-a-million chances crop up more often in stories than in real life. It's pretty obvious. It's not like Rich invented Elan's genre-savvyness just to crack this joke.

Besides, I still stand by my point that the true punchline of this joke is Vaarsuvius' observation, not Elan's. And I would bet money that there is no correlation to Pratchett's work there. Which is why the accusers are ignoring it; it invalidates their theory.

[hamishspence]

Agree with that: it takes more than similarity to make a rip off.

When the giant does rip-offs/homages, he does them on purpose. And subverts them. Zzd'tri.

[Kaytara]

I don't see what the big deal about the joke in the latest strip is. Basically, Rich just made something very very improbable happen in order to forward the plot, as it occurs VERY often in storytelling, and two characters framed it up with comments from the analytic and the genre-and-storytelling-savvy sides. Nothing of which they said seemed out of character or forced in order to make the joke happen. V tries to analyze and calculate things and Elan names the trope that is being used. They've been doing it since strip 1. When such an opportunity arose, it was bound to happen.

Besides, what happens in the strip is really rather generic and isn't all that original or complex. As I've said, it's just like some monster movie geek passing a dark closet and thinking "Dammit, I bet THIS closet is exactly where the monster hides, and not any other!"
I haven't read Pratchett but from what I've gathered from the descriptions here, the joke in Guards! Guards! seems far more specific and contrived than what happened in the latest strip.

[Joran]

Besides, I still stand by my point that the true punchline of this joke is Vaarsuvius' observation, not Elan's. And I would bet money that there is no correlation to Pratchett's work there. Which is why the accusers are ignoring it; it invalidates their theory.

Quoted for the absolute truth. Rich went right through the normal joke of one in a million always coming true, to set up the probability as a prostitute of drama joke.

[Admiral_Kelly]

This joke is almost impossible NOT to arrive at when you have a genre savvy character and the long-recognized fact that one-in-a-million chances crop up more often in stories than in real life. It's pretty obvious. It's not like Rich invented Elan's genre-savvyness just to crack this joke.Does this not confirm, by your words, Burlew's 'one-in-a-million' joke is the same joke as Pratchett's with a different coat of paint?

Same concept, same effect, different delivery. The two jokes are very similar. However, I do not believe Burlew ripped off of Pratchett; merely both authors thought of the same joke.

[hamishspence]

a lot of people have. Its a trope of fiction. The difference is, Terry Pratchetts joke in Guards Guards subverts the trope, whereas the Giant merely shows us it (and V's reaction of distaste)

A trope that widespread cannot be "ripped off" anybody.

[hamishspence]

another way of joking about the one in a million chance, is to suggest saying it out loud is what causes the chance to happen. Like "anything but a 1" BAD idea.

[ThreeEyedOni]

That is true for the phrase one-in-a-million, not the joke I underlined.

But it's allready been shown that the joke is not the same. Not at all. In one joke you have people calculating how to get the necessary 1-in-a-million odds so that they are sure to win, and in another you have the genera-savvy character recognizing that someone just stated that something was 1-in-a-million odds so it "couldn't" ever happen and therefor is almost guaranteed to happen.

Not only is Pratchett not the first to use his own joke, and is the joke in OotS not a direct duplicate (or even a direct reference), but there has allready been an example given in this thread of an even more similar statement from 2,500 fricking years ago.

Bueller? ...Bueller?

Having a group of mooks start poking eachother in the eyes and slapping eachother while making "woo-woo-whoo" noises is a ripoff/homage. A drow ranger with two scimitars and a mysterious/tragic past is a ripoff/homage. Someone slipping on a banana peel is not a ripoff/homage, because it's something so broad and standardized of a joke. By the logic you're trying to use here, every single knock-knock joke is a ripoff of the first one, or for that matter every joke about a pineapple is a ripoff of some ancestral joke about a fricking pineapple.

The jokes are not the same, they are simply both involving similar-yet-horribly-vague concepts that have been referenced for thousands of years. The punchlines, presentation, wording, and every other single conceivable aspect of the two jokes are different except for a concept that predates them like the T-Rex predates mopeds.

[hamishspence]

The Giant's signature is to make humour about said ripoffs rather than to do them "why the scimitars?" "they're standard issue"

[busterswd]

There is a difference between a joke being the same and a joke having the same premise but different execution. In both of the jokes, a genre savvy character realizes 1 million to one impossibilities are virtual certainties.


In the Pratchett joke, the ludicrousness stems from the idea that unless the odds are exactly one in a million down to the 10's digit, the premise will not work, and also from the characters attempted manipulation of the world they live in.

In the Burlew joke, the humor stems from Elan, normally the most idiotic, being the only one who recognizes the dramatic dangers of the fantasy genre they live in, and Vaarsuvious's disgusted reaction that the world really does follow such illogical rules. Here's the big catcher: insert a z instead of an m. The joke still works, and quite easily. In fact, take out the whole dialogue about 10% beforehand, and you have quite a typical OotS moment.

The really ironic part about the "Pratchett made the phrase" arguments is that the characters are accepting a million to one as a proven rule. Perhaps earlier in the book he wrote more slapstick involving the discovery about the exact million to one universal law, though it doesn't seem like they would. But if not, where did they get the proven rule from? Oh right, it's a staple of the very fantasy/dramatic storyline genre that both authors are delving into.

[Occasional Sage]

Man. This is still going? My eyes are starting to glaze and I'm not really reading posts any more. I'm going to back up for a second to where this all started, then get out of this conversation.

Ron, I'm trying to say the same thing as Admiral Kelly did a few posts ago: there's similarity in the jokes. Absolutely. My issue was with your phrasing and its implications. I read your phrase "rip off" to have the connotation of theft and in this situation plagiarism (not, I think, an unreasonable reading). My point is that while the jokes are similar, in that they both reference the same standard concepts, there is not enough direct correlation to say that the recent OotS joke is a derivative of, specifically, Pratchett's.

If we agree, I'm sorry to have wasted your time with this.

[teratorn]

My point is that while the jokes are similar, in that they both reference the same standard concepts, there is not enough direct correlation to say that the recent OotS joke is a derivative of, specifically, Pratchett's.

Even if it were a derivative there would be no problem. Sometimes sentences leak into the public medium, become widely used like this, and they are fair game. Many people could immediatly connect the thing to Terry Pratchett (I could not), or had heard enough variants to know it was't something truly original (I saw it as Elan's take on a widely known phenomenon). And it's not a question of not accepting criticism directed to Rich Burlew, it's a question of the OP making some nasty claims, a rip off is something serious.

[Admiral_Kelly]

But it's allready been shown that the joke is not the same. Not at all. In one joke you have people calculating how to get the necessary 1-in-a-million odds so that they are sure to win, and in another you have the genera-savvy character recognizing that someone just stated that something was 1-in-a-million odds so it "couldn't" ever happen and therefor is almost guaranteed to happen.The similarities are still there as I have pointed out: one-in-a-million is a sure thing, improbable is not. They mirror each other.
Not only is Pratchett not the first to use his own joke, and is the joke in OotS not a direct duplicate (or even a direct reference), but there has allready been an example given in this thread of an even more similar statement from 2,500 fricking years ago.I am confused with my opposition's argument. On one hand, the joke has been done countless times before. On the other, they are entirely different. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

And no, the joke is has not been used '2,500 fricking years ago'. You are confusing the phrase with the joke about the phrase, as has everyone who denies how much of the same joke this is.

[evisiron]

another way of joking about the one in a million chance, is to suggest saying it out loud is what causes the chance to happen. Like "anything but a 1" BAD idea.

Why did I say that before my 'Look Out Sir!' roll...? Blasted cannons!

Anyway, as has been posted many times, this is not a rip off.
Now, if the imp were adding conditions (such as being upside down and underwater for example) to push the odds to 1 In A Million it may be different.

[Matuse]

Next up: People whining that if an OotS character gets hit in the groin, that Rich is ripping off "America's Funniest Home Videos".

It's pretty sad the depths that people will sink to in order to badmouth someone else's creative works.

[Admiral_Kelly]

It's pretty sad the depths that people will sink to in order to badmouth someone else's creative works.It is called criticizing. Just because we do not praise the comic constantly does not mean we do not like it. Someone pointed out a valid similarity (see my previous posts please) between Burlew's joke and Pratchett's joke. I will agree saying 'rip-off' was mean-spirited, but the rest was an observation (which you may or may not agree with).

[Oracle_Hunter]

It is called criticizing. Just because we do not praise the comic constantly does not mean we do not like it. Someone pointed out a valid similarity (see my previous posts please) between Burlew's joke and Pratchett's joke. I will agree saying 'rip-off' was mean-spirited, but the rest was an observation (which you may or may not agree with).

So... here's the main difference:

***
Pratchett - Tropes are part of the "world physics" in a real and implicit fashion. The joke used deals with characters actively trying to manipulate events to take advantage of the Million-to-One Chance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MillionToOneChance?from=Main.Million-to-oneChance) and fail, because the chance is not exactly a million to one.

Burlew - Tropes are not part of the "world physics" (as V constantly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0246.html) points out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html), as does Roy on occasion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0119.html).) However, one character, Elan, is Genre Savvy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy). That is, in fact, his shtick. Sometimes he's right, and sometimes he's wrong (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html), but that is how he lives his life.

Recently, Elan has been more right than wrong in his Tropic analysis, often to the chagrin of his fellow party members (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0556.html). In the most recent comic, Trope (as pointed out by Elan) has won over Reality (as calculated by V) and Hilarity Ensues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HilarityEnsues).
***

The only point of commonality between these two set-ups that I can see is that both invoked the Million To One Chance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MillionToOneChance?from=Main.Million-to-oneChance), but while Pratchett has Justified (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JustifiedTrope) this Trope (it's part of his world physics), Rich has hung a big, fat, Lampshade (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) on it.

In perfect frankness, it is silly to claim, in any way, shape or form, that this comic shows the influence of Pratchett on Rich's work, much less that Rich has "ripped off" Terry Pratchett. It is perfectly plausible (and perhaps, is even likely) that Rich Burlew has been influenced by Terry Pratchett's writings, but there is no good evidence here on that. Both men just happen to enjoy Playing with Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlayingWithATrope), a practice that predates The Wiki (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage) to be sure.

This is why people have been upset with this thread. It's nice to see that people are Trope Aware, but you could just as easily have claimed that Rich was ripping off Titan AE as Guards, Guards with this line of analysis.

[chiasaur11]

So... here's the main difference:

***
Pratchett - Tropes are part of the "world physics" in a real and implicit fashion. The joke used deals with characters actively trying to manipulate events to take advantage of the Million-to-One Chance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MillionToOneChance?from=Main.Million-to-oneChance) and fail, because the chance is not exactly a million to one.

Burlew - Tropes are not part of the "world physics" (as V constantly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0246.html) points out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html), as does Roy on occasion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0119.html).) However, one character, Elan, is Genre Savvy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy). That is, in fact, his shtick. Sometimes he's right, and sometimes he's wrong (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html), but that is how he lives his life.

Recently, Elan has been more right than wrong in his Tropic analysis, often to the chagrin of his fellow party members (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0556.html). In the most recent comic, Trope (as pointed out by Elan) has won over Reality (as calculated by V) and Hilarity Ensues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HilarityEnsues).
***

The only point of commonality between these two set-ups that I can see is that both invoked the Million To One Chance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MillionToOneChance?from=Main.Million-to-oneChance), but while Pratchett has Justified (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JustifiedTrope) this Trope (it's part of his world physics), Rich has hung a big, fat, Lampshade (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) on it.

In perfect frankness, it is silly to claim, in any way, shape or form, that this comic shows the influence of Pratchett on Rich's work, much less that Rich has "ripped off" Terry Pratchett. It is perfectly plausible (and perhaps, is even likely) that Rich Burlew has been influenced by Terry Pratchett's writings, but there is no good evidence here on that. Both men just happen to enjoy Playing with Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlayingWithATrope), a practice that predates The Wiki (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage) to be sure.

This is why people have been upset with this thread. It's nice to see that people are Trope Aware, but you could just as easily have claimed that Rich was ripping off Titan AE as Guards, Guards with this line of analysis.

Off topic, but Titan A.E. was a decent movie wasn't it?

[Spiky]

My goodness you're right. I never saw it like that. That really opens my eyes.

And of course when this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_eYl20dwpY) talks about having a drinking problem, he too is just using a phrase that has been around for decades.

He absolutely is not ripping off a joke from "Airplane." I thought he was at first, but I see now that he wasn't.

Lots of people talked about drinking problems before Airplane. Airplane didn't invent the trope. So his use of the phrase can't be copying Airplane, can it.

I see it all now.

You have completely misunderstood the critique of your critique. Ironic.

Anyhoo, people are taking umbrudge with your use or definition of "rip-off", and they are showing you more accurate definitions. This has nothing to do with the reality of the first usage of the phrase, that first usage is merely being used to help define "rip-off".

Put more succintly, he is NOT ripping off Pratchett, he is doing one of two things. (and we won't know which unless he posts) Giant is either coincidentally using the same construct as Pratchett, or he is paying an homage to Pratchett. Ripping off suggests an antagonistic attitude or even outright plagiarism. There is no proof of either.

FYI, accusing someone of plagiarism is a serious issue in the literary world, akin to the 1919 World Series as to the level of seriousness. You may wish to consider that sentence when you reflect on the "ganging up" on you that has happened in this thread.

[Penquin47]

METAPHOR ALERT!!!

I am a chef. My signature recipe includes, among other things, garlic and rosemary - both very common ingredients.

Another chef, who may or may not be familiar with my work, creates a recipe that includes, among other things that don't overlap with mine, garlic and rosemary.

Is the other chef's recipe a ripoff of mine?

Same thing can apply to jokes. Sure, Rich Burlew and Terry Pratchett both draw on genre savvy characters and the one-in-a-million chance, but they put the two together so differently and chose different other elements to add that I don't think you can call it a ripoff without severe backlash.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Off topic, but Titan A.E. was a decent movie wasn't it?

God, except for the interminable musical numbers. :smallyuk:

It did have an excellent subversion (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SubvertedTrope) of The Guards Must Be Crazy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGuardsMustBeCrazy), for which I give it mad props.

[Runa]

There is a difference between a joke being the same and a joke having the same premise but different execution. In both of the jokes, a genre savvy character realizes 1 million to one impossibilities are virtual certainties.

In the Pratchett joke, the ludicrousness stems from the idea that unless the odds are exactly one in a million down to the 10's digit, the premise will not work, and also from the characters attempted manipulation of the world they live in.

In the Burlew joke, the humor stems from Elan, normally the most idiotic, being the only one who recognizes the dramatic dangers of the fantasy genre they live in, and Vaarsuvious's disgusted reaction that the world really does follow such illogical rules. Here's the big catcher: insert a z instead of an m. The joke still works, and quite easily. In fact, take out the whole dialogue about 10% beforehand, and you have quite a typical OotS moment.

The really ironic part about the "Pratchett made the phrase" arguments is that the characters are accepting a million to one as a proven rule. Perhaps earlier in the book he wrote more slapstick involving the discovery about the exact million to one universal law, though it doesn't seem like they would. But if not, where did they get the proven rule from? Oh right, it's a staple of the very fantasy/dramatic storyline genre that both authors are delving into.

Quoted for truth, bolding mine. You put it much more eloquently and succintly than I could've.

The use of the term "rip-off" is also a BAD IDEA, because it implies sneaky but direct and active plagiarism. Thing is, in this case... the jokes are actually quite different, they're just based on the same IDEA, and use a similar phrase at one point. And ideas? Are not copyrightable. They're public domain! So are common words and phrases like "million-to-one-chance". An entire, unique paragraph is often copyrightable... a four-word turn of phrase that's been around for decades if not centuries, however, is not. Even if Pratchett had coined the actual phrase (which he didn't), the truth is that the phrase has made its way into the language to the point where merely using it does NOT constitute plagiarism. Not even legally!

No jury in the world would convict Burlew of plagiarism in this case, thus, calling it a "rip-off" is not only extreme, but, since it's inaccurate, is guaranteed flamebait. I think I can safely feel justified in saying that the OP and couple others in this thread have no common sense whatsoever.

[busterswd]

It is called criticizing.

Criticism is saying you find an arc boring, or a joke fell flat, or the artwork could use touching up. Criticism is a necessary element for growth and the only people who will take offense to legitimate forms of it are unreasonable people.

Plagarism is a serious accusation in a creative environment, and saying he outright "ripped off" Pratchett is pretty confrontational language. Even if his evidence was completely solid and amounted to more to than a simple "relatedness proves casuality" which is the main thing people are actually debating with, he'd still probably be lambasted by a significant portion of the people here. It is to this board's credit or perhaps the moderator's that he hasn't been flamed to ashes right now.

In short, calling someone a thief because they use a similar concept isn't a recipe to make people agree with you, especially on said person's forums.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Gods did that last post feel like a ton of bricks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Anvilicious).

Can you stop beating me to death with the whole 'accusations of plagiarism is bad' line? How many times have I said I do not accuse Burlew of ripping off Pratchett? In fact, in that very post from that line you take totally out of context you missed something:
It is called criticizing. Just because we do not praise the comic constantly does not mean we do not like it. Someone pointed out a valid similarity (see my previous posts please) between Burlew's joke and Pratchett's joke. I will agree saying 'rip-off' was mean-spirited, but the rest was an observation (which you may or may not agree with).I am getting a little sick of people dismissing what I say by reading the first two sentences of my post; assuming that is all I have to say.

Getting a little more on-topic, I think Oracle_Hunter makes some pretty good points back there and I see no reason to argue with them. So I guess after closer examination the jokes are not entirely the same, but when reading one does bring the other to mind.

[busterswd]

Gods did that last post feel like a ton of bricks.

That's because you jumped in the way of them. You should note my entire paragraph discussing plagarism was in fact describing a "he" and not a "you."

If you actually READ what the OP says he's not making a simple observation or criticism. He's trying to make an outright plagarism argument, going so far as to say he "stole" it. I've made my point about the 1 million argument already, done it to death by now probably though the horse could use a couple more whacks. I just have an issue with you calling his point "valid" when it's an outright accusation of theft for a very circumstantial reason, which is why I quoted you.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Okay, fine. I will admit I was wrong about the original poster specifically. However, those who were not screaming plagiarism were making valid criticisms about the similarities between the two jokes.

[Marlowe]

Eh. This is just proof of my theory that people who love Terry Pratchett haven't read any other books.

Now THIS is flamebait. And it's funny, because it's so completely wrong.

Sly Reference, the very first Diskworld book begins with obvious parodies of Fritz Leiber's Fafrd and the Grey Mouser. Pratchett's work, from the beginning has been based around parodying, referencing and satirising tropes established by other people. In short, you need to have read a LOT of other books to appreciate his books.

I consider myself widely read, and I like to think I can pick up on a lot of things that people miss (like Blind Io = Aarth the Invisable All-Listener), but I'm weak on a lot of subjects, and completely missed things like the protagonist of "Small Gods" being a parody of St Augustine (my mother pointed it out to me. How embarrassing).

Sure Pratchett, like anyone else, is going to have some idiot fans. Or this thread wouldn't exist. This does not mean all Pratchett fans are idiots.

[busterswd]

Now THIS is flamebait. And it's funny, because it's so completely wrong.

Sly Reference, the very first Diskworld book begins with obvious parodies of Fritz Leiber's Fafrd and the Grey Mouser. Pratchett's work, from the beginning has been based around parodying, referencing and satirising tropes established by other people. In short, you need to have read a LOT of other books to appreciate his books.

I consider myself widely read, and I like to think I can pick up on a lot of things that people miss (like Blind Io = Aarth the Invisable All-Listener), but I'm weak on a lot of subjects, and completely missed things like the protagonist of "Small Gods" being a parody of St Augustine (my mother pointed it out to me. How embarrassing).

Sure Pratchett, like anyone else, is going to have some idiot fans. Or this thread wouldn't exist. This does not mean all Pratchett fans are idiots.

See, I was under the impression that Pratchett was a parodizer of fantasy, not a pioneer, so thanks for confirming that.

And yeah, you're starting to make me think there are two levels to enjoy Pratchett at, ala the Simpsons:

"LOL DOUGHNUTS ARE FUNY"
vs.
"...our society is depressingly retarded..."

[hamishspence]

yes. I particularly enjoy Pratchett, but do think claims of him being "ripped off" do not hold water.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Wow, this thread is still alive?

Look OotS and Discworld both have, at their core, a similar humour philosophy. They are both built on a combination of asking "If this did happen, what would the result be?", referances and homages in odd places and Lampshade hanging. The "this" is different, the medium and writing is different but, at its core, the humour comes from the same place. Both deal with some of the same fantasy and literature tropes, it is inevitable that the two will have the occasional joke that is similar.

[Rincewind]

No 'rip off's here sir, nuh huh.

It is good enough that the lines reminded us all of Terry Pratchett, but now could we all move along?

[Sly Reference]

Now THIS is flamebait. And it's funny, because it's so completely wrong.

Sly Reference, the very first Diskworld book begins with obvious parodies of Fritz Leiber's Fafrd and the Grey Mouser. Pratchett's work, from the beginning has been based around parodying, referencing and satirising tropes established by other people. In short, you need to have read a LOT of other books to appreciate his books.

I consider myself widely read, and I like to think I can pick up on a lot of things that people miss (like Blind Io = Aarth the Invisable All-Listener), but I'm weak on a lot of subjects, and completely missed things like the protagonist of "Small Gods" being a parody of St Augustine (my mother pointed it out to me. How embarrassing).

Sure Pratchett, like anyone else, is going to have some idiot fans. Or this thread wouldn't exist. This does not mean all Pratchett fans are idiots.

Man, you're taking this a bit too seriously. But every time I bring up my view that Pratchett is far too overrated for anyone's good, I've gotten the sharp end of many flames. It's gives me a bad taste in my mouth when the topic comes up.

Pratchett is very derivative of other writers, and I think he's someone that you can enjoy only if you get to him before you read anyone else. Many authors fall into that category, but none seem to have as rabid following on the internet as Pratchett.

[chiasaur11]

Man, you're taking this a bit too seriously. But every time I bring up my view that Pratchett is far too overrated for anyone's good, I've gotten the sharp end of many flames. It's gives me a bad taste in my mouth when the topic comes up.

Pratchett is very derivative of other writers, and I think he's someone that you can enjoy only if you get to him before you read anyone else. Many authors fall into that category, but none seem to have as rabid following on the internet as Pratchett.

Read Lewis, Adams, Barry, Chesterton, and a good deal of others first.

Only got to Pratchett in the last couple of years.

Guess what? I manage to find his work fairly good. It seems what we have here is not a bad author, but the mere reasonable fact that people can honestly have different opinions.

Which is a very good thing.

[Kish]

Pratchett is very derivative of other writers, and I think he's someone that you can enjoy only if you get to him before you read anyone else.
The thing about statements like that is that it only takes one person to prove them wrong.

There's nothing wrong with you not liking Terry Pratchett's books. Implying that there is something wrong with people liking them is...rather different.

(I'm heartened that this post isn't really on-topic for this thread, considering what the topic of this thread is.)

[Kurald Galain]

Pratchett is very derivative of other writers, and I think he's someone that you can enjoy only if you get to him before you read anyone else. Many authors fall into that category, but none seem to have as rabid following on the internet as Pratchett.

False on all counts. Pratchett has a highly unique style, is much more trope-savvy than most, and predates most of the people he is accused of copying. Here's a tip: while many authors (e.g. on fanfiction.net) are highly derivative, derivativeness doesn't sell well. Any bestselling author (including such people as Crighton, Grisham, Cook, King, Rowling and Pratchett) can't be derivative, or the person they derived from would be selling better.

But I'm sure you can prove people wrong simply by calling them rabid. Wow, the world is such a pretty place.

[chiasaur11]

False on all counts. Pratchett has a highly unique style, is much more trope-savvy than most, and predates most of the people he is accused of copying. Here's a tip: while many authors (e.g. on fanfiction.net) are highly derivative, derivativeness doesn't sell well. Any bestselling author (including such people as Crighton, Grisham, Cook, King, Rowling and Pratchett) can't be derivative, or the person they derived from would be selling better.

But I'm sure you can prove people wrong simply by calling them rabid. Wow, the world is such a pretty place.

On the other hand:
Eragon.

Just saying.

[Kaytara]

On the other hand:
Eragon.

Just saying.

Well, you know what they say about exceptions...

[Runa]

Man, you're taking this a bit too seriously. But every time I bring up my view that Pratchett is far too overrated for anyone's good, I've gotten the sharp end of many flames. It's gives me a bad taste in my mouth when the topic comes up.

Uh, I'm pretty sure what he was pointing out was the flat-out snarksult that boiled down to "I'm going to insult and generalize all Terry Pratchett fans, just because I feel this one is acting like an idiot".

You did, in fact, not state something along the lines of "Pratchett is overrated" or even "Pratchett is unoriginal". Rather, you stated that "This just proves my theory that [said writer's] fans haven't read any other books". The examples in the first sentence of this paragraph are what we call "criticism" or "stating a dissenting opinion of a popular author's work". What you actually said, that second bit? That would be what we call "confrontational language" aka, "directly insulting fans of a work rather than the work itself". Which, considering it also involved painting all of the guy's fans with one brush...

...yeah, that's a pretty straightforward example of "flamebait", and quite the opposite of what you here claim to be your original intent ("Oh woe is me, for I cannot express a dislike of his work", hmm, interesting, considering you didn't actually do that before now). I sincerely doubt you didn't realize that saying something like that would get some people (other than just the OP) riled, so let's drop the facade, hmm? :smalltongue:



Pratchett is very derivative of other writers, and I think he's someone that you can enjoy only if you get to him before you read anyone else. Many authors fall into that category, but none seem to have as rabid following on the internet as Pratchett.

You... do realize that it's hard to enjoy parody without understanding at least some of what is parodied, right? Of course he's "derivitive". His entire career is based on writing parodies. :smallconfused: Parodies are inherently somewhat derivitive, really.

While it is true that certain tropes he regularly mocks crop up in TV and film as well, unless you are an at least reasonably well-read person (especially if you've an interest in philosophy, religion, mythology or history, on top of fantasy and science fiction) you're bound to miss a whole heckuva lot of his jokes.

I mean - and I really can't NOT point this out, at this point - you are specifically saying "any" others writers/books, here. Not just "haven't read a whole lot of". ANY. "Any other books", "anyone" else, etc. That's an hyperbolically overkillish kind of statement and again, I really doubt you didn't realize that. Please stop pretending you aren't doing that. I find it honestly quite tiresome when people try to pull childish stunts like that in a discussion, as it indicates a lack of wanting to actually, you know, discuss things, as opposed to simply trying to goad the other side into a flame war which [said people] then try to use as an excuse to say "See? Further proof they don't ever let me disagree!". When really, it's not the fact that you're disgreeing, so much as the insidiously snarky way you talk about they, the fans in the discussion, that tees anyone off.

In other words, you're not stating a simple opinion of "I don't think Pratchett is particularly original or entertaining" or whatnot; you are in fact goading people here. You're trying to start an argument, as opposed to a reasonable, neutral discussion. Again: I ask that you please stop, as it's annoying behavior and really accomplishes nothing other than, well, annoyance.

I would like to ask though (out of curiousity) if you've read only his older books or some of his newer ones? I've read something like a dozen of his books (maybe more; I'm not sure, as I borrowed quite a few of them from friends), and I find that with the exception of Small Gods (which the fandom, surprisingly, seems to dislike somewhat), his older works are most often sort of a cute way to pass a free hour or two at work, whereas it's his most recent ones that are (as I like to put it): "Something I don't mind owning, as opposed to just borrowing it for a couple days". I'm mostly thinking of Going Postal and Making Money, here (I think that last one is his most recent?), though Night Watch was I think a surprisingly good read as well. In contrast, Carpe Jugulum, for instance, is... fun in concept, and has its moments, but I kind of wish I had just checked it out from the library as I really coulda used that extra $8. :smalltongue:

[Helanna]

I really can't believe this discussion is still going, but at least it's moved off it's original point. I think that it's safe to say that is over.


Eh. This is just proof of my theory that people who love Terry Pratchett haven't read any other books.

This . . . boggles my mind. I am a huge fan of Terry Pratchett and I really can't imagine people NOT taking offense at that. You basically called everyone who likes Terry Pratchett a stupid idiot who can't even realize that Pratchett parodies other works.

I absolutely love to read. I realize that I haven't read many 'classics' or most of the books Pratchett parodies. I'm in high school - a really small one. I really don't have access to many books from a library, and my family is absolutely flat broke most of the time, so I can't buy many books either. It takes me upwards of 4 months to gather the money to buy just one book, and then I don't exactly buy classics. I buy epic fantasy (and Discworld).

And yet, I've STILL read more books than most of the adults I know. Saying that I haven't read anyone other than Terry Pratchett, and thus insinuating that I wouldn't know a good book when I read one and that Terry Pratchett is for morons . . . yeah, that's flamebait.

What exactly do you think we should read? Because I'm willing to bet that a Pratchett-lover here has read them. I realize that I miss a lot of the jokes in those books, because I don't know what they're parodying, but you know what? Pratchett is absolutely freakin' hilarious even so. I still get a lot of the jokes, and they're still funny.

So give us a list. What are we supposed to be reading that we haven't?

[Evil DM Mark3]

Pratchett is very derivative of other writers, and I think he's someone that you can enjoy only if you get to him before you read anyone else. Many authors fall into that category, but none seem to have as rabid following on the internet as Pratchett.

You seem to be operating under a different definition of Derivative to most people here.

Derivative (Adjective)

Imitative of the work of someone else
(copyright law) Referring to a work, such as a translation or adaptation, based on another work that may be subject to copyright restrictions
Having a value that depends on an underlying asset of variable value
Lacking originality


The works of Terry Prattchet in general, and the Discworld books specifically, do not fit under any of these definitions. They are often praised for their originality, insight and "ability to put a 90 degree spin on the ordinary". They DO contain a lot of references, allusions, tropes and cliché, but usually use them in new and interesting ways because at the end of the day much of the humour comes from taking the familiar and giving it a new spin or deploying it from a new angle.

Just like OotS. This is EXACTLY the sort of humour OotS uses a lot of too. Is OotS derivative? I mean you have heavy drinking Viking dwarves, your eil undead overlord, your army of highly expendable evil minions, etc etc. It OotS derivative? Hardly.

I am not saying that PTerry is for everyone. I am sure that there are people out there who don't like him, humans are a wide and varied bunch after all. I highly doubt there is a single book that has no critics. Myself, I can't stand anything written by Tolkien. It is always so dry and slow that my mind starts to switch off and he, by his own admission, writes like a freakin' medieval epic! Those things where oral tales and written to be easy to remember and so had sparse detail and where complimented by semi-acting to provide the context and excitement. Its like writing down the script for a movie and expecting it to make a good book! He even cops to it, when he finished The Lord of the Rings he said "It is too long, too old fashioned and no one will enjoy it."

Don't get me wrong, as the films proved it is an awesome story. The style however is murder. I expect to get people telling me I am wrong over this but like I said, you don't HAVE to like anything.
Eh. This is just proof of my theory that people who love Terry Pratchett haven't read any other books.This however is inexcusable. PTerry has a great many layers to his humour, many of which are only accessible if you are more widely read than average. To use myself as an example again, over the last month I have read works by:
Terry himself (re-reading The Fifth Elephant)
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (His Final Bow, finishing up where I left off a few months ago)
Douglas Adams (My second stab at the fifth book in the Trilogy in four parts, but I find him to be a little hard going in places, especially in his dark and dreary periods, love him usually)
P G Woodhouse (The Code of the Woosters, fun to read but I admit not that deep)
Isaac Asimov (A book of short stories I saved from death when it went back to the library with its first few pages and front cover missing. I was given it as they where going to throw it out anyways, but I literaly have no idea what the books title is)
Roald Dahl (I found an old free copy of "Tales of the Unexpected", one of his adult works)
and Spike Milligan (The actual title escapes me for the moment but the unofficial title is "The no goon show book").

[Daibhid C]

Man, you're taking this a bit too seriously. But every time I bring up my view that Pratchett is far too overrated for anyone's good, I've gotten the sharp end of many flames. It's gives me a bad taste in my mouth when the topic comes up.

Pratchett is very derivative of other writers, and I think he's someone that you can enjoy only if you get to him before you read anyone else. Many authors fall into that category, but none seem to have as rabid following on the internet as Pratchett.

Possibly you haven't gone out of your way to insult fans of the other authors you're thinking of?

Since most of the rabid following consists of highly well-read people (certainly more so than me) discussing what his influences are (there's even a website that lists them all (http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/index.html)), the statement that you need to be unaware of them to appreciate the books seems... odd. (Wyrd Sisters for instance only works if you have a working knowledge of Shakespeare.)

Also, it means A.S. Byatt must have become a highly respected literary critic before she'd read any books at all (since Pratchett only started writing afterwards).

[CaptainIreland]

It OotS derivative? Hardly.

I'm assuming you means, "IS OotS derivative?" And OF COURSE it is! It's completely off of D&D!

Derivative just doesn't necessarily mean bad.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I'm assuming you means, "IS OotS derivative?" And OF COURSE it is! It's completely off of D&D!

Derivative just doesn't necessarily mean bad.
OotS is a parody. OotS is not Derivative. There is a clear and distinct difference.

OotS does not imitate another work. It is not an adaptation or translation of an earlier work. It does not lack originality. It is not a kind of mathematical value.

It is highly original parody.

Now some (I said some, back lynch-mob back!) of the "OotS style" webcomics that have been on this forum, THEY are derivative.

[Admiral_Kelly]

OotS does not imitate another work.It is an imitation of Dungeons and Dragons through parody.

[Evil DM Mark3]

It is an imitation of Dungeons and Dragons through parody.Not to get picky but 1) Dungeons and Dragons is a game, not a work of fiction, 2) OotS does not imitate it, it references it and parodies it. There is a difference. Parody is deliberate and comedic allusion. imitation is an attempt to copy the style or form of something.

[CaptainIreland]

Not to get picky

But you are.

If you don't think OotS copies the style of D&D, well...

Derivative does not mean bad. Stay calm.

[busterswd]

But you are.

If you don't think OotS copies the style of D&D, well...

Derivative does not mean bad. Stay calm.

It doesn't mean bad necessarily, but you're using it wrong.

"OotS is derivative" only really makes sense when you are using it in the "copied" definition, which is usually negative when referring to creative works.

"OotS is derivative of DnD" does not make sense. It's like saying "Shakespeare is derivative of iambic pentameter."

[CaptainIreland]

It doesn't mean bad necessarily, but you're using it wrong.

Sorry, but you can't argue with the definition posted a few posts up.


"OotS is derivative of DnD" does not make sense. It's like saying "Shakespeare is derivative of iambic pentameter."

That's just silly. That's like this post being derivative of the English language.

[busterswd]

Which definition are you referring to? None of them support your argument.


That's like this post being derivative of the English language.

You used the English language to write your post. You didn't derive your post from the English language. My point is you're comparing a system to a creative work.

Go ahead, do a google search for "derivative of the English language" or "derivative of language." Hell, find any example where someone uses the word derivative to indicate that an original work utilizes a system. The best you will find is a comparison between two languages.


Edit: You COULD argue that OotS is derivative of a typical DnD adventure, but I would strongly disagree with that; the characterization, depth, and writing is well beyond that of a typical one. Some lucky person with a great DM might disagree, though.

[Oberon]

You used the English language to write your post. You didn't derive your post from the English language. My point is you're comparing a system to a creative work.


um... This was point of the previous post. CaptainIreland was pointing out how your argument didn't make sense, because Iambic pentameter is a tool that Shakespeare employed, and since DnD is not a literary device, your argument made no sense.

A more accurate statement would be "OOTS being derivative of DnD is like saying the Lord of the Rings books were derivative of Norse mythology." Which they were.

[busterswd]

um... This was point of the previous post. CaptainIreland was pointing out how your argument didn't make sense, because Iambic pentameter is a tool that Shakespeare employed, and since DnD is not a literary device, your argument made no sense.

It's the same for DnD then. DnD is a set of rules, not a literary work. You can't derive a story from DnD, though you can employ its system in your writing.

[Oberon]

It's the same for DnD then. DnD is a set of rules, not a literary work. You can't derive a story from DnD, though you can employ its system in your writing.

The difference is that DnD has Characters, or at least character roles, and it has a world and creatures, spells, etc. that contribute to the world. It has a Genre (fantasy). It's not just a specific tool, like how many syllables you put into a line. That can be applied to any genre, poem, or story about anything. But if something is based on Dungeons and Dragons, then you know instantly that there will bne heroes and villains, specific kinds of monsters and other world elements, and a flavour of battle-oriented epic fantasy. That makes it a sub-genre of its own. That is so drastically different from a simple thing like a poem's meter that you simply cannot lump them into the same category.

[busterswd]

The difference is that DnD has Characters, or at least character roles, and it has a world and creatures, spells, etc. that contribute to the world. It has a Genre (fantasy). It's not just a specific tool, like how many syllables you put into a line. That can be applied to any genre, poem, or story about anything. But if something is based on Dungeons and Dragons, then you know instantly that there will bne heroes and villains, specific kinds of monsters and other world elements, and a flavour of battle-oriented epic fantasy. That makes it a sub-genre of its own. That is so drastically different from a simple thing like a poem's meter that you simply cannot lump them into the same category.

Categorizing a work under a genre, or making a work follow the specifics of a genre, again, does not make it derivative of that genre. It makes it part of that genre.

"I, Robot is derivative of Science Fiction" is incorrect. "I, Robot, is derivative of other Science Fiction stories" is correct.

OotS is a DnD based story, it is not derivative of DnD itself though. It may be derivative of other DnD stories, however.

If you are wondering why I'm bothering making this distinction, it's because I disagree that it is derivative of other DnD adventures. There is a ton of unique ideas to the point where even though the author may utilize some cliches (dragon encounters, etc.) the setting is its own, original work.


Edit: Also, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Ireland's post, though it's somewhat vague. I saw it as him trying to justify his position by presenting the erroneous statement.

[Oberon]

If that's your opinion, very well.

I just think it's hard to say that OOTS is not derived from D&D when it takes so many specific creatures and spells straight from the sourcebooks. Emulating a genre is one thing. But the fantasy genre does not contain things like flumphs and displacer beasts unless its purposefully using Dungeons and Dragons as the source material.

Parodies are derivative, because if they didn't derive from something, then what are they parodying? (rhetorical questions). Rich Burlew has simply managed to keep OOTS as original as possible within these self-imposed boundaries, and I admire that (OOTS is pretty much my favorite webcomic).

That's my two cents, and I'm not going to argue it any more because not only is this discussion overlong and irrelevant to the original debate, but I also need to go to bed now :smalltongue:.

[Theodoriph]

But if something is based on Dungeons and Dragons, then you know instantly that there will bne heroes and villains, specific kinds of monsters and other world elements, and a flavour of battle-oriented epic fantasy. That makes it a sub-genre of its own. That is so drastically different from a simple thing like a poem's meter that you simply cannot lump them into the same category.

1. There are not necessarily heroes or villains in D&D based campaigns. It depends on the DM and story (re: complexity of plot).

2. There are not necessarily specific kinds of monsters in D&D based campaigns. It depends on the DM and story (re: some campaigns use traditional monsters, others use homebrew ones).

3. There are not necessarily similar world elements in D&D campaigns. It depends on the DM and story (re: worlds made up of rotating clockwise and counter-clockwise rings where magic is stronger [and more uncontrollable] the closer you get to the inner ring vs. more traditional worlds).

4. There is not necessarily a flavour of battle-oriented epic fantasy. It depends on the DM and story.


Dungeons and Dragons is a set of guidelines (I'd hesitate to call them rules) and stat blocks (these aren't set in stone either). What a DM or players do with them...is well...up to them. But I vehemently disagree with your assertion that just because "something" is based off of D&D, then you "know instantly" those things that you listed. Because...really...you don't.

Maybe you need a new DM or D&D group.

[Blue_C.]

I think the original poster's complaint is not necessarily the idea, which as many have pointed out no can have genuine copyright on, but the specific wording that Elan uses. It's not exactly out of Pratchett, but it's close enough that I thought about the Discworld immediately. For the uninitiated, there's a joke that's passed across a couple of discworld books that goes "Million to one odds crop up nine times out of ten," or some close variant.

Due to how close Elan gets with his speech, I'd give comfortable odds that Rich was indeed thinking of Pratchett when he wrote this, and intended people to get the reference. Judging from the way he's referenced and borrowed from other pop-culture sources, I doubt he would consider the lifting of this line actual theft, nor do I think he wanted people to think he came up with this joke entirely on his own. We have internet search engines after all; I think he's bright enough to figure out we'd see through such an attempt in a heartbeat.

Now, lest you believe I think nothing but kind thoughts towards Rich, it suddenly occurs to me that he may have foreseen someone taking offense to this line in this way, and made the joke anyways. I'm not sure how likely that is, but it'd be kind of funny if true.

[Paragon Badger]

*groan*

FIVE PAGES OF THIS?

I've stared at this blank 'Reply to Thread' box for 20 minutes, typing and deleting various sentences time and time again.

Unless you are a psion in some psychosomantic campaign setting, able to turn perceived truths into objective truths... this is a fruitless arguement.

And really, the OP was so immensely vague and brief with his complaints that I'm amazed anyone took it seriously.

[Shatteredtower]

FIVE PAGES OF THIS?

In the Beginning was the Joke. And it was good.

And the Joke begat Discussion.

And Discussion begat the Tangents.

And the Joke did become lost among the Tangents, even as the rich man is lost to the dark alley, wherein lurk many burly fellows armed with clubs.

And yea, this poster did look upon the Discussion and the Tangents in their entirety, and was amused.

For Serious Business serves Humour, which begat the Joke.

Therefore, praise Humour, and keep it in your hearts.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Therefore, praise Humour, and keep it in your hearts.

And also with you.

[Halvormerlinaky]

This is just one of those: "Shakespeare sucks because everything he says is a cliche!" sort of arguments.

[Charles Phipps]

Eh, I don't see what the big problem is. Most of Terry Prachett's gags are retellings of classic situational humor and often times parodies of well known fantasy tropes or figures. Saying that a fantasy humorist has stolen from Terry Prachett is a bit like saying a British Comedian stole from Monty Python's Flying Circus.

It doesn't say "Boo on him" to me.

It's like "He's studied very well the Master of It All."

[turkishproverb]

And also with you.

So say we all.

[drengnikrafe]

Halfway through this thread, I got sick of reading it, so I posted from there. I am reminded of an old quote.

"Good writers borrow. Great writers steal."

Even if Rich is stealing from Terry, that would only make him a great writer.

[Massy]

In the Beginning was the Joke. And it was good.

And the Joke begat Discussion.

And Discussion begat the Tangents.

And the Joke did become lost among the Tangents, even as the rich man is lost to the dark alley, wherein lurk many burly fellows armed with clubs.

And yea, this poster did look upon the Discussion and the Tangents in their entirety, and was amused.

For Serious Business serves Humour, which begat the Joke.

Therefore, praise Humour, and keep it in your hearts.

For lo! from the depths of Semantics Arguments there emerged a Bringer of a Message. And the Message was Humour and it was brought about through Humour.

Props, dude. (As an illustration for some of the points made in this thread, your post was a parody, while my post is a clear ripoff of yours. :smallwink:)

I wonder, though, how this thread could ever get started. Even in the last panel of the comic in question, the phrases "everyone knows" and "And once again" can be found, indicating, nay, rubbing in that the "likely one-in-a-million chance" thing has been done many times before.

Sigh indeed.

[Roderick_BR]

Yes, Rich uses thousands of classic jokes, especially Elan, that is genre savy.
Your point?