[Jeru]

My meadering writings were at one point focussed on plot, human emotion, the problems and issues brought up due to life and life's choices. But then I realised that it was possibly the dulliest and most uninteresting writing I had ever seen, so that all got stamped down under something which was actually entertaining. If you are going to attempt to write about real characters meeting real problems and such at least do it well, there's too many stories which just seem to be annatated notes of someone's life with no human relevence, interest or intellectual merit - aggravation and resolution in themselves do not necessarily a good book make.

Well as you may, or may not, know Douglas Adams basically worked on the same principle or thought arguably for a different reason. He used fairly liberal use of fourth wall breaking tactics, interrupting any kind of suspense of plot development, as well as just making Arthur Dent's adventures a rather idle mill through space which ultimately didn't have any purpose or resolution. It was only in later on novels that he would retcon, to use a horrible phrase, some kind of significance into the earlier events. In Douglas Adams' case this was due to the Hitchhiker's Guide being a radio show which was primarily there to entertain and not be burdened by the necessity of knowledge of the plot, but ultimately the radio show and novels would just ebb along with no particular significance, purpose, destination or even resolution. Stephen Fry's writiings are another good example of someone who constantly breaks the fourth wall, directly talks to the readers, completely anecdotally digresses to another time and place for little actual purpose, and generally disregards actual writing standards in favour of being entertaining.

I would suppose views differ greatly on reading/viewing/listening tastes. One doesn't tend to get increasingly anxious about the story or setting of a sketch (or skit if you are American), this may largely be due to the fact that ultimately it is neither important nor long lasting - but then Yahtzee's piece of writing was exactly long. The only author I can think of off the top of my head would be PG Wodehouse who does seem to blend actual plot integrity and humour together quite seamlessly, but otherwise it is generally a trade off between the two.

[DreamerM]

Well as you may, or may not, know Douglas Adams basically worked on the same principle or thought arguably for a different reason. He used fairly liberal use of fourth wall breaking tactics, interrupting any kind of suspense of plot development, as well as just making Arthur Dent's adventures a rather idle mill through space which ultimately didn't have any purpose or resolution.

The meandering nature of Arthur's adventures was very much in keeping with how Douglas Adams viewed the world, and a deliberate choice on the part of the author. Hichhikers was kind of about loosing your place, taking off into the unknown, not knowing why you're here or what you really want but somehow trying to find happiness anyway. It was exactly that sort of existential loneliness, lost and pointless in a universe gone insane, that made Arthur a sympathetic character: and he kept the story's zany universe grounded even when the most random-ass stuff was happening.

Besides, Adams knew when to poke fun at the audience and the characters and when to shut up and just tell the damn story already. Arthur was allowed his moments of morose contemplation, and the plot, though often containing insane elements, always held together and the meta elements, even at their most intrusive, never compromised the characters themselves. Zany though they were, Adams usually let them be real.

The only author I can think of off the top of my head would be PG Wodehouse who does seem to blend actual plot integrity and humour together quite seamlessly, but otherwise it is generally a trade off between the two.

Never read Wodehouse, but I think we're disagreeing on a fundamental level about the purpose of humor. I think humor and drama, used in tandem, is difficult but can be done, and I respect those who attempt to strike that balance.