From Locus in 1991 on tour, Terry Pratchett & I talk about how Good Omens was written...
Pratchett & Gaiman: The Double Act
Neil Gaiman: âThe first radio interview we did in New York, the interviewer was asking us âWho is Agnes Nutter? What is her history? Is Armageddon happening?â and so on and so forth. After a while, we twigged he hadnât realized this was fiction. He thought heâd been given two kooks whoâd come across these old prophecies and were predicting that the world was going to be ending.â
Terry Pratchett: "Once we realized, it was great fun. We could take over the interview, since we knew he didnât know enough to stop us.â
NG: âAnd at that point, we just did the double act.â
NG: âWeâre working on seeing how many smart-alec answers we can come up with when people ask us how we collaborated.â
TP: âI wrote all the words, and Neil assembled them into certain meaningful patterns⊠What it wasnât was a case of one guy getting 2/3 of the money and the other guy doing Ÿ of the work.â
NG: âIt wasnât, somebody writes a three-page synopsis, and then somebody else writes a whole novel and gets their name small on the bottom.â
TP: âThat isnât how we did it, mainly because our egos were fighting one another the whole time, and we were trying to grab the best bits from one another.â
NG: âWe both have egos the size of planetary cores.â
TP: âProbably the most significant change which you must have noticed [between the British and American editions] is the names get the other way 'round. Theyâre the wrong way 'round on the American edition [where Gaiman is listed first] ââ
NG: âTheyâre the wrong way 'round on the English edition.â
TP: âBoth of us are prepared to admit the other guy could tackle our subject. Neil could write a 'Discworldâ book, I could do a 'Sandmanâ comic. He wouldnât do a good 'Discworldâ book and I wouldnât do a good 'Sandmanâ comic, but ââ
NG: ââ weâre the only people we know who could even attempt it.â
TP: âI have to say thereâs a rider there. I donât think either of us has that particular bit of magic, if thatâs what it is, that the other guy puts into the work, but in terms of understanding the mechanisms of how you do it, I think we do.â
NG: âThereâs a level on which we seem to share a communal undermind, in terms of what weâve read, what we bring to it.â
TP: âIn fact, people that have read a lot of the 'Discworldâ books and a lot of the 'Sandmanâ comics will actually find, for example, Neil put into one of the 'Sandmanâ comics a phrase lifted out of a 'Discworldâ book. I spotted it in a shop and said, 'You bastard! You pinched my sentence. Everyone liked that line, and you pinched it.ââ
So how did the collaboration on Good Omens begin?
TP: âNeil wrote several thousand words a couple of years ago, which was part of the main plot of Good Omens.â
NG: âI didnât know what happened next, so I put it aside and I showed it to Terry. One day I got this phone call from Terry, saying 'Remember that plot? I know what happens next. Do you want to collaborate on it, or do you want to sell it to me?â And I said, 'Iâll collaborate, please.ââ
TP: âBest decision he ever made! I didnât want to see a good idea vanish. It turned out, more and more things kind of accreted 'round it as the book was written. Also, Neil went and lost them anyway, so it all had to be retyped.â
NG: âIâd lost it on disk, so I gave him a hard copy, which meant he had to type it in. He kept changing it.â
TP: âI changed it so I could make the next bit work. The thing kind of jerked forward quite quickly, as both of us raced one another to the next good bit, so we would have an excuse to do it. Both of us cornered certain plot themes which we stuck to like glue.â
NG: âLike the reluctance with which I handed over the Four Horsepersons of the Apocalypse to Terry when they got to the airbase.â
TP: âI seldom let Neil touch any of the bits involving Adam Young himself.â
NG: âWhen we got to roughly the end, we could actually see which characters we hadnât written. So we made a point of going in and writing at least one or two scenes with any of the characters that up until then we hadnât written.â
TP: âInsofar as thereâs any pattern at all, we worked out what the themes were and then we each took a theme and wove that particular strand.â
NG: âThe other pattern, of course, was that youâd do your writing in the morning and Iâd do mine late at night.â
TP: âWhich means there was always someone, somewhere, physically writing Good Omens.â
NG: âIt took nine weeks.â
TP: âWe look upon Good Omens as a summer job. The first draft for nine weeks was sheer, unadulterated fun. Then there were nine months of rehashing, then there was the auction.â
NG: âWhen you have situations when youâve got three agents, five publishers, all that kind of stuffâŠ.â
TP: âOur friendship survived only because we had other people to shout at. So I could say, 'Take that, you bastard!â and hit his agent.â
NG: âOne thing Terry taught me, when we were writing the book together, was how not to do it. Too many funny books fail because people throw every single joke they can think of in, and have an awful lot of fun, and eventually it just becomes a collection of gags.â
TP: âThe big problem you face if youâre working collaboratively on a funny book is that you start with a gag and itâs great, itâs very amusing, but with the two of you discussing it, eventually itâs not good anymore. Itâs an old gag from your point of view, so you avoid it and you take it further and further. What youâre putting in is a kind of specialized humor for people who work with humor. Thereâs an old phrase, 'Good enough for folk music.â As you work, you have to stand back and say, 'Never mind whether we are bored with this particular gag, is the reader going to be bored with it, coming to it fresh?ââ
NG: âOne of the great things about humor is, you can slip things past people with humor, you can use it as a sweetener. So you can actually tell them things, give them messages, get terribly, terribly serious and terribly, terribly dark, and because there are jokes in there, theyâll go along with you, and theyâll travel a lot further along with you than they would otherwise.â
TP: âThe book has got its gags, and we really enjoyed doing those, but the core of the book is where Adam Young has to decide whether to fulfill his destiny and become the Antichrist over the smoking remains of the Earth, or to decide not to. Heâs got a choice, and so have we. So to that extent I suppose he does symbolize humanity.â
TP: âBear in mind that we wrote Good Omens while the Salman Rushdie affair was really just coming to a boil in the UK. But no oneâs going to go around burning copies of Good Omens, no on would think about that.â
NG: âYet everything is blasphemous. Technically speaking, Good Omens is blasphemous against religious order, as blasphemous as you can get. And Gollancz have just bunged it in for the big religious award in the UK, which we find very strange. They actually asked the archbishop of Canterbury to send vicars 'round to have serious tea with us.â
(More at http://www.locusmag.com/2006/Issues/1991_Gaiman_Pratchett.html)