Truman

Weseven: I think so, I trusted my memory too much and didn’t double-check. Well...
Fiquata: I’m interested in the critique of Pirandello, but I can’t understand if you’re referring to the method used to tackle the theme (humor), or to the treatment itself (inappropriate, banal, superficial stories...). In my opinion, Dostoevsky can be more interesting than Pirandello because he also provides a more in-depth analysis of the individual, exploring the individual itself and not just in society (chilling when he talks about excesses of consciousness, in the book you mentioned), but he is not a humorous writer. Perhaps you interpret Pirandello in a lighter way (I’m not saying you didn’t understand him, to be clear, just that you find him lighthearted and not due to the genre) than I do. Honestly, I love "Uno, Nessuno e Centomila" (also because of the introspection that is lacking in earlier works) and how it destroyed the fourth wall; I also feel the relationship between writer/reader differently, it seems very "particular" compared to other authors.

Yes, but do we really want to avoid comparing authors whose works are profoundly different? Especially, do you want to shake off the costume of the contrarian to everything and everyone, the sole staunch defender of freedom of opinion? No one said you didn’t understand it; I simply asked to avoid comparisons, since whenever ambiguous terms are involved (like “humor,” which differs greatly from here to London, for example), discussions always arise about things that are decidedly far apart from each other.

Beautiful review.

Stoney:
1. The fact that you can’t stand him doesn’t bother anyone.
2. Pirandello is much more concrete than Adams in this book.
Also, excuse me, no one talked about “serious” works. If that’s the case, even “Three Men in a Boat” is a humorous book but it certainly doesn’t lack content, just like Vonnegut’s books do, but in terms of content, Vonnegut and Pirandello are a bit more engaged (not similar) than Adams.
Besides, Pirandello doesn’t seem boring to me at all, and since "esce su gente," it doesn’t seem to require “study and sacrifice” (let alone).
If for you study is sacrifice, or something equally negative, there’s no point in continuing the discussion.

For the editors: please add the "not" when I write "the best band you have ever..." because otherwise, they won't stop here. Thank you.

Restaurant at the End of the Universe is at times less brilliant than the first, although, having enjoyed this first book a lot, I also appreciated the second. Starting from the first, one can better immerse themselves in Adams' world; the second is quite "assertive" in presenting the plot.
The movie, well... there are some nice parts (those taken from the book just as they are), but the ending is a colossal mess. It's worth noting that the screenplay was being written by Adams himself, who unfortunately passed away before finishing it, if I remember correctly... Anyway, the film doesn't quite capture the written comedy of the book.
Ultimately, it all comes down to personal tastes, I guess. I should specify that a rating of 5 shouldn't be compared to the 5 of a Pirandello or a Wilde... We're dealing with very different intentions and styles.

Here you go.

Remarkable. I don't have the book.

I'm sure your number is 1.
1 is also for Ligabue, after all, by adding a dash to the number you end up with a...7!
Best regards

I invite you all to a moment of reflection and I refer you to comment 21. The wordplay in Italian is possible, but the "non" is redundant since the negation is already in "mai."
The best thing I've ever done = The best thing I've NEVER done.