I’m posting this in an effort to help out fans of The Office on NBC during the writer’s strike. If the strike goes on for very long it will be a while before we get new episodes. To help with the withdrawal you might consider renting the original British version. If you haven’t considered it, you should. It’s a great show. However, the story of Wernham-Hogg is somewhat different from the wacky antics at Dunder Mifflin.
To help get you up to speed I’m going to lay out a few of the similarities and the differences.
Similarities
Both the British and the US TV shows are are filmed as documentaries covering a branch of a paper company. The British show is set in Slough, Berkshire. The US show is set in Scranton, Pennsylvania. How similar these two cities are I have no idea, but on the TV shows both cities are sometimes referred to with a bit of disdain.
Characters
David Brent is Regional Manager of the Slough branch of the Wernham-Hogg paper company. His incompetence in business is only rivaled by his (imagined) musical talent.
Michael Scott is Regional Manager of the Scranton branch of the Dunder Mifflin paper company. His incompetence seems to know no bounds, but neither does his loyalty.
Gareth Keenan is a self important military wannabe who jumps at any chance for power over his coworkers. Gareth is often the target of pranks and jokes perpetrated by Tim Canterbury. The phrase that best describes Gareth would be “Pathetic Prat”.
Dwight Schrute is a morally superior know-it-all who works at Dunder Mifflin for recreation. Financially he doesn’t need the job since he has inherited the family beet farm. The phrase that best describes Dwight would be “Weird and Creepy”.
Dawn Tinsley and Tim Canterbury are best friends. Tim has a crush on Dawn even though she’s engaged to Lee, a dockworker at Wernham-Hogg. Mutual interests include tormenting Gareth and getting the hell out of Slough.
Jim Halpert and Pam Beesly are best friends. Jim and Pam are now a couple after dumping their significant others. Mutual interests include tormenting Dwight and working as little as possible.
Differences
If you’re a fan of the US Office trying to fill the Thursday night void by watching the original British program, be prepared for these differences. A few of them could come as a surprise.
Format
While both shows focus on a “real” office the type of programs being filmed is different. The British show seems to be an ongoing documentary about the Slough branch of Wernham-Hogg. The US show is more of a reality TV show that follows the lives of the people working at the Scranton branch of Dunder Mifflin. That may not seem like a big difference, but it adds an element of drama to the British show that is often missing from NBC hit.
Tone
American viewers of The Office have come to expect wacky hijinks, such as Michael leading a raid on another branch of Dunder Mifflin to steal their copier. The British show has more subtle, almost painful, humor. Workers at Wernham-Hogg are faced with the crushing depression of being in dead end jobs, something the NBC show quickly moved to the back burner. Both shows use the strengths of their cast to it’s fullest. Here’s a good example…
- The laughter caused by David Brent often comes from sympathetic embarrassment, a type of comedy that Ricky Gervais is a master of.
- Steve Carell excels as the lovable and clueless goofball. Michael Scott is a fine example of this.
Conclusion
This is a wonderful opportunity to take a look at the roots of The Office. There are differences, but don’t let that stop you. Don’t focus on what’s different. Just enjoy the similarities when they show up. Both the British and American versions of The Office are excellent shows.
I love ‘em both. If I had to choose between them? That’s hard.
That’s what she said.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone celebrating it.
Thanksgiving according to Damon Knight and Rod Serling.
I’d like to take a moment to thank everyone (Beth) who responded to my previous article “Book Reviews or Book Discussions?“. Book discussions won in a landslide, but like the 2000 American Presidential Election it’s been overturned. Not by an antiquated electoral college, but by practicality.
Looks like I don’t have enough active readers to start up a discussion about, well, anything. Not yet at least. I’m too damn stubborn to give up though. So I’ll do reviews for now. Once things get rolling and we get some regulars, then we can start up some discussions. I’ll bring this up again in the future, once the site is more active.
Or when Gore is President.
I need your opinions
After the posts by Donna and myself, I’ve decided that I should make books a larger part of the site. I’d like to do more posts about books and reading. What I’d like your opinion on is the structure of those posts.
- Should I review books I read?
Or
- Should I open a discussion about a book?
I can see pros and cons for both of those. I’m just not sure what you’d rather see here. That’s why I’m asking you.
What’s the difference?
This is how I imagine these working. If you have other ideas please let me know.
Book Review
- I would choose a book, or let you vote on a book.
- I’d read it and take a few notes.
- I’d come back to the blog and write up a review. It’s pretty straight forward.
Book Discussion
- I would choose a book, or let you vote on a book. That’s the same.
- I’d write a post on the blog to announce what the book is.
- A reading deadline would be set. That way people know when the discussion will start, and will know when to finish the book.
- People that want to join in would, I hope, read the book.
- After the reading deadline I’d come back here and officially open the discussion. I would include some of my opinions and my questions about the book. It wouldn’t be a full review though.
- I would update the post with some, or all, of the relevant comments from the discussion for a period of time. This would make the relevant comments about the book easier to find and make things easier on people taking part. A long list of comments can be hard to follow sometimes.
What do you think?
Does this sound like something you’d be interested in? Do you have any other ideas? I’d appreciate your thoughts on this. I’d really like to make this site something we could all enjoy together.
If you’re subscribed to the feed, either through RSS or E-mail, you may have noticed a strange post. The title was “Temporary Post Used For Style Detection” followed by some weird string of letters and numbers. I can explain what that was.
Pay no attention to that post behind the curtain.
I’m testing out Windows Live Writer, a blog editing program. One of the options is to let it make a temporary post so it can gather information on the styles used on the blog. Apparently it didn’t delete it quick enough and it went out on the feed. It did delete it though, so now that link in the feed leads to the 404 page.
So if you see anything like that in the feed, just ignore it. Nothing to see there.
I thought Donna’s article, What Makes An Author Worth Reading?, was great. Not only did she share her opinions, she let us know how her opinions are formed. I started to leave a comment on the article several times, then I’d think of another point. It eventually got to be too long. So I thought I’d just write a follow up.
Author or Story
I agree that being familiar with an author can give you a good indication how good their new book may be. I don’t necessarily agree that an author is worth reading. I love the Harry Potter books, and I think the entire series is worth reading. Does that mean that all of J.K. Rowling’s books would be worth reading? I kind of doubt it. We won’t know until she has something else published.
Another example from a shared favorite of ours. J.R.R. Tolkien. I’ve read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings too many times to count. I’ve also enjoyed Farmer Giles of Hamm and other stories written by Tolkien. I’m pretty close to being a hardcore Tolkien fan. However, that doesn’t mean I would recommend the entirety of Toliken’s work to someone that enjoyed The Lord of the Rings. Why? Simply put, because I think The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are far too different from his other works.
There are authors that I purchase regularly. Terry Pratchett, Stephen King and Neil Gaiman are on that very short list. There are authors I purchase, because the book is part of a series that I read. There are authors that I will only ever purchase once, because they’ve only written one story that interests me. The last list is probably the longest. Why?
I Choose Story
To me the story is the point. It is the beginning and the end. The alpha and the omega. The story is why I read. Do I read a book because Terry Pratchett, Stephen King or Neil Gaiman wrote it? No. I read their books because I trust them. I trust that they will deliver the goods.
I choose story.
: Fadoms, TV, Comedy, The Office, British, American, NBC, BBC, Writer’s Strike, Ricky Gervais, David Brent, Gareth Keenan, Mackenzie Crook, Tim Canterbury, Martin Freeman, Dawn Tinsley, Lucy Davis, Steve Carell, Michael Scott, Rainn Wilson, Dwight Schrute, John Krasinski, Jim Halpert, Jenna Fischer, Pam Beesly 
