Douglas Adams - classic or dud?

Even if Hitchhiker's has gotten old over the years (which I don't believe it has), he's forever classic for Last Chance To See which is one of the best nature writings anywhere.

I named my first dog "Slartibartfast" in his honor (shortened to "Bart" and then everyone accused me of being a "Simpson's" fan, which I wasn't at the time, because we didn't even have a TV).

And I idolize Marvin. And Vogon Poetry.

I need to get out more often.

Also, it took me something like 15 years to get the joke in Arthur and Ford's dialogue on hyperspace travel: "It's unpleasantly like being drunk." "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?" "You ask a glass of water." I am slow.

but the best Douglas Adams thing is Shada.

Oh, Hitchhiker's text adventure here

Adams was a master of the unexpected metaphor, the quote above is a classic example. I love pretty much everything he's done and I'm willing to stick my head above the parapet and say that I really like 'So Long and Thanks for All the Fish'

Has anyone else noticed that Monty Python really isn't as good when you're not 14?

I also saw City Of Death again, though, and it was even better than it was when I was 7, really marvellously good. So Alan is right.

The obvious things (parrot, lumberjack, ALL of Holy Grail) are pretty stale by now, but there's a lot of lesser-known stuff from the TV series that goes largely unquoted. My favorite is probably the one that starts out with the guy who goes into a bookshop to ask for a book, and is told "No, we don't have any" and then...well, I won't quote you the rest, I don't want you to think I'm 14.

Someone bought me the "Complete Monty Python" DVD set (which isn't compplete, by the way). Anyway, I am here to testify that it is possible to overdose on Monty Python. But I still spew water through my nose when someone walks up to me and asks "Dinsdale?"

And I still love (and don't burn-out on) the animations.

Mr Adams is currently spending some time dead, for tax reasons.

I see yr point.

Back to Adams - I first read "Hitchhiker" when I was 12 - after having shop-lifted it from a little boutique bookstore in town. And I laughed and laughed and laughed. So I shop-lifted the sequels. And they made me laugh, too, though I really didn't get much of the jokes - well, I got the obvious ones and missed a lot of the wit. And I didn't get Dirk Gently for years (er, I read it, but didn't understand it) - and now I think it's his strongest work.

Oh, and about the shop-lifting - I ended-up getting a job at the bookstore when I was 15, and out of guilt for the shop-lifting I'd done I made a practice of not billing for one hour a day that I'd worked, as a kind of attonement. I think they got the best of the deal in the long run.

You're saying "his stuff is mostly about food" as if it was a problem. :)

I've rambled excessively about Bourdain in other threads here - read the books several times, ate at his restaurant in NYC, and am dutifily burning DVDs of A Cook's Tour which is still my favorite show on the Food Network (next to David Rosengarten's Taste).

Have you read his fiction, or just Kitchen Confidential and A Cook's Tour? I have Bone in the Throat floating around here, somewhere, though I've not read it, yet.

I've been pretty much boycotting the Food Network (except for A Cook's Tour, of course) since last year some time, when Iron Chef did a show with turtle as the theme ingredient. Still makes me upset to think about it, though I know it's not a rational response.

But also because -- for the first time in about a decade, maybe more, I dug out my old audiobooks of Stephen Moore reading abridged versions of the first four Hitchhiker's books to act as a soundtrack for my spring cleaning over the weekend. It's a pretty great job by Moore, who of course did Marvin in the radio/TV/record versions, but he was also able to give each of the other main characters his own spin rather than simply replicating the work of Simon Jones et al.

More importantly, however, is that after many years away from the book versions of the story -- I usually dig out the radio series once a year for a listen -- I realized two clear things about Adams' work. First, a large part of my writing style in terms of humorous fiction writing comes from him and his various picaresque spins, grotesques and playing with the language. I say this not to claim I'm equal to his writing ability or that I'm slavishly following in his footsteps, but to note with a pleasant shock as to how clearly and carefully his work was inculcated into my way of working with words. I'm quite positive I use the word 'bemused' in general from a part where Adams wrote: "'Catch it?' said Arthur, then frowned in bemusement...' -- read very well by Moore and instantly returning to memory upon replaying it.

Secondly...he was, quite simply, an extremely fine writer. In the same way that something like Peanuts reads one way at one age and then another way later on, moments in the books that once seemed only amusing or slight take on newer casts, suggest new depths, reveal that Adams definitely had a lot on his mind but was able to deftly suggest many things as a result, in a framework that he more or less stumbled into after Hitchhiker's initial success on the radio, and which eventually became his core metier. From a distance, for instance, the seeming 'disappointment' of So Long not being a 'classic' Hitchhiker's story becomes an appreciation of the book's own virtues, at capturing feelings of desire and love, of suggesting something as awesome as a break between two near identical worlds, of creating a whole new conception of reality out of an instruction on a toothpick box. There's a part near the start of the book where Arthur looks out from his house and finds himself connecting with all around him, almost being able to sense other minds, in a way that's both empathetic and regarding from on high, that's very captivating to me.

Then there's something as imaginative, sad and amusing as the story of 'the Reason' in the epilogue from Life, the Universe and Everything, which somehow reduces the story of stupidity and war into a simple but sad fable, one without resolution. Listening to it was almost like heaving a great sigh, one with both warmth and melancholy, the latter predominating. Ed on one of the movie threads noted that Adams' universe in his fiction was one where humanity wasn't at the center, not even on the barest fringe, in a larger construct of existential action -- it reminds me, very much, of H. P. Lovecraft's similar conceptions, but Adams had so much which Lovecraft lacked. If Agrajaj is a Lovecraftian horror down to the name, his scenario of being constantly killed by Arthur Dent is still cosmic japery, and Lovecraft could never capture at all the simple joy of being in a beautiful park with someone you love on a late summer afternoon.

All that and he can be just so funny, making me laugh out loud when talking about the sun shining down on the burglars of Islington.

Wasn't there a dude who wanted to punish Arthur for repeatedly killing him in every single life? Who zapped him straight onto another planet in a previous book?

(I agree this would be RUBBISH but hey)

He was killed when his mountain lair collapsed in on him, I think. That was when Dent learned to fly iirc...

Agrajag or something.

You know, this is the internet and I could have just looked but cannot be arsed.

Likewise. I am sad to admit this but I honestly couldn't care about Douglas Adams anymore. This saddens me because I used to really like the Hitchhiker books :(

I only really enjoyed Mostly Harmless for Arthur's stint as sandwich maker. Should have been attached on as an appendix to So Long, etc.

i finally got round to reading MH the other year -- having tried once before and given up in disgust because it seemed such a backwards step after the life-affirming fullstop of so long ... -- and enjoyed it much more than i expected. i've always liked the universe (for want of a better word) adams created as a writer; the pithy dialogue; the way his absurdities were so often more credible than the real world ... fundamentally, MH was simply a way of enjoying some more of this.

that said: as part of the overall hitchhiker's narrative, it was utterly dispensible. i remember it had an appealingly bleak ending but i don't recall anything at all about what happened to the characters and whether or not i gave much of a shit.

i heard this colfer chappie on radio 4 yesterday morning talking about the new book and my initial reaction was: "what? he'll fuck it up. this is a terrible idea." then i realised that i didn't actually care and that i was very unlikely to read it anyway. i guess i appreciate now that i read and loved douglas adams because of what he could do as a writer; the whirl and tangle of ideas he created. the progression of the characters and the story was utterly unimportant to me (which, i guess, is why i even liked the second dirk gently book).

still. the idea of colfer carrying things on makes sense, in a way -- a lot of adams's work was collaborative, and i imagine he'd quite like the idea of his ideas and characters passing into the public domain.

Wasn't there a dude who wanted to punish Arthur for repeatedly killing him in every single life? Who zapped him straight onto another planet in a previous book?

He gets killed right before all iterations of the Earth across all dimensions get zapped into oblivion.

I think Adams had said that The Salmon of Doubt felt like it should be a sixth Hitchhiker's book, and he had thought of ways to deal with the ending of MH. So it's not terribly offensive to me, but I don't particularly want to read it.

I like So Long, but the bits where he outright says "fuck you geeks, I want to write about human relationships, deal with it" are kind of annoying, though not as much as the "here's another goddamned book, happy now?" that seems to be most of MH.

On a tangential note, I was thinking of Adams yesterday after looking at Conservapedia. I realized that Andy Schlafly reminds me of that Michael W-W character in the first Dirk Gently book, the one who is given a magazine to run through nepotism, and treats it as an important and worthwhile contribution to the art world, while it's basically a laughingstock.

Happy Towel Day everyone.

Mmm. I read Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency relatively recently. I was astonished at such a bad book managing to get into print. And there are people who like it! Wonders never cease.

Coincidentally, though, I was thinking about the old books and TV series again. Great days.

What's wrong with Dirk Gently? It's been a while since I read it but I used to enjoy it.

^

Basically, it is a narrative mess, reflecting its origins as a badly joined together mesh of two different Dr Who scripts. Whole plot elements wander in and out to no good purpose. It has some entertaining jokes, but it reads too much like an early draft of a book rather than a finished product.

IIRC The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the Soul was much better.

It's true I could never quite make sense of the plot or tie all the elements together. On the other hand I thought LDTTofT was drastically under-plotted.

I remember TLDTTOTS much better, so maybe the criticisms of DGHDA stand, but really nobody ever criticised Wodehouse for his plots, and I think for Adams it's the same- the writing is what pulls you along paragraph to paragraph, not the resolution.

also I remember the plot making sense after I read it a second time

nobody ever criticised Wodehouse for his plots

Because he's great at plotting? He can be a bit mechanical, but they run smoothly, work out satisfyingly and are a decent part of the fun. Adams is mostly fun ideas and nicely structured comic sentences/dialogue iirc.

(...) but really nobody ever criticised Wodehouse for his plots, and I think for Adams it's the same- the writing is what pulls you along paragraph to paragraph, not the resolution.

Good point. My positive memory of the first couple of HH books is that they were not that plotty (apart from the third, another Dr Who knock-off), but that they did ramble along enjoyably. The first Dirk Gently book, though, does seem like it is meant to be all about the plot, except that the plot is not worked out properly.

However, I appreciate that saying mean things about Douglas Adams on this great day is not cool.

xp

Wodehouse plot-

Jeeves lands Wooster in it in order to go fishing, hilarity & chaos ensues, Father of comely maiden eyes Wooster, nightime debacle involving at least one vicar and one chef, Jeeves sacrifices Wooster, thus resolving all issues.

Ad infinitum, really.

I love Wodehouse, but I stand by the point that nobody reads him for plot, and I think I'd have Adams in that bracket myself.

none of the plots of any of his books ever made any sense to me.

idk, I don't think they read him for plot alone, no, but the ruthless plotting is one of his virtues - like I for one am reading on to find out how Bertie will get unengaged, and I am filled with satisfaction when Bertie is manouevred behind Madeleine Bassett's sofa, etc. He gets everyone in place really nicely, which seems the tricky bit. Just saying he's a pro plotter in a way that Adams isn't, tho that's not meant as a slam on Adams, since there are plenty of other ways to have fun (eg having idea for Golgafrincham B Ark).

A Dirk Gently pilot will air on BBC 4 this autumn.

hmmm... never a big fan of DG but a tv show might (might) be worth it.

Yeah, cautiously looking forward. I quite liked the books.

Uh-oh I'm having that reactionary 'why does everything have to have a screen adaptation?' feeling.

The radio versions with Harry Enfield were kind of okay but as with all Douglas Adams' stuff the funny bits come from the narration and exposition that aren't really part of the actual plot and are very difficult to shoehorn into the live action stuff without ruining the flow.

See the TV series and movie.

Could be good with over-portentous voice-over colliding with what we see on screen

who's to play gently?

do i recall a posited dom joly turn a few years back in the role in some incarnation? shudder.

Steven Mangan in the role. Imagined Dirk to be little more rotund, have a little more gravitas, meself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/10_october/05/gently.shtml

yeah gently should be fat and podgy imo

never had a good mental picture of that character at all, aside from maybe picturing him as tom baker for obvious reasons.

pictured him as douglas adams tbh

i was bored and got that Eoin Colfer book out of the library. ugh, don't do it kids.

it wasn't that bad! although I can't remember a thing about it now.

Weak, tiresome. Here's a hint, if you need to strip out 80% of a book in order to make it filmable, how about you just don't bloody bother doing it at all?

Also, mobile phone signals don't travel through time. Poor attention to detail, or ignoring of for the purposes of the story, that Adams would never have let through.

Somebody clearly hasn't seen Doctor Who.

ah shit it's not even a problem, phone would have got the message from voicemail server in the present day.

battery issues notwithstanding....

been reading thomas pynchon like a motherfucker. sounds weird when i've only read 1 1/2 books, but when they total nearly 1500 densely-written pages, immersion becomes more understandable (against the day being the mighty fine follow-up to gravity's 'greatest artistic achievement of 20th century' rainbow)

anyway, occurred to me out of the blue today. douglas adams is basically pynchon for kiddies! suddenly my youthful enthusiasm for THGTTG is explained...

ggaao2cr

Don't panic

61 all this time later is still so young :(

OTM RIP

I know, that's the thing that still gets me.

It's actually been playing in the back of my mind since I saw the Doodle last night. He was remarkably young when he started out and it sounds like he managed to pack a lot into his relatively short life (as well as a lot of baths, reportedly).

https://youtu.be/5TNXaCBAjpo

new Dirk Gently series

Max Landis - classic or dud?