Douglas Adams - classic or dud?

xpost

name some of the better and more sophisticated things, though.

does the deeper meaning of liff have entirely different content from the meaning of liff or is the former simply an expanded version of the latter?

expanded

though maybe they dropped some weaker ones too, I dunno, I never bought it

hm, does anyone know for definite? it's impossible to find out online! even amazon is kinda muddled about it.

Uh?

Douglas Adams may be gone, but his Hitchhiker's Guide series will continue. At the helm will be Eoin Colfer, author of the Artemis Fowl fantasy series. In a recording on his website, Colfer says:

"This is one of my favorite series of all time.... As a teenager I would run around quoting lines from this to get me through my teen angst... Now all of these imaginary endings that I had for years -- as you may or may not know, Douglas Adams never finished the series, so I finished it in my head -- now I'm finishing it in real life."

When Adams died suddenly of a heart attack at 49, he had written five Hitchhiker's Guide novels, the last of which blew up several key characters. But he had plans for a sixth, according to The Guardian. The proposal for the sixth book -- to be titled "And Another Thing..." -- was sanctioned by Adams' widow, Jane Belson.

um, how much more of an ending can you have when every major character introduced gets blown up at the end

This is one of those mysteries I don't want to know the answer to.

It wouldn't take much to zap them to another planet or something just before the explosion, but still. I bet this is wank.

mostly harmless was mostly bad anyway. it should have really stopped with fish, which I think is the best one.

^^^

Definitely the sex scene was hilarious.

fish was the most human and endearing of his books, it seemed to have a real heart and his writing was pretty good in it. fenchurch was a great character. but i guess she was based on an ex which is why she just vanished in the next book.

I really hated Random.

(although the last time I read Mostly Harmless, I enjoyed it)

Agreed on Fish as being a really lovely stopping point (if it had been). God's final message really did sum it up.

so you people liked all that stuff about Dire Straits then?

I might talk about another song, but I fully appreciated him trying to convey the feeling of how a song can hit you/mean something to you. (I'll take it over everything Nick Hornby's written on the matter, say.)

i like dire straits

so FUK U

God's final message really did sum it up.

OTM. I enjoyed MH. I will probably read this as a tribute rather than an extension of the story.

Matt DC could they really have them teleported miraculously away in time? What happened to the kid? Could she keep the story going?

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.