And Another Thing (Hitchhiker's Guide Book Six)

You can't compare the movie. I liked the movie. I'm not talking about changes in plotline, tone, or character motivations, I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of the universe. "Frood" is a noun. Period. Getting confused and using it as a verb is not a change of artistic vision, it is not an alteration of the universe to allow for a different kind of story (like retcons made to The Wizard of Oz to allow for sequels), it's a writer not knowing the material he's writing a sequel to.

To sum up, alterations for a reason, okay. Alterations from ignorance, not okay.

edited 1st Nov '09 7:52:16 PM by Nate the Great

I read a bit of the introduction while I was waiting for someone at a bookstore, and he had already managed to derail Ford with that bit about clouds and silver linings... Really, I don't think "Went out with a maniacal laugh" and "Believes that every cloud has a silver lining" are at all the same thing, and it's a drastic oversimplification of his character. It felt like a children's book. Please tell me I'm wrong.

On a lighter note, I just noticed that the front cover says "Part Six of Three", which is encouraging.

I really liked the "Part six of three" bit when I saw it on the stand in the overpriced airport store. I think my favorite release of the series included So Long and Thanks for All the Fish and the Young Zaphod story and was called the "Increasingly inaccurately named Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy Trilogy."

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." - E. Gary Gygax

I've finished it, and though it's been a while since I read the original four books, I thought he did a very good job of capturing the feel and smarts of the series, though with a slightly different style. It was a really great read.

Full review here.

Oh, and I have to say I never saw "zark" capitalized, so not sure what people are talking about there. "Frood" is used most often as an adjective (froody), I don't recall seeing it as a verb.

edited 3rd Nov '09 7:17:48 AM by Cidolfas

@Nate: You make a very good point. However, there were a million little things in the film that pissed of the Fan Dumb the way frood and zark are bothering you now. They're not important to the plot, just mild annoyances. (And again, there are plenty of more valid complaints you could make, mostly about characterization and continuity issues.)

@Dae: That part was off-putting for me as well, but the fumble is recovered slightly when Colfer mentions that, should he encounter an actual silver lining on a cloud, he might attempt to steal it. I agree, though, Ford was never the optimist Colfer makes him out to be, nor was Arthur that much of a pessimist.

@Cidolfas: A bit of a fumble on my part, I meant adjective. The zark thing isn't horribly noticeable, seeing as it's mostly on it's own as a fragment, but it's jarring when it pops up.

Upon rereading, something that bugged me was the suggestion that Arthur was a "cosmic Jonah" who spent most of his time listening to Ford as planets erupted. Besides Earth (both times) and the entire Universe in book two, and the undetonated bomb in book three, planet-smashing was never a huge thing in H 2 G 2—certainly not as much as Colfer makes it out to be. No one ever attempted to blow up Krikket, or Now What?, or various other planets Arthur ended up on.

And another thing...Arthur was revolted by the idea of eating an Major Cow in book two, but now is fine with it, supposedly because Ford's rubbed off on him. Seeing as Arthur spends a total of three days over the course of eight or nine years with Ford whilst in space, I'd like to know when exactly this happened.

One last point @Cidolfas: The radio series premiered in 1978. The book series started in 1981. And yet you claim that 'Adams's Hitchhiker was written way back in the sixties.' This, of course, does nothing to explain the use of the word "cat", so it's an easy mistake to make, but still...

edited 4th Nov '09 4:03:26 PM by Wackd

Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.

I've only read the first of the Hitchhiker's series, but I'm kind of surprised that Gaiman, Pratchett, or Tom Holt weren't chosen, as their writing styles seem to me a lot closer to that of Adams.

Hodor

I finished this yesterday.

It was... not dreadful - I'm not about to protest about it's existance or declare it a crime against humanity of anything. But it's not Douglas Adams.

There's a few really good lines here and there, but it's just a little off for the most part. Like a fanfic author trying a little too hard. Which is what it is, I suppose.

It was a decent, fun read, but I don't love it they way I did the original H 2 G 2 books.

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

Yeah, someone already pointed that out to me. My bad. -_- It's been ninja'd.

I think the way Colfer went about this was to take the most iconic parts of the books and assume that they were monumental to the characters' development. So things like planets blowing up or ridiculous treatment by aliens probably weighs heavily on Arthur's psyche despite the fact that they weren't a large part of his life. Oh, and don't forget that Arthur already decided to go insane once before. I think he just generally has a healthier outlook on life now, for a given value of "healthier".

As for the other authors mentioned: Neither Tom Holt nor Robert Rankin's writing styles are anything like Douglas Adams, other than the fact that they're British males who write funny fantasy books. Pratchett might have been a little closer, but he's got his hands full dealing with his own writing and his Alzheimer's. And Gaiman doesn't really have the kind of comic satire that Adams did. Colfer wouldn't have been my first choice but I felt he did a very good job at writing a tribute to Adams without trying to be him.

In any case, as far as trying to pin down characterization, do let's remember that each character has three or four different "versions" out there, so figuring out exactly which one is "the" character is intentionally hard to do. 8-) I would have said that the Trillian in Mostly Harmless is light-years away from the one we saw earlier in the books, that's for sure.

edited 5th Nov '09 7:26:45 AM by Cidolfas

@Cidolfas: I don't know. In Adams's books, Arthur, Ford and Zaphod seemed very internally consistent to me, with the difference in Trillian explained by the long time since we saw her last and the fact that, without Zaphod, she had to go out into the world and make something of herself. Hell, before Mostly Harmless Trillian didn't have much of a character, so I saw it as an improvement.

However, I found that there was something I couldn't quite pin down about the characterization in book six. Zaphod and Random's changes were the most jarring, with Trillian seeming slightly off and Arthur and Ford being downright unsettling for some un-pinpoint-able reason. Arthur's...pessimism...got clearer to pin down as the book went on, especially during the counseling session with the computer. I still haven't quite figured out where he went wrong with Ford, though. Superficially, he's the same person—care-free, relaxed and overall looking to have a good time. Yet something about him struck me as odd. He certainly wouldn't have fucked with Left Brain like that, for one thing. Someone tell me if you nail it.

edited 5th Nov '09 2:25:16 PM by Wackd

Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.

I haven't finished it yet, but here's what I've worked out so far, for anyone else wondering why the characters seemed off.

Zaphod: never would have come back to earth without some ulterior motive. He and Ford were friends when they were younger, sure, but Zaphod is both highly motivated and remarkably self-centered. He's also, here's the big one, not stupid. It's summed up pretty well, though, in that Coilfer wrote movie Zaphod, which is highly disappointing.

Random: I don't remember her much at all, but, correct me if I'm wrong, she's first of all far too immature for her age. (In fact, all of Coilfer's characters have a tendency to do this. They never just shut up, quit sniping at each other, and act like adults.) Other than that, I remeber her being closed and sullen, so when she started crying in front of a bunch of people she didn't know, it seemed strange.

Arthur: Lived in a near-perpetual state of resignation, and on the rare occasion he did come out of it in the book, he came out mad and bitter, not wallow-in-your-misery depressed. Sure, he misses Fenchurch and has had a remarkably crappy time of it considering the sort of life he would choose for himself if he ever had that choice, but what makes him so likable is his dull "What's done is done" acceptance of everything combined with his innocent motives. Adam's Arthur just wants to find a nice place to live and a cup of tea, but Coilfer's Arthur won't stop bitching about it.

Ford: "Beatlegeuseans don't do deep"? Are you kidding me? We've got two Beatlegeuseans to go by, and one of them is lobotomized, I don't think this has any basis at all. Besides that, species is not the sort of thing a character could be removed enough from to judge. Beatlegeuseans ain't never been anything but Beatlegeuseans. If earthlings are deeper (which is just stupid) noone would never know. Other things about Ford— Coilfer made him condescending and frequently obnoxious. And, damn it, Beatleguseans aren't shallow! Where the hell did that even come from? Sorry, anyway... Ford isn't the sort of person who would be content sitting in a... hotel, or whatever it was. It's a nice hotel, but earth has nice hotels. If he were that sort of person, he wouldn't have been a hitchiker.

Also, making a drink "Better then the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster" really rubbed me the wrong way.

No offense intended, but Terry Pratchett easily runs rings against Adams without even trying. And I'm saying this as a guy who got into British humor from Hitchhikers and only picked up The Light Fantastic because it was described as "Douglas Adams ...IN FANTASY!"

In terms of the HHGTTG novels, only the first three work for me. The last two felt ...wrong.

—R.J.

@Dae: Thank you for pinning it down. You summed up where Colfer went wrong with the characters really well. Random, for the record, last we saw her, was kind of removed. She also had incredibly frequent mood swings set off by nothing in particular or at least nothing she made clear. Here, Random is pretty consistent, which was the wrong way to approach her.

The drink thing bugged me, too...if we're judging the drink's quality by its ability to intoxicate, the Gargle Blaster wins because entire programs are set up to help you recover from drinking one.

@rjung: Call me crazy, but I liked all of them. Each book has its own unique and endearing qualities, except Hitchhiker's and Restaurant which share the qualities that make them endearing and really read better as one book.

edited 6th Nov '09 5:12:25 AM by Wackd

Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.

To be fair, I felt Mostly Harmless was totally different from the rest of the series in terms of characterization and feel; it's practically Dis Continuity for me. So whatever Random and Trillian were and did in that book didn't really register for me.

I do agree that Zaphod is stupider here, but that was actually explained by the fact that his "smart" brain was physically removed, leaving him with only the "dumb" one.

edited 6th Nov '09 6:46:22 AM by Cidolfas

@Cidolfas: I'm in a similar boat — So Long and Thanks for All the Fish felt "off" somehow, as if the characters were written by someone who didn't quite get them properly. Or maybe the idea of perpetual Butt-Monkey Arthur Dent having sex that just rubs me the wrong way. And then when I start getting settled into the idea of shipping Arthur/Fenchurch, she gets out by a random plot contrivance, which just further aggravated my Mood Whiplash.

—R.J.

Or maybe we can just agree that only the first two books were anything like each other and the rest are just sort of random mashing together of whatever was fizzing through Adams's mind at the time. 8-)

I bought it.

I haven't read it. I haven't even opened it.

Why? Because H 2 G 2 is the greatest series I've ever read. I can't even begin to tell you how much I love it. I don't want to think it's ruined forever. If I like it, I won't like it as much as the original. I'll keep thinking "Not Adams not Adams not Adams".

If I hate it, I'll hate something that's H 2 G 2. I wouldn't be able to handle that.

I'm not really sure what to do. People say that it's "Good, but not really the same"... And I'm a person who either loves something or hates it. This bothers me.

You're not a real adult until you embrace your inner child.

I've almost finished it.

I think that one thing that helped me to enjoy it is that I haven't read the originals in years. (Like eight years ago or something when I was really young.) Didn't have any expectations, really.

I beginning to think that I'm only really reading it for the completely insane/hilarious guide notes.

edited 16th Nov '09 11:11:12 PM by newtonthenewt

She's playing with fire! He's not ready for Nibbly Pig!

>Total Posts 42

well now its 43 but... damn.

edit: didn't even know it was out already. i guess ill swing by the library to pick it up, but to me, this is only going to be a fanfic.

2nd edit: just got it, and it looks a bit promising. kinda short though. every line just screams "im not written by adams douglas!" though

edited 17th Nov '09 1:14:34 PM by aekx

this thing still here?

I won't read it, for the same reasons as Jane Doe.

Also, dumbed-down Zaphod was the biggest gripe I had with the movie. If Zaphod acts like that in this book, I'm almost guaranteed not to like it.

Doktor von Eurotrash, I totally agree. Zaphod's my favourite fictional character of all times, and the movie screwed him up so bad from the beginning. Yet another reason to not open this book...

You're not a real adult until you embrace your inner child.

Just thinking, Eoin Colfer's, young Vogon character, Mown, seems an awful lot like Demon No.1 from Artemis Fowl, both of whom have a "being sympathetic is abnormal in this species" personality, IIRC.

I didn't even notice. I am now the proud owner of post 42 on a h2g2 thread!

edited 18th Nov '09 9:25:54 PM by newtonthenewt

She's playing with fire! He's not ready for Nibbly Pig!

i raged when i saw Zaphod refer to Arthur as Arty. he does refer to other characters in a similar way, but still...

also: "zark" is not capitalized once in the entire book: Direct your eyes to page 153, and witness zark in its glorious non-proper form!

this thing still here?

For those who said it looks to short—this is the first H 2 G 2 book to break 200 pages, so...

And I have to admit, if there was one thing that Colfer totally nailed it was the Guide entries. The layout was a bit off-putting—I sort of missed the phrases "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has this to say about ____" and "By a total coincidence...". But the actual content of the entries, while not surpassing any of the classic ones, certainly had their own Adams-esque charm to them and wouldn't feel that out of place in one of the first five books. In fact, the way they tackled the Norse Gods and viral videos struck me as well-done. Still, it doesn't excuse the fucked-up characterization and so on and so forth. Mown, now that you mention it, is a total No1 Expy.

Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.

I just read that this week, actually. It was okay. I felt that the main pairing was...odd, and not quite written well, but the style wasn't too bad. There was certainly some messed-up characterization, but.... What was best-done, as the person above me said, the guide entries. Altogether I'd say it felt rather like a decent fanfic.

edited 15th Dec '09 12:36:42 PM by bookhobbit

You called me bad and I posed like a gutter queen in a dress sewn of knives.

I will be happy if this is a happier closer than Mostly Harmless. I hate Downer Endings, and Adams himself was going to change that one.

edited 15th Dec '09 8:07:03 PM by Ronnie