this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
48 points (86.4% liked)

Science Fiction

13565 readers
17 users here now

Welcome to /c/ScienceFiction

December book club canceled. Short stories instead!

We are a community for discussing all things Science Fiction. We want this to be a place for members to discuss and share everything they love about Science Fiction, whether that be books, movies, TV shows and more. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow.

  1. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
  2. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.
  3. Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed
  4. Put (Spoilers) in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers.
  5. Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread.

Lemmy World Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
48
my main problem with the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy [Spoilers] [x-post from sciencefiction@lemmy.ml] (lemm.ee)
submitted 1 year ago by NotSpez@lemm.ee to c/sciencefiction@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I just posted this on the science fiction community lemmy.ml link to post, hadn’t found this community yet.

OK, so first off, as the title says, there will be spoilers in here. So if you’re planning on reading it and haven’t yet already, please stop.

I read the series as a teenager and absolutely love them. Recently, I have taken the time to reread all five of them, and have to say I was slightly disappointed. I still thought that the writing was very amusing, the social commentary was good and the lightly touched philosophical discussions were good as well. My main problem concerns character development, or better said, the complete lack thereof in my opinion. I found that most disturbing into different aspects:

The lack of real, meaningful friendship between characters As an example, Arthur and Ford are supposed to be friends, but from the interaction in the book it seems more like they tolerate each other and don’t really appreciate each other’s presence or influence on their adventures. Every time they get out of touch, they don’t appear to feel sorry about it, and when they see each other again, they are extremely British about it. This also applies to the other characters in my opinion.

** the complete abandonment of the relationship between Arthur and Fenchurch** So, in the first three books, Arthur is like this maladjusted guy, who really doesn’t know what his place in the universe is. This also applies to his personal relationships. Then, he meets a woman that is presented as his soulmate, someone that finally understands him and respects/likes him the way he is. All of a sudden, she disappears into thin air, and she’s only mentioned one more time in the book series. Arthur seems happy to just make sandwiches and doesn’t seem to mourn this loss too much after the initial search. To me, this makes the character rather shallow. I appreciate the author was not trying to write a novel about love in space, or whatever, but still, it feels a bit lacking to me.

I will end my rant here, I am very curious as to your opinions on this matter. Do you feel like I’m just expecting too much from these books or do you tend to agree with these criticisms?

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

You said it yourself: they're extremely British. That's the point; it's a parody of Britishness.

[–] vidarh@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As an example, Arthur and Ford are supposed to be friends, but from the interaction in the book, it seems more like they tolerate each other and don’t really appreciate each other’s presence or influence on their adventures. Every time they get out of touch, they don’t appear to feel sorry about it, and when they see each other again, they are extremely British about it. This also applies to the other characters in my opinion.

From the point of view of having lived 23 years in the UK: So what you're saying is that they're extremely close best friends who can hardly bear to be apart and get exceedingly emotional about it... in a very British way?

Arthur seems happy to just make sandwiches and doesn’t seem to mourn this loss too much after the initial search.

So you're saying he's British. He could be dying inside, and be expressing that by showing absolutely no sign of it and continuing to make sandwiches.

Yes, I'm exaggerating, but so was Adams, and the books were written at a time when this was if anything even more ingrained in British culture.

Also, these are light comedy books, and sci-fi on top of that, neither of which lends themselves to romance.

I've published a couple of novels (don't get excited - they've sold more than average, but the average novel only sells ~200 copies; I've sold in the 4 digits... low 4 digits...) and one reviewer complained the first one had too much romance. It had some tension. No dates, romantic moonlight walks, or even a quick stolen kiss. The second one had a kiss, and I keep wondering how angry that reviewer would've gotten about that. Point being that a certain segment of the key market demographics for sci-fi gets very irate if they have to endure anything resembling romance.

EDIT: Also, to it not having found this yet, just wait a few seconds and try the search button again, and repeat a couple of times if necessary. It usually shows up pretty quickly (but frankly the UI could do with better messaging on that...)

[–] Yantantethera@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Entirely. Missing. The point. Arthur Dent is an anti-hero, he doesn't want superhero status,he wants his semi detached and a cup of tea, whereas ford prefect is an anarchist loafer who wants to do the minimum amount of work and get the maximum amount of recognition, whilst watching the world burn. and yet they are friends, and friends don't expect much of each other, they are there when you need them, with good advice, and peanuts.

[–] BoxerDevil@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

I think what you are seeing as apathy from losing touch with friends and the sudden disappearance of your one true lover, is actually Arthur following the first rule of the Hitchhiker's guide. DONT PANIC. You may lose friends and lovers, but they will come back

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're missing a few key points:

  1. It's a COMEDIC series, not a serious drama. It's Adams taking potshots at things that struck him as funny or upset him. Like the whole "shoe event horizon" thing was an eloquent rant about how he couldn't find shoes that fit one day. (No, really!) The fact that it blew up into this massive thing was an accident, not a design, and he didn't set out to write a Serious SF Series™.

  2. The "Britishness" of the relationships is part of that comedy. He's making fun of Brits' "reserve".

  3. The Fenchurch thing never really fit into the vibe, and given the series' entire schtick of random things occurring out of nowhere and then vanishing into nowhere (like the guy whose every incarnation was killed by Arthur Dent), it's on-point for her to just vanish into nothingness. (And as for his reaction, consult point 2.)

TL;DR Summary

This is a comedic series best viewed as a collection of incoherent, inconsistent vignettes with an underlying theme (kind of like the more serious The Martian Chronicles of Ray Bradbury), not as a serious space drama spread out over books.

[–] NotSpez@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I get what you’re saying. As to point one, I agree. On the other hand, a comedy series with social commentary and philosophical aspects can still contain a lot of character development. For instance, the series Scrubs comes to mind where they definitely pull that off. But I get it’s not the point.

I agree employee number two, mostly on the friendship part.

I have a different opinion on Fenchurch. To me, their whole falling in love process was extremely well written and beautiful. Somehow it shows that someone who can’t find a place to fit in the whole universe in can still find someone to call home, and I thought that was really cool, but I do realize that it’s only my opinion and not a fact.

On another thread, a lemming pointed out that the author was on record, saying, he regretted how he wrote Fenchurch in the fifth book. I couldn’t find the quote in a quick search, but I found something else:

Douglas Adams frequently expressed his disdain for this ending in retrospect, claiming that it was too depressing and came about as the result of him having "a bad year;" "People have said, quite rightly, that Mostly Harmless is a very bleak book. And it was a bleak book. I would love to finish Hitchhiker on a slightly more upbeat note, so five seems to be a wrong kind of number; six is a better kind of number." He had planned to write a sixth book to undo this 'mistake', but never got around to it before his death source

[–] vidarh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Somehow it shows that someone who can’t find a place to fit in the whole universe in can still find someone to call home, and I thought that was really cool, but I do realize that it’s only my opinion and not a fact.

But it's very funny in a very British way that all of this happens, and everything is great and beautiful, and he then loses it all.

British comedy relishes the opportunity to totally pull the rug out under a character whenever they get too happy.

If there isn't an air of light despair about a character, surely that means there is pain and misery coming their way to fix that soon enough.

With respect to Mostly Harmless being bleak, consider that the first book starts with the destruction of the earth, and the deaths of everyone on it. "Less bleak" than Mostly Harmless isn't a happy ending, but one that doesn't so conclusively stomp on every possibility for happiness. Characters should have hope.

It just needs to be lightly stomped on with regularity to remind them that happiness is always temporary, but despair is forever.

But then Eoin Colfer's "And Another Thing..." did a decent job of showing that in a universe as crazy as Hitchikers, there's always another path.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with all you're saying. The books are what they are. Could they be even better? Yes. Are they enjoyable the way they are? Also yes.

I found the 4th book to be a departure from the established tone and the 5th one to be closer to the first three, which helped me not to mourn for Fenchurch that much, but I agree her disappearance feels strange.

What I like about Adams is that he didn't treat his creations as finalized and ultimate. The books are different from the original radio play and the film script is different again. So I think he didn't view it as perfect either. It was more like an evolving organism.

[–] Huxleywaswrite@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The edition I have has some excerpts from an interview he did way back in the day and he talks about how he had to produce different scripts for adaptations and how the story had evolved over time. His solution was when he had to change the script everyone either said the same things for different reasons or different things for the same reasons. It made it feel like the story was always kind of fluid for him.

Edit because lemmy is such a small world and I just found myself agreeing with you again

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's always nice to see a friendly username again. It gives me the urge to wave at the monitor.

[–] seansand@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I enjoy the series much more by just assuming that last book doesn't exist and Arthur and Fenchurch get a happy ending. Er, I mean, what do you mean Fenchurch disappears into thin air?

[–] Mechanismatic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fandom wiki says Adams felt Fenchurch was getting in the way of the story and needed to get rid of her.

[–] NotSpez@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but it also says he later regretted how bleak he made the fifth book. And apparently, they get a different ending in the radio play.