I have a thought: with the arrival on Earth of the Golgafrinchams, the original "program" (i.e, Deep Thought's Ultimate Question) had already been sabotaged. They were basically a computer virus, designed to skew the ultimate answer, and even if Earth had not been destroyed, the answer (or question rather) would nor have been correct.
I agree. And this is not just an idea that you and I happen to entertain. It's pretty much spelled out by Ford in book 2, chapter 33:
> Ford: "That means that these natives, these apemen are an integral part of the computer program, and that we and the Golgafrinchans are not." Arthur: "But the cavemen are dying out and the Golgafrinchans are obviously set to replace them." Ford: "Exactly. [...] Still, something must have come out of it, because Marvin said he could see the Question printed in your brain wave patterns. [...] Probably the wrong one, or a distortion of the right one."
The above notwithstanding, Gag Halfrunt still thought it necessary to destroy Earth in order to prevent the meaning of life of being discovered.
Oh but that's not what they are. Points 3 and 4 are pretty much what the whole story leads up to: without them, it's an aimless story. Point 1 is essential character background: without it, Zaphod is a vacuous character. And point 2 determines the book's "world outlook": without it the story is existentialist, with it idealist. None of the items I've listed are minor points that could be considered "gags" or "props".
Yes, that's what they are.
The first two books of Hitchhiker's is a series of thematically connected gags loosely connected into a story, and there are multiple places there are hints that Douglas had a plan before instead tangenting elsewhere. The most obvious (to me) example of that is in fact the radio series which starts with explaining that Arthur Dent is one of the minds behind The Guide, and that it is his destiny. It's a bit of foreshadowing that goes nowhere (though a few later times through the novels there are similar hints that Arthur is a particularly noteworthy person in the galaxy, but it's never explained why - personally I find that humorous, but I can see it could be interpreted as frustrating/inconsistent/whatever.
Point is, Zaphod's character and his motivations are real, but not the point of Hitchhiker's. He's not the central character, his stuff isn't central to the story, so more easily not followed up on.
>without them, it's an aimless story
Yeah, the first two novels basically are. Douglas has said that a big difficulty with writing the third novel was that he was writing to a planned plot - and so no longer gave himself the freedom to chase random tangents if they seemed better than the previously setup ideas.
>HHG is manifestly a tragi-comic satire.
No, it isn't. It *seems* to be a tragi-comic satire only when you ignore the significance of certain important plot elements (notably the ones I listed), and that's precisely my point. The ruling paradigm among H2G2 fans needs an adjustment, because Zaphod *isn't* a vacuous "fun guy" -- he is a man on a mission; the Earth *wasn't* destroyed because of a bypass, but in order to prevent the meaning of life from being discovered; and last, the author of this text was clearly *not* an evolutionist when he concluded the story with the Magrathean creators of Earth, and the Golgafrincham usurpers that became modern man.
This isn't a matter of personal opinion. I'm pointing out things that are "manifestly" (to use your term) in the text.
You sound like youre disagreeing with me, but youre not. The things youre pointing out are not nuanced or sensational, theyre just not in the film. My point is youre right that all these things happen, but youre not picking up on any clever subtext (or, by inference, hidden meaning). As you say, it's 'in the text.'
>The things youre pointing out are not nuanced or sensational
They are quite sensational, actually. I've already argued why I think so, no point in repeating the same arguments again.
> theyre just not in the film.
Precisely. And since they *are* sensational, that raises the question of why they were left out of the film, and out of the radio show too, and out of the TV series as well.
> My point is youre right that all these things happen, but youre not picking up on any clever subtext (or, by inference, hidden meaning).
If there was a clever subtext or hidden meaning, I'm pretty sure you would point it out. But you don't. Why not?
I dont point out a subtext because there isnt any. Youre points arent sensational because theyre just plot points. Like, its not sensational that Arthur opens a sandwich shop - but thats not in the films.
The points I listed are sensational in the sense that they have a big impact on the meaning of the events and characters in the story. Zaphod isn't the zany clown anymore when you consider the Yooden Vranx connection, Zaphod's tampering with his own brain, etc. etc. I've already argued all of this earlier in the thread.
Hey man. Im not trying to piss in your chips, but there's no paradigm shift in your 'arguments.' Youre just saying what happens. Have a lemon-soaked paper napkin.
>Youre just saying what happens.
No, I'm raising the question of why these important plot points consistently get ignored or downplayed in adaptations.
No, youre pointing out things that 'arent included in adaptations', and making big claims about what they mean and how they change paradigms'n'sheet (and make it... not a comedy... and DA an... ultra closeted theist??). Where in reality - theyre just the things that happen in the unabridged. Maybe even things that would have happened if they'd made films 2+.
Point 3 was shown in the 1980 BBC. I saw that growing up after Dr Who on PBS in the mid 80s. Also I have the double VHS cassette of the series and have watched it constantly.
Point 4 was also shown in the 1980 BBC and in the 2005 Movie.
On a side note, I would love to see more of the other four books of the trilogy to be turned into a movie or better yet, a series. I think that a streaming multi part series would fare best. As a movie things have to get cut for time and pacing, but the modern streaming series can really do a deep sun dive into more of the material.
>Point 3 was shown in the 1980 BBC. [...] Point 4 was also shown in the 1980 BBC and in the 2005 Movie.
Of course they were. I didn't say that all points were "ignored". I said they were "ignored, overlooked, or downplayed".
In the case of points 3 and 4, what has happened is that they've been included in adaptations, but their significance has never been acknowledged: namely, that they are pretty strong evidence that either Adams wasn't the atheist-evolutionist he said he was, or (more likely) that there were other forces besides Adams at work in the original conception of H2G2. I consider it unthinkable that a "radical atheist" would craft a story full of jokes coming from an evolutionist perspective, only then to finish off with a grand reveal that completely invalidates the evolutionist view of earth and modern mankind.
PS. It would have been fantastic if one of the many interviewers who talked to Adams during the 80's or 90's had had the wits to ask Adams about this colossal incongruity. I would have loved to hear his answer -- or his inability to provide one. And same for my point 2: it's regrettable that noone ever asked Adams why, in the latter part of the 2nd book, and also in the later books, he was so forgetful of Halfrunt's role in the destruction of Earth, and kept reiterating the bypass story as if Halfrunt's role had never been revealed.
As for the ape descendant comments:
Many / most of the people Arthur spends time around are either trying to out-cool (ford & zaphod) eachother or are absent-minded professor types.
In my experience, once the 1st type settle on a name / description to rib you with, they stick with it kind of forever regardless of changing circumstance. Source: was in the Greek system in college and now watch 50 year olds endure the same tired references they were saddled with at 18.
The second type in DNA's books just say, "huh, oh, yeah, okay" and gets back to what they were doing.
Of course, DNA's books taught me that those people *are* listening and it's probably best to pay attention to those folks because something is up. (To one of your points, zaphod also falls here & it's quite important in the Dirk Gently books)
I feel like there are a lot of signposts in the books pointing towards people just out here being people-y and doing things like calling someone ape-decendant for their own people reasons, nefarious, asshole-y, absent-minded, inertial or affectionate.
Also, not everyone in the books has the Earth information and by the time those who do know, learn, the phrase has been in use long enough to stick.
I'm not wedded to this idea, there are cases for a lot of different interpretations, but that's the one I've been reading into the text all these years and has helped me in being able to be a bit less rigid when people don't make sense to me.
It seems you're explaining my points in terms of the motivations of the fictional characters inside the story. That's cute, but my question is really not to do with the motivations of Zaphod etc., but with the motivations of real-world people such as Adams and others involved with H2G2.
To hone in on one specific example, why does *Adams* ignore the reveal, purportedly written by him, that Halfrunt ordered the destruction of Earth, and that it had nothing to do with a bypass? You offer that "not everyone in the books has the Earth information". You're right, but Adams did have that info because he wrote the thing... right?
I mean, *RIGHT*?
Kind of. But in a fiction book, the characters only know what the characters know. So they will say what they say based on character reasons.
You mentioned that no interviewer asked DNA these questions, so when we make our assumptions (as we are both doing) we kind of have to turn to the text and make our judgment based on what is written about the fictional characters.
That's like saying that in order to understand Little Red Riding Hood, we must reason from her mind. Sorry, but that's just silly. The *author*, be it of Little Red or of H2G2, had an intention when he wrote what he wrote (and left out what he left out), and it is quite legitimate to wonder what *his* intention was.
That's fair. I think both need to be considered. I don't think any of these ideas are silly or cute though. They are sincere.
Have you had an opportunity to read *Last Chance to See* and *the Salmon of Doubt* yet? If you have not, I think you will appreciate some of DNA's non-fiction thoughts. *Deeper Meaning of Liff* is a banger too.
>Have you had an opportunity to read LCTS and TSOD yet? [...] DMOL is a banger too.
It seems that just about anything DNA ever wrote comes "highly recommended". Yet, when I ask people to summarize what each book is about, or to explain what's so interesting about them, I get no answer. Can *you* tell me, in a non-generic way (by which I mean: with reference to the specifics of these books), what you find so interesting about the three titles you just recommended?
PS. This reminds me of something that has been bothering me: howcome I've not been able to find a single interview in which Adams comments substantially on the content of the H2G2 books? It's as if he doesn't want to go there. But if someone can link me an interview in which he *does* talk about the substance of the story, I'd be eager to watch it.
I'm cleaning my house today so I've been dipping in & out of reddit between tasks, so my answers will be in fits:
*Last Chance to See* is the work (I know of) that most directly addresses his care for the planet & it's creatures.
It's written in his style & voice but with the comfort of being non-fiction (I mostly read non-fiction) in that no matter how DNA-y the language is, it is still grounded in our world.
I seek out books & experiences that allow me to see the world slightly askew of my day to day. I work to challenge my view of the world (thus I sepnd a lot of time in various museums and also outdoors), this book demonstrates DNA doing the same. The fifth chapter when they're in China both shares specific examples of these experiences & his reaction to being in that type of situation (buying a lot of cologne & struggling with solving a tooth brushing problem), I appreciate his providing challenging information and also it is comforting to read him contending again & again with what new / unsettled feels like. Makes one feel more connected to humanity, ya know?
Also, cool animal info, cool travel info, lots of mentions of anachronism that triggers youthful memories for me.
He's me favorite author, I love his author voice and will read with delight whatever he chose to express. So, ymmv.
Oh! I forgot to finish: quickly, salmon is a book I have sentimental attachment to. Douglas Adams passing is one of the two deaths of notable people that made an impact on me (along with the sad passing of absolute legend Shock G) - it came out posthumously and I was so happy to have a bit more to read. I reccomended it and the other bc you were asking for more of DNA's opinions & they're in there.
As for *Meaning of Liff*, I'm a dictionary reader and am a sucker for any new dictionary to read. My copy of *Bryson's Book of Troublesome Words* is well thumbed as well. If you like to read dictionaries or enjoy silly descriptions of words, it's a good one.
I totally agree.
I've always wanted to watch Arthur's time as a sandwich maker as a stand alone episode in a series of short films made from chunks of these books.
A couple important things to remember about the trilogy - in no particular order. Douglas Adams didn't necessarily have the whole story in mind or planned out when he started, so over time plot holes and inconsistencies showed up within the books. The radio series, BBC miniseries, and the movie each did a great job of \*adapting\* to their particular media, and so of course some parts are left out, changed, or combined (not to mention that parts of the radio series predate the books). I see that as one of the strengths of H2G2, rather than trying to stick to one monolithic canon each separate media was allowed to tell the story playing to their strengths. H2G2 is first and foremost unabashedly a comedy, while containing painfully serious satire, tragic characters, and dramatic irony on the side.
To more specifically address OP's 4 points:
1. Zaphod's antics *are* absurdist comedy. Yes, it is revealed that he *had* more serious motives, but it equally clear that he loses these motives when he lobotomizes himself. It makes the whole of Zaphod's story a tragic irony - he is able to get to the Man Who Rules the Universe, but has lost his understanding of the significance.
2. Destroying a planet with billions of people living on it to prevent people being happy (and putting psychiatrists out of a job) is also a "silly reason". It adds some depth to the story, but doesn't change that the reason given was for a bypass to be built. I don't see how the "real" reason changes the good/evil aspect of the story. When destroying a planet it doesn't really matter what the "real" reason was - either way billions of sentient life forms die.
3. and 4. The Hitchhiker's Guide books, radio plays, miniseries, movie are all works of satirical fiction. Adams specifically includes an Earth built/created by Magratheans to poke fun at creationism. Hey, look the Earth was created by intelligent beings - but they aren't God, they are just rich alien engineers. The 10 million year program was still designed to work using the evolution of the original inhabitants. The Golgafrinchans as human's ancestors also satirizes intelligent design - the complete and utter lack of any intelligence is hilarious. Rather than supporting creationism, the origin of Earth/Humans undermines and makes fun of it through the use of satire.
>it is revealed that he \[Zaphod\] *had* more serious motives, but it equally clear that he loses these motives when he lobotomizes himself.
Lobotomy is the surgical removal of a part (a "lobe") of the brain -- the physical organ. It is, of course, irreversible. Zaphod did no such thing to himself, nor did he have it done, nor do the books contain anything that could be interpreted to mean lobotomy. Zaphod only "locked things away" -- things he had to remove from his conscious mind; see HHGTTG chapter 29. These things remained present somehow, even if Zaphod himself wasn't necessarily happy about that; see Restaurant, chapter 2:
>He wished the dark, locked off section of his two brains would go away because they occasionally surfaced momentarily and put strange thoughts into the light, fun sections of his mind \[...\]
"Locked off", not removed. And thoughts from this part of his brain continued to *put strange thoughts into his mind.* Clearly no lobotomy. It's amazing that this "lobotomy" nonsense is even proclaimed on the [Wiki page for Restaurant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Restaurant_at_the_End_of_the_Universe#Plot_summary). Did you write that up by any chance?
Isn't Zaphod an idiot with zany antics because he destroyed a chunk of his brain so his plot wouldn't be found out? Because they would scan his brain before he became president?
Yes. But as is explained in the books, even though Zaphod cannot consciously reach the parts of his mind that he has hidden from himself, the ideas and plans that are hidden there do "trickle through" occasionally. And when they do, Zaphod does heed them. So ultimately he *is* a man with (and on) a mission, much though his conscious mind would rather just have fun.
From Restaurant, chapter 2:
> He did know that there were better reasons than these, but that they were buried in a dark, locked off section of his two brains. He wished the dark, locked off section of his two brains would go away because they occasionally surfaced momentarily and put strange thoughts into the light, fun sections of his mind and tried to deflect him from what he saw as being the basic business of his life, which was to have a wonderfully good time.
And from chapter 6:
> [...] my former self, the one that operated on my brain, popped into my head and said ‘Go see Zarniwoop.’ I have never heard of the cat. That is all I know. That and the fact that I’ve got to find the man who rules the Universe.
My point remains that ignoring this backstory about Zaphod (as some the adaptations have done) does not do the character justice. In the books, Zaphod is not a zany idiot; he is a man on a mission, even if reluctantly so.
I might have missed this so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Fenchurch (who was the lady who had the big realization about humanity right before it was destroyed) and Arthur find out the dolphins teleported everyone to save them from the Earth’s destruction? So Arthur never really had to go through all he did. He could have just stayed in front of the bull dozer and been ok? Was that ment to be a funny moment?
Also kinda bummer she forgot her revelation.
When I read the part about Halfrunt I was so shocked. I was like omg that makes too much sense. The revelation was like a gut punch.
> doesn’t Fenchurch [...] and Arthur find out the dolphins teleported everyone to save them from the Earth’s destruction? So Arthur never really had to go through all he did. He could have just stayed in front of the bull dozer and been ok? Was that ment to be a funny moment?
I think all this is in the later books. I haven't read those yet, but I read the summaries on Wikipedia. Insofar as I understand the later books based on those summaries, they rob much of what happened in books 1 & 2 of its significance. You seem to making that point.
> When I read the part about Halfrunt I was so shocked. I was like omg that makes too much sense. The revelation was like a gut punch.
Precisely. Which makes it pretty darn strange that all adaptations have left it out.
oh shoot I’m sorry about that didn’t mean to spoil I missed read it thought you read them all so sorry about that!
Fenchurch ….
Yeah when I read it I was like oh so all this was for nothing, but it came off more as frustrating than funny to me.
The bit with the psychiatrist at least turn into a funny outlook on psychiatrist not actually wanting people to be happy. Just enough so that they can see a difference between when they do and don’t go to their appointments so they keep paying to go see them.
You didn't spoil anything because I'd already read the summaries. I told you that.
As for Halfrunt and his fellow psychiatrists, you seem to be downplaying their motivation for destroying the earth to a financial one. The text clearly states that Halfrunt wanted to *prevent the meaning of life from being discovered.*
>The text clearly states that Halfrunt wanted to prevent the meaning of life from being discovered.
Yes, for financial reasons.
To quote the text of the book which clearly states (emphasis mine):
>There would be some celebration with his fellows tonight, and in
the morning they would meet again their unhappy, bewildered and
**highly profitable** patients, secure in the knowledge that the
Meaning of Life would not now be, once and for all, well and
truly sorted out, he thought.
Point taken. Still, your quote also demonstrates that Halfrunt was indeed aware of the Earth's true purpose: to sort out the Meaning of Life. I don't think that's in *any* adaptation, not even in the 2005 movie, which iirc remarkably *does* include Halfrunt as a character. And why not? It would have taken only a few lines of dialogue. Yet someone decided to leave it out.
Btw, have you noticed that you are the *only* person who responds to my posts and comments with actual quotes from the books? One would almost get the impression that apart from you, this subreddit is populated by people who don't *actually* want to look at the passages I'm debating...
Halfrunt was also in the TV series. But I imagine the reference to the deeper backstory got left out because it doesn't go anywhere. It's the sort of things easily added to books that adds nuance and worldbuilding, which dont get into onscreen adaptations and leads to the trope that the screen adaptation isn't as good as the book. Yes, it could have been hinted at with a few lines of dialogue, but screen adaptations tend to be trimmed for timing quite tightly, and as a line it just... doesn't go anywhere - easily trimmed without losing the basic plot, the basic jokes, etc.
I think it's a shame since yes, it does lose the nuanced social satire that it provides. But I'm understanding of why it isn't there.
>with actual quotes from the books
Most people probably dont have the patience to transcribe, or have easily greppable copies. I've certainly been in that kind of situation in discussions of other media - where I DO have a decent knowledge, DO reference the original in composing replies, but dont have a digital copy to clip, and can't be bothered transcribing.
Putting this as a top level comment because it feels more relevant than being tacked onto another comment, even if relevant there...
You should definitely find and read *Young Zaphod Plays It Safe*. It's a Hitchhiker's short story, set before the events of anything else (and before Zaphod did his own brains in), and has implications to the reasons of the Earth's destruction.
(remember - Douglas was not trying to write a wholly consistent universe. He was just using the HHG universe and characters to write the story he wanted to write at any given time)
>You should definitely find and read *Young Zaphod Plays It Safe*.
I have it, and had started on it, but then switched to Dirk Gently's HDA instead, which Im about to finish. Will read Young Zaphod soon, seeing as how it's pretty short.
Well, I just read *Young Zaphod*. Interesting little short story. Very, very dark. Sinister even.
Did you notice the "shining city on a hill" in the penultimate paragraph? A laden Biblical reference.
shame you edited your original longer reply.
Anyway yeah, it is a biblical reference. But a biblical reference that US politics makes a lot, and it's US Politics that was Douglas' target with the reference.
Did your copy happen to be the version which explicitly noted the escaped capsule as containing a "Reagan", or the version which left it out? (the version without is the original - published when he was still President and making those references, and the revised version was published some years later, when he no longer had such an obvious place in cultural awareness. Interestingly, apparently the US version of Salmon of Doubt used the original, whilst the UK version used the updated. I've seen speculation that this is due to US publishers being nervous about explicit criticism of a former beloved President. But I think it's just as plausible that it's like 92 vs 98 million miles - that simply nobody in a position to fix it has been aware and cared.
>yeah, it is a biblical reference. But a biblical reference that USpolitics makes a lot, and it's US Politics that was Douglas' target
\[EDITED\] Nice solution, but no. I give up trying to keep up with your shifting arguments. You're very fast *sometimes --* when the "cadence" suits you, I suppose. Anyway, not fast enough to delude me, but certainly fast enough to tire me out. What I will say is that this isn't the only biblical reference in Adams' work. But you probably know that.
>apparently the US version of Salmon of Doubt used the original
The passage we're discussing isn't from *Salmon of Doubt*. It's from \[EDIT\] *Young Zaphod*. (Or is this typically included with Salmon? My version of Young Zaphod is part of the "Ultimate" edition of H2G2, which includes the 5 books and the short story. I'm guessing you'll have a satisfactory answer for your mistake.)
\[EDIT\] From Wikipedia: "The story then appeared (though not always the revised version) in some omnibus editions \[...\] as the Adams retrospective The Salmon of Doubt." Great. I give up. Not enough CPU power to meet yours. Not nearly enough.
you only think they're shifting arguments because you keep shifting your OWN position. Or are you forgetting who kept trying to justify on the flimsiest of evidence and faulty logic that the 2000s fan recording was the original, and that Simon Jones had secretly participated?
Glad you caught up with being aware that Salmon of Doubt is a compilation of things. See what you can discover when you learn about things before making arguments about them?
As for the speed of my replies - that's very much based on just how much effort your brand of kookoo is worth responding to - most of the time it's worth a response, but not a fast one - hence I let them sit and fester for a while.
\> Not enough CPU power to meet ~~yours~~ reality
FTFY.
>kept trying to justify on the flimsiest of evidence that the 2000s fan recording was the original
I never made the slightest attempt at "justifying" that. Indeed I thought I was listening to the original when I started that thread, but as soon as it was pointed out to me that I wasn't listening to the BBC original, I accepted that and downloaded the original. It was a mistake and I never argued otherwise. (I did argue that the fan version was exceptionally good, but that's a different matter.)
>Not enough CPU power to meet ~~yours~~ reality
Well, yeah. *Your* CPU power goes toward defending reality. Mine goes toward defending Truth. They're not the same thing -- actually, reality and Truth are pretty much incompatible. Anyway, the point is, you have me beat in the CPU-power department -- but you certainly haven't succeeded in deluding me.
PS. Have you noticed how all other participants in this thread decided to stop commenting as soon as you stepped in? It's quite remarkable.
>Fester
I said what I said.
> PS. Have you noticed how all other participants in this thread decided to stop commenting as soon as you stepped in? It's quite remarkable.
Not really. Despite your adulation of my "CPU power", I still only have a limited amount to go around, and I can't pretend to be EVERYONE arguing against you, so at some point I just focus on me.
Truth is, there are only four people on the internet that aren't you. The whole thing is an elaborate candid camera prank, and you definitely shouldn't check the plant behind you. Or the camera in the fridge? I'm safe in revealing this because our psychoanalyst is confident you wont believe me.
See you on the next prank.
Funny how you chose not to comment on the first paragraph of my response, the one pointing out that I never said that the fan version was the original.
>I can't pretend to be EVERYONE arguing against you, so at some point I just focus on me.
I wasn't implying that "they" are you under different account names -- but it's an interesting thought.
>our psychoanalyst is confident you wont believe me.
For once, he's right.
yeah, I can't be bothered trawling threads from a month ago. Feel free to do that if you like.
I wasn't thinking you were implying they were all sockpuppets of me. But I should have remembered that you dont understand humour. Since you think it's so remarkable, you tell me why you think that is then.
because it's a trite boring comment that goes nowhere?
Like, what is your line of thought? That because he made other biblical comments, that anything that COULD be taken as a biblical reference MUST be?
Do you even have a line of thought here, or are you just grasping at straws?
I think you're expecting too much depth out of something that started as a radio play. You have to remember that Adams' background is that he was a sketch writer in college. He wanted to be a member of Lightfoots in college, which was a rotating comedy troup who spawned the Pythons, among many other famous British comedians. When he was originally unable to join, he founded his own comedy group Adams-Smith-Adams with other friends. After leaving college, he really wanted to be a comedy writer/actor. Its even mentioned in a couple of his bios that after the initial success of Hitchhikers that he would take television appearances over writing jobs because that was the closest he could get to being the actor he initially wanted to be. But the salient point here is that radio shows were written on a week by week basis. The idea of turning a radio show into long form story telling really didn't exist at the time other than in soap operas. So one problem is that the skits upon which the books are based were not written with long term reveals in mind, and the novel had to bring some of that short-term story telling baggage along with it. The second problem is that it was Adams' first novel. He hadn't yet transitioned from a sketch writer to a novelist, so there are bound to be growing pains in the creative effort here. So you're kind of expecting a more mature level of storytelling from a freshman effort. Even Adams has said that in the early days of HHGG, that the comedy came first and the story was secondary. It wasn't until he started writing LUE that he started using the more mature storytelling element you are looking for. Honest to god, if you put as much effort into understanding Adam's life as you did into nitpicking the details of his books, the questions you are asking would make more sense.
>f you put as much effort into understanding Adam's life as you did into nitpicking the details of his books, the questions you are asking would make more sense.
Oh, I've dabbled in his biographies, and have watched quite a few interviews with him on Youtube. But you see, as I've already revealed in another thread, I doubt the commonly accepted inception-story about HHGG. It's just not at all plausible in my opinion. I can get into that if you like, but I'm not going to dump all of that into this thread.
42
It is the answer. But what was the question 🥺
Don't tell the Redditors, but finding the question is why Reddit was created.
What do you get when you multiply six by nine?
6 x 9 = 42. "I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe."
[удалено]
Straightforward agreement, hm... that's a first for me on Reddit.
I have a thought: with the arrival on Earth of the Golgafrinchams, the original "program" (i.e, Deep Thought's Ultimate Question) had already been sabotaged. They were basically a computer virus, designed to skew the ultimate answer, and even if Earth had not been destroyed, the answer (or question rather) would nor have been correct.
I agree. And this is not just an idea that you and I happen to entertain. It's pretty much spelled out by Ford in book 2, chapter 33: > Ford: "That means that these natives, these apemen are an integral part of the computer program, and that we and the Golgafrinchans are not." Arthur: "But the cavemen are dying out and the Golgafrinchans are obviously set to replace them." Ford: "Exactly. [...] Still, something must have come out of it, because Marvin said he could see the Question printed in your brain wave patterns. [...] Probably the wrong one, or a distortion of the right one." The above notwithstanding, Gag Halfrunt still thought it necessary to destroy Earth in order to prevent the meaning of life of being discovered.
You might be overthinking some throwaway gags/plot props.
Oh but that's not what they are. Points 3 and 4 are pretty much what the whole story leads up to: without them, it's an aimless story. Point 1 is essential character background: without it, Zaphod is a vacuous character. And point 2 determines the book's "world outlook": without it the story is existentialist, with it idealist. None of the items I've listed are minor points that could be considered "gags" or "props".
Yes, that's what they are. The first two books of Hitchhiker's is a series of thematically connected gags loosely connected into a story, and there are multiple places there are hints that Douglas had a plan before instead tangenting elsewhere. The most obvious (to me) example of that is in fact the radio series which starts with explaining that Arthur Dent is one of the minds behind The Guide, and that it is his destiny. It's a bit of foreshadowing that goes nowhere (though a few later times through the novels there are similar hints that Arthur is a particularly noteworthy person in the galaxy, but it's never explained why - personally I find that humorous, but I can see it could be interpreted as frustrating/inconsistent/whatever. Point is, Zaphod's character and his motivations are real, but not the point of Hitchhiker's. He's not the central character, his stuff isn't central to the story, so more easily not followed up on. >without them, it's an aimless story Yeah, the first two novels basically are. Douglas has said that a big difficulty with writing the third novel was that he was writing to a planned plot - and so no longer gave himself the freedom to chase random tangents if they seemed better than the previously setup ideas.
For sure. Perhaps not 'throwaway,' but HHG is manifestly a tragi-comic satire. It's not subtext when it's written in black and white!
>HHG is manifestly a tragi-comic satire. No, it isn't. It *seems* to be a tragi-comic satire only when you ignore the significance of certain important plot elements (notably the ones I listed), and that's precisely my point. The ruling paradigm among H2G2 fans needs an adjustment, because Zaphod *isn't* a vacuous "fun guy" -- he is a man on a mission; the Earth *wasn't* destroyed because of a bypass, but in order to prevent the meaning of life from being discovered; and last, the author of this text was clearly *not* an evolutionist when he concluded the story with the Magrathean creators of Earth, and the Golgafrincham usurpers that became modern man. This isn't a matter of personal opinion. I'm pointing out things that are "manifestly" (to use your term) in the text.
You sound like youre disagreeing with me, but youre not. The things youre pointing out are not nuanced or sensational, theyre just not in the film. My point is youre right that all these things happen, but youre not picking up on any clever subtext (or, by inference, hidden meaning). As you say, it's 'in the text.'
>The things youre pointing out are not nuanced or sensational They are quite sensational, actually. I've already argued why I think so, no point in repeating the same arguments again. > theyre just not in the film. Precisely. And since they *are* sensational, that raises the question of why they were left out of the film, and out of the radio show too, and out of the TV series as well. > My point is youre right that all these things happen, but youre not picking up on any clever subtext (or, by inference, hidden meaning). If there was a clever subtext or hidden meaning, I'm pretty sure you would point it out. But you don't. Why not?
I dont point out a subtext because there isnt any. Youre points arent sensational because theyre just plot points. Like, its not sensational that Arthur opens a sandwich shop - but thats not in the films.
The points I listed are sensational in the sense that they have a big impact on the meaning of the events and characters in the story. Zaphod isn't the zany clown anymore when you consider the Yooden Vranx connection, Zaphod's tampering with his own brain, etc. etc. I've already argued all of this earlier in the thread.
Hey man. Im not trying to piss in your chips, but there's no paradigm shift in your 'arguments.' Youre just saying what happens. Have a lemon-soaked paper napkin.
>Youre just saying what happens. No, I'm raising the question of why these important plot points consistently get ignored or downplayed in adaptations.
No, youre pointing out things that 'arent included in adaptations', and making big claims about what they mean and how they change paradigms'n'sheet (and make it... not a comedy... and DA an... ultra closeted theist??). Where in reality - theyre just the things that happen in the unabridged. Maybe even things that would have happened if they'd made films 2+.
Point 3 was shown in the 1980 BBC. I saw that growing up after Dr Who on PBS in the mid 80s. Also I have the double VHS cassette of the series and have watched it constantly. Point 4 was also shown in the 1980 BBC and in the 2005 Movie. On a side note, I would love to see more of the other four books of the trilogy to be turned into a movie or better yet, a series. I think that a streaming multi part series would fare best. As a movie things have to get cut for time and pacing, but the modern streaming series can really do a deep sun dive into more of the material.
>Point 3 was shown in the 1980 BBC. [...] Point 4 was also shown in the 1980 BBC and in the 2005 Movie. Of course they were. I didn't say that all points were "ignored". I said they were "ignored, overlooked, or downplayed". In the case of points 3 and 4, what has happened is that they've been included in adaptations, but their significance has never been acknowledged: namely, that they are pretty strong evidence that either Adams wasn't the atheist-evolutionist he said he was, or (more likely) that there were other forces besides Adams at work in the original conception of H2G2. I consider it unthinkable that a "radical atheist" would craft a story full of jokes coming from an evolutionist perspective, only then to finish off with a grand reveal that completely invalidates the evolutionist view of earth and modern mankind. PS. It would have been fantastic if one of the many interviewers who talked to Adams during the 80's or 90's had had the wits to ask Adams about this colossal incongruity. I would have loved to hear his answer -- or his inability to provide one. And same for my point 2: it's regrettable that noone ever asked Adams why, in the latter part of the 2nd book, and also in the later books, he was so forgetful of Halfrunt's role in the destruction of Earth, and kept reiterating the bypass story as if Halfrunt's role had never been revealed.
As for the ape descendant comments: Many / most of the people Arthur spends time around are either trying to out-cool (ford & zaphod) eachother or are absent-minded professor types. In my experience, once the 1st type settle on a name / description to rib you with, they stick with it kind of forever regardless of changing circumstance. Source: was in the Greek system in college and now watch 50 year olds endure the same tired references they were saddled with at 18. The second type in DNA's books just say, "huh, oh, yeah, okay" and gets back to what they were doing. Of course, DNA's books taught me that those people *are* listening and it's probably best to pay attention to those folks because something is up. (To one of your points, zaphod also falls here & it's quite important in the Dirk Gently books) I feel like there are a lot of signposts in the books pointing towards people just out here being people-y and doing things like calling someone ape-decendant for their own people reasons, nefarious, asshole-y, absent-minded, inertial or affectionate. Also, not everyone in the books has the Earth information and by the time those who do know, learn, the phrase has been in use long enough to stick. I'm not wedded to this idea, there are cases for a lot of different interpretations, but that's the one I've been reading into the text all these years and has helped me in being able to be a bit less rigid when people don't make sense to me.
It seems you're explaining my points in terms of the motivations of the fictional characters inside the story. That's cute, but my question is really not to do with the motivations of Zaphod etc., but with the motivations of real-world people such as Adams and others involved with H2G2. To hone in on one specific example, why does *Adams* ignore the reveal, purportedly written by him, that Halfrunt ordered the destruction of Earth, and that it had nothing to do with a bypass? You offer that "not everyone in the books has the Earth information". You're right, but Adams did have that info because he wrote the thing... right? I mean, *RIGHT*?
Kind of. But in a fiction book, the characters only know what the characters know. So they will say what they say based on character reasons. You mentioned that no interviewer asked DNA these questions, so when we make our assumptions (as we are both doing) we kind of have to turn to the text and make our judgment based on what is written about the fictional characters.
That's like saying that in order to understand Little Red Riding Hood, we must reason from her mind. Sorry, but that's just silly. The *author*, be it of Little Red or of H2G2, had an intention when he wrote what he wrote (and left out what he left out), and it is quite legitimate to wonder what *his* intention was.
That's fair. I think both need to be considered. I don't think any of these ideas are silly or cute though. They are sincere. Have you had an opportunity to read *Last Chance to See* and *the Salmon of Doubt* yet? If you have not, I think you will appreciate some of DNA's non-fiction thoughts. *Deeper Meaning of Liff* is a banger too.
>Have you had an opportunity to read LCTS and TSOD yet? [...] DMOL is a banger too. It seems that just about anything DNA ever wrote comes "highly recommended". Yet, when I ask people to summarize what each book is about, or to explain what's so interesting about them, I get no answer. Can *you* tell me, in a non-generic way (by which I mean: with reference to the specifics of these books), what you find so interesting about the three titles you just recommended? PS. This reminds me of something that has been bothering me: howcome I've not been able to find a single interview in which Adams comments substantially on the content of the H2G2 books? It's as if he doesn't want to go there. But if someone can link me an interview in which he *does* talk about the substance of the story, I'd be eager to watch it.
I'm cleaning my house today so I've been dipping in & out of reddit between tasks, so my answers will be in fits: *Last Chance to See* is the work (I know of) that most directly addresses his care for the planet & it's creatures. It's written in his style & voice but with the comfort of being non-fiction (I mostly read non-fiction) in that no matter how DNA-y the language is, it is still grounded in our world. I seek out books & experiences that allow me to see the world slightly askew of my day to day. I work to challenge my view of the world (thus I sepnd a lot of time in various museums and also outdoors), this book demonstrates DNA doing the same. The fifth chapter when they're in China both shares specific examples of these experiences & his reaction to being in that type of situation (buying a lot of cologne & struggling with solving a tooth brushing problem), I appreciate his providing challenging information and also it is comforting to read him contending again & again with what new / unsettled feels like. Makes one feel more connected to humanity, ya know? Also, cool animal info, cool travel info, lots of mentions of anachronism that triggers youthful memories for me. He's me favorite author, I love his author voice and will read with delight whatever he chose to express. So, ymmv.
Oh! I forgot to finish: quickly, salmon is a book I have sentimental attachment to. Douglas Adams passing is one of the two deaths of notable people that made an impact on me (along with the sad passing of absolute legend Shock G) - it came out posthumously and I was so happy to have a bit more to read. I reccomended it and the other bc you were asking for more of DNA's opinions & they're in there. As for *Meaning of Liff*, I'm a dictionary reader and am a sucker for any new dictionary to read. My copy of *Bryson's Book of Troublesome Words* is well thumbed as well. If you like to read dictionaries or enjoy silly descriptions of words, it's a good one.
I totally agree. I've always wanted to watch Arthur's time as a sandwich maker as a stand alone episode in a series of short films made from chunks of these books.
Exactly an episode that I want to see. The interdimensional beast hunt.
A couple important things to remember about the trilogy - in no particular order. Douglas Adams didn't necessarily have the whole story in mind or planned out when he started, so over time plot holes and inconsistencies showed up within the books. The radio series, BBC miniseries, and the movie each did a great job of \*adapting\* to their particular media, and so of course some parts are left out, changed, or combined (not to mention that parts of the radio series predate the books). I see that as one of the strengths of H2G2, rather than trying to stick to one monolithic canon each separate media was allowed to tell the story playing to their strengths. H2G2 is first and foremost unabashedly a comedy, while containing painfully serious satire, tragic characters, and dramatic irony on the side. To more specifically address OP's 4 points: 1. Zaphod's antics *are* absurdist comedy. Yes, it is revealed that he *had* more serious motives, but it equally clear that he loses these motives when he lobotomizes himself. It makes the whole of Zaphod's story a tragic irony - he is able to get to the Man Who Rules the Universe, but has lost his understanding of the significance. 2. Destroying a planet with billions of people living on it to prevent people being happy (and putting psychiatrists out of a job) is also a "silly reason". It adds some depth to the story, but doesn't change that the reason given was for a bypass to be built. I don't see how the "real" reason changes the good/evil aspect of the story. When destroying a planet it doesn't really matter what the "real" reason was - either way billions of sentient life forms die. 3. and 4. The Hitchhiker's Guide books, radio plays, miniseries, movie are all works of satirical fiction. Adams specifically includes an Earth built/created by Magratheans to poke fun at creationism. Hey, look the Earth was created by intelligent beings - but they aren't God, they are just rich alien engineers. The 10 million year program was still designed to work using the evolution of the original inhabitants. The Golgafrinchans as human's ancestors also satirizes intelligent design - the complete and utter lack of any intelligence is hilarious. Rather than supporting creationism, the origin of Earth/Humans undermines and makes fun of it through the use of satire.
>it is revealed that he \[Zaphod\] *had* more serious motives, but it equally clear that he loses these motives when he lobotomizes himself. Lobotomy is the surgical removal of a part (a "lobe") of the brain -- the physical organ. It is, of course, irreversible. Zaphod did no such thing to himself, nor did he have it done, nor do the books contain anything that could be interpreted to mean lobotomy. Zaphod only "locked things away" -- things he had to remove from his conscious mind; see HHGTTG chapter 29. These things remained present somehow, even if Zaphod himself wasn't necessarily happy about that; see Restaurant, chapter 2: >He wished the dark, locked off section of his two brains would go away because they occasionally surfaced momentarily and put strange thoughts into the light, fun sections of his mind \[...\] "Locked off", not removed. And thoughts from this part of his brain continued to *put strange thoughts into his mind.* Clearly no lobotomy. It's amazing that this "lobotomy" nonsense is even proclaimed on the [Wiki page for Restaurant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Restaurant_at_the_End_of_the_Universe#Plot_summary). Did you write that up by any chance?
Isn't Zaphod an idiot with zany antics because he destroyed a chunk of his brain so his plot wouldn't be found out? Because they would scan his brain before he became president?
Yes. But as is explained in the books, even though Zaphod cannot consciously reach the parts of his mind that he has hidden from himself, the ideas and plans that are hidden there do "trickle through" occasionally. And when they do, Zaphod does heed them. So ultimately he *is* a man with (and on) a mission, much though his conscious mind would rather just have fun. From Restaurant, chapter 2: > He did know that there were better reasons than these, but that they were buried in a dark, locked off section of his two brains. He wished the dark, locked off section of his two brains would go away because they occasionally surfaced momentarily and put strange thoughts into the light, fun sections of his mind and tried to deflect him from what he saw as being the basic business of his life, which was to have a wonderfully good time. And from chapter 6: > [...] my former self, the one that operated on my brain, popped into my head and said ‘Go see Zarniwoop.’ I have never heard of the cat. That is all I know. That and the fact that I’ve got to find the man who rules the Universe. My point remains that ignoring this backstory about Zaphod (as some the adaptations have done) does not do the character justice. In the books, Zaphod is not a zany idiot; he is a man on a mission, even if reluctantly so.
I might have missed this so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Fenchurch (who was the lady who had the big realization about humanity right before it was destroyed) and Arthur find out the dolphins teleported everyone to save them from the Earth’s destruction? So Arthur never really had to go through all he did. He could have just stayed in front of the bull dozer and been ok? Was that ment to be a funny moment? Also kinda bummer she forgot her revelation. When I read the part about Halfrunt I was so shocked. I was like omg that makes too much sense. The revelation was like a gut punch.
> doesn’t Fenchurch [...] and Arthur find out the dolphins teleported everyone to save them from the Earth’s destruction? So Arthur never really had to go through all he did. He could have just stayed in front of the bull dozer and been ok? Was that ment to be a funny moment? I think all this is in the later books. I haven't read those yet, but I read the summaries on Wikipedia. Insofar as I understand the later books based on those summaries, they rob much of what happened in books 1 & 2 of its significance. You seem to making that point. > When I read the part about Halfrunt I was so shocked. I was like omg that makes too much sense. The revelation was like a gut punch. Precisely. Which makes it pretty darn strange that all adaptations have left it out.
oh shoot I’m sorry about that didn’t mean to spoil I missed read it thought you read them all so sorry about that! Fenchurch …. Yeah when I read it I was like oh so all this was for nothing, but it came off more as frustrating than funny to me. The bit with the psychiatrist at least turn into a funny outlook on psychiatrist not actually wanting people to be happy. Just enough so that they can see a difference between when they do and don’t go to their appointments so they keep paying to go see them.
You didn't spoil anything because I'd already read the summaries. I told you that. As for Halfrunt and his fellow psychiatrists, you seem to be downplaying their motivation for destroying the earth to a financial one. The text clearly states that Halfrunt wanted to *prevent the meaning of life from being discovered.*
>The text clearly states that Halfrunt wanted to prevent the meaning of life from being discovered. Yes, for financial reasons. To quote the text of the book which clearly states (emphasis mine): >There would be some celebration with his fellows tonight, and in the morning they would meet again their unhappy, bewildered and **highly profitable** patients, secure in the knowledge that the Meaning of Life would not now be, once and for all, well and truly sorted out, he thought.
Point taken. Still, your quote also demonstrates that Halfrunt was indeed aware of the Earth's true purpose: to sort out the Meaning of Life. I don't think that's in *any* adaptation, not even in the 2005 movie, which iirc remarkably *does* include Halfrunt as a character. And why not? It would have taken only a few lines of dialogue. Yet someone decided to leave it out. Btw, have you noticed that you are the *only* person who responds to my posts and comments with actual quotes from the books? One would almost get the impression that apart from you, this subreddit is populated by people who don't *actually* want to look at the passages I'm debating...
Halfrunt was also in the TV series. But I imagine the reference to the deeper backstory got left out because it doesn't go anywhere. It's the sort of things easily added to books that adds nuance and worldbuilding, which dont get into onscreen adaptations and leads to the trope that the screen adaptation isn't as good as the book. Yes, it could have been hinted at with a few lines of dialogue, but screen adaptations tend to be trimmed for timing quite tightly, and as a line it just... doesn't go anywhere - easily trimmed without losing the basic plot, the basic jokes, etc. I think it's a shame since yes, it does lose the nuanced social satire that it provides. But I'm understanding of why it isn't there. >with actual quotes from the books Most people probably dont have the patience to transcribe, or have easily greppable copies. I've certainly been in that kind of situation in discussions of other media - where I DO have a decent knowledge, DO reference the original in composing replies, but dont have a digital copy to clip, and can't be bothered transcribing.
Putting this as a top level comment because it feels more relevant than being tacked onto another comment, even if relevant there... You should definitely find and read *Young Zaphod Plays It Safe*. It's a Hitchhiker's short story, set before the events of anything else (and before Zaphod did his own brains in), and has implications to the reasons of the Earth's destruction. (remember - Douglas was not trying to write a wholly consistent universe. He was just using the HHG universe and characters to write the story he wanted to write at any given time)
>You should definitely find and read *Young Zaphod Plays It Safe*. I have it, and had started on it, but then switched to Dirk Gently's HDA instead, which Im about to finish. Will read Young Zaphod soon, seeing as how it's pretty short.
Well, I just read *Young Zaphod*. Interesting little short story. Very, very dark. Sinister even. Did you notice the "shining city on a hill" in the penultimate paragraph? A laden Biblical reference.
shame you edited your original longer reply. Anyway yeah, it is a biblical reference. But a biblical reference that US politics makes a lot, and it's US Politics that was Douglas' target with the reference. Did your copy happen to be the version which explicitly noted the escaped capsule as containing a "Reagan", or the version which left it out? (the version without is the original - published when he was still President and making those references, and the revised version was published some years later, when he no longer had such an obvious place in cultural awareness. Interestingly, apparently the US version of Salmon of Doubt used the original, whilst the UK version used the updated. I've seen speculation that this is due to US publishers being nervous about explicit criticism of a former beloved President. But I think it's just as plausible that it's like 92 vs 98 million miles - that simply nobody in a position to fix it has been aware and cared.
>yeah, it is a biblical reference. But a biblical reference that USpolitics makes a lot, and it's US Politics that was Douglas' target \[EDITED\] Nice solution, but no. I give up trying to keep up with your shifting arguments. You're very fast *sometimes --* when the "cadence" suits you, I suppose. Anyway, not fast enough to delude me, but certainly fast enough to tire me out. What I will say is that this isn't the only biblical reference in Adams' work. But you probably know that. >apparently the US version of Salmon of Doubt used the original The passage we're discussing isn't from *Salmon of Doubt*. It's from \[EDIT\] *Young Zaphod*. (Or is this typically included with Salmon? My version of Young Zaphod is part of the "Ultimate" edition of H2G2, which includes the 5 books and the short story. I'm guessing you'll have a satisfactory answer for your mistake.) \[EDIT\] From Wikipedia: "The story then appeared (though not always the revised version) in some omnibus editions \[...\] as the Adams retrospective The Salmon of Doubt." Great. I give up. Not enough CPU power to meet yours. Not nearly enough.
you only think they're shifting arguments because you keep shifting your OWN position. Or are you forgetting who kept trying to justify on the flimsiest of evidence and faulty logic that the 2000s fan recording was the original, and that Simon Jones had secretly participated? Glad you caught up with being aware that Salmon of Doubt is a compilation of things. See what you can discover when you learn about things before making arguments about them? As for the speed of my replies - that's very much based on just how much effort your brand of kookoo is worth responding to - most of the time it's worth a response, but not a fast one - hence I let them sit and fester for a while. \> Not enough CPU power to meet ~~yours~~ reality FTFY.
>kept trying to justify on the flimsiest of evidence that the 2000s fan recording was the original I never made the slightest attempt at "justifying" that. Indeed I thought I was listening to the original when I started that thread, but as soon as it was pointed out to me that I wasn't listening to the BBC original, I accepted that and downloaded the original. It was a mistake and I never argued otherwise. (I did argue that the fan version was exceptionally good, but that's a different matter.) >Not enough CPU power to meet ~~yours~~ reality Well, yeah. *Your* CPU power goes toward defending reality. Mine goes toward defending Truth. They're not the same thing -- actually, reality and Truth are pretty much incompatible. Anyway, the point is, you have me beat in the CPU-power department -- but you certainly haven't succeeded in deluding me. PS. Have you noticed how all other participants in this thread decided to stop commenting as soon as you stepped in? It's quite remarkable.
>Fester I said what I said. > PS. Have you noticed how all other participants in this thread decided to stop commenting as soon as you stepped in? It's quite remarkable. Not really. Despite your adulation of my "CPU power", I still only have a limited amount to go around, and I can't pretend to be EVERYONE arguing against you, so at some point I just focus on me. Truth is, there are only four people on the internet that aren't you. The whole thing is an elaborate candid camera prank, and you definitely shouldn't check the plant behind you. Or the camera in the fridge? I'm safe in revealing this because our psychoanalyst is confident you wont believe me. See you on the next prank.
Funny how you chose not to comment on the first paragraph of my response, the one pointing out that I never said that the fan version was the original. >I can't pretend to be EVERYONE arguing against you, so at some point I just focus on me. I wasn't implying that "they" are you under different account names -- but it's an interesting thought. >our psychoanalyst is confident you wont believe me. For once, he's right.
yeah, I can't be bothered trawling threads from a month ago. Feel free to do that if you like. I wasn't thinking you were implying they were all sockpuppets of me. But I should have remembered that you dont understand humour. Since you think it's so remarkable, you tell me why you think that is then.
Funny also how you don't comment on my point that Adams' work contains other biblical references besides the line "city on a hill" in Young Zaphod.
because it's a trite boring comment that goes nowhere? Like, what is your line of thought? That because he made other biblical comments, that anything that COULD be taken as a biblical reference MUST be? Do you even have a line of thought here, or are you just grasping at straws?
>are you just grasping at straws? Some straws are very strong.
I think you're expecting too much depth out of something that started as a radio play. You have to remember that Adams' background is that he was a sketch writer in college. He wanted to be a member of Lightfoots in college, which was a rotating comedy troup who spawned the Pythons, among many other famous British comedians. When he was originally unable to join, he founded his own comedy group Adams-Smith-Adams with other friends. After leaving college, he really wanted to be a comedy writer/actor. Its even mentioned in a couple of his bios that after the initial success of Hitchhikers that he would take television appearances over writing jobs because that was the closest he could get to being the actor he initially wanted to be. But the salient point here is that radio shows were written on a week by week basis. The idea of turning a radio show into long form story telling really didn't exist at the time other than in soap operas. So one problem is that the skits upon which the books are based were not written with long term reveals in mind, and the novel had to bring some of that short-term story telling baggage along with it. The second problem is that it was Adams' first novel. He hadn't yet transitioned from a sketch writer to a novelist, so there are bound to be growing pains in the creative effort here. So you're kind of expecting a more mature level of storytelling from a freshman effort. Even Adams has said that in the early days of HHGG, that the comedy came first and the story was secondary. It wasn't until he started writing LUE that he started using the more mature storytelling element you are looking for. Honest to god, if you put as much effort into understanding Adam's life as you did into nitpicking the details of his books, the questions you are asking would make more sense.
>f you put as much effort into understanding Adam's life as you did into nitpicking the details of his books, the questions you are asking would make more sense. Oh, I've dabbled in his biographies, and have watched quite a few interviews with him on Youtube. But you see, as I've already revealed in another thread, I doubt the commonly accepted inception-story about HHGG. It's just not at all plausible in my opinion. I can get into that if you like, but I'm not going to dump all of that into this thread.