I remember reading months ago, the article about Adams in which OSC said he wasn't a particular fan. This is understandable, since Michaelangelo and Da Vinci despised eachother, but I have been listening to the BBC tribute to douglas adams from Audible.com and have to say, WOW!
Te similarities are either uncanny, or I am not a great study of sci-fi in general. (the latter may actually be the case ) Nonetheless a few details leap out.
1. Adams envisioned far off futures/pasts in which nothing is really very different socially. (to quote Adams: "the future has indeed become like a foreign Country, they do things exactly the same there")
2. Both have an interest in the "Ariel" character, an ethereal timeless being who shadows the hero throughout his struggles. (Slartibartfast in H2G, and an actual jane-esque computer personality in a BBC program)
3. Both deal extensively with plots to destroy the earth (admittedly a common sci-fi theme.) And both write about crashing colony ships creating "new" worlds that turn out to be where the story started in the first place. Both also write about absurd future galactic empires, and societies which destroy themselves through the excessive following of a particular fad (somec for Osc, and the Shoe Event Horizon of Frogstar for Adams, in which the demand for new shoes collapses an interplanetary economy)
4. Both are endlessly fascinated by the promise of a future computer program which will interact in ideal new ways with humans to create entirely new fantasy worlds, Adams even designed one himself: The Starship Titanic (not a complete bust, but not great )
5. Myriad plot similarities, similar human relationships and themes, and alot more. This is all meaningles to the non-adams fan, but its an interesting thing to think about. It makes me think that these two authors, while probably not drawing much from eachother, do (did) draw alot from the same inkwell.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
Adams was fun. OSC is crusty. Adams was the type to cut off the crust and eat them. OSC is of the type to cut off the crusts and discard them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I disagree that there are a terrible lot of similarities.
On each one of those points, either it's an extremely common idea in science fiction in general (like the future being pretty much the same as the present), or it isn't terribly common in OSC's work (like Jane, which is only in three of OSC's novels and one short story).
Such similiarities as the ones you draw between DA and OSC could probably be drawn between any two science fiction authors with bodies of work that size.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Adams was fun. OSC is crusty. Adams was the type to cut off the crust and eat them. OSC is of the type to cut off the crusts and discard them
Clod, I'm confused as to why someone who seems to have no appreciation of OSC or his books would come here to post. Do you think that it's funny, or witty, to insult someone on their own site?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And here I thought they have both been ripped off by Lucas. I don't see the link between Slartibartfast and Jane at all.
An "Ariel" character, by it's nature, is archetypical. :yawn:.
Um, I think the cartoon store guy in the Simpson's owns any rights on a story where the technology we create becomes our master.
P.S. I love Card and I love Adams. They are actually the only sci-fi I have read, but any similarities between them are because of the nature of the sci-fi genre.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
It's Comic Book Guy. Sheesh Posted by starter (Member # 9073) on :
quote:Originally posted by clod: Adams was fun. OSC is crusty. Adams was the type to cut off the crust and eat them. OSC is of the type to cut off the crusts and discard them.
Adams is only fun up until you realise he himself has no idea what the hell he's writing - that may work for some people, but IMO that does not make a very 'fun' reading experience. It's "Monty Python" for sci-fi fans and it's nothing sophisticated.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Such similiarities as the ones you draw between DA and OSC could probably be drawn between any two science fiction authors with bodies of work that size.
Yah its probably true, but on the other hand, I think I respond to the way both authors so clearly demonstrate their points about the nature of society. Most sci-fi is so bad, or so specialized or so asimoovianly boring, that I don't know or care what the issues are; thoug OSC and DNA are way different in style, they are most effective at expressing their common views
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:asimoovianly boring
Bite your tongue!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Most sci-fi is so bad, or so specialized or so asimoovianly boring, that I don't know or care what the issues are
This makes me think that you haven't read much science fiction.
While it may be true that most science fiction is like that, there is a lot of science fiction that is not.
[ January 24, 2006, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Douglas Adams wrote as if he thought he were very, very funny all the time. Which was great for people who agreed that he was funny. I wasn't one of those people - can't help what I don't find amusing. But since the only Adams I've read was listening to about a quarter of Hitchhiker's Guide on tape, we can't be talking about influence. And the similarities are on such mindnumbingly common or trivial points that that I'm surprised we're spending any time on them at all.
Compared to Adams's "hilarity," I'm pretty darn crusty. Unless that word has a new specialized meaning that I don't know about.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
TheHumanTarget,
"Clod, I'm confused as to why someone who seems to have no appreciation of OSC or his books would come here to post. Do you think that it's funny, or witty, to insult someone on their own site?"
Yes, that. Well, you misread me.
And, that is my fault. On a forum where logical argument holds sway, it's a fool's errand to deviate in form. Even for a little bit.
"Compared to Adams's "hilarity," I'm pretty darn crusty. Unless that word has a new specialized meaning that I don't know about."
See. Crusty. I don't recall equating hilarity with goodness or crustiness with disenjoyment.
rock on.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I go on fool's errands all the time. The question is, is a fool's errand one on which the SENDER is a fool, or on which the ERRANDRUNNER is a fool? Or is it an errand to go and FIND a fool? I'm just confused.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
"I go on fool's errands all the time."
Indeed, you do. And, you've done swimmingly. Why else would I this?
"The question is, is a fool's errand one on which the SENDER is a fool, or on which the ERRANDRUNNER is the fool?"
I figure the same guy does both jobs.
"Or, is it an errand to go and FIND a fool?"
Not a very challenging objective. I defer to the other two possibilities you listed.
"I'm just confused."
I'm making comments and critiques that are probably way off the mark of the author's intent. That's probably the source of confusion.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
But ... don't you think that responding to my previous post might itself be a fool's errand? Just asking.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
no.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
And yet you answered the post asking if the previous post was a fool's errand. Surely you see how you are being spun around in circles by a master manipulator.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
Aye, Cap'n, and a tiresome one at that. Don't you got anything better to do? Shove off, or row the boat ashore.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
OSC, can you really judge a writer by reading only a quater of a book? That is pretty unfair. Would you want someone to decide that you were not a good writer, or one who thought he knew everything of which he talked about, by only reading 1/4 of one of your books? I mean, if a reader were to judge you, soley on the first quarter of Ender's Game, or Seventh Son, would that be fair?
In short, is it truly fair and just to judge a writer and assume (sp?) you know everything about them, by reading a quarter of a book? Even if that first quarter says a lot? Is it?
I don't think I could do this fairly. I just thought it was worth saying, as that wasn't and isn't a way, I would judge an author...
Waiting for intelligent and logicall OSC response...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In short, is it truly fair and just to judge a writer and assume (sp?) you know everything about them, by reading a quarter of a book?
OSC didn't even come close to doing this. OSC didn't say anything about Adams himself -- only about his writing.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
I think it is fair to judge an author by a quarter of a book. If you aren't interested by that point, why waste your time reading anything else. There are way too many books out there to spend your time trying to slog through an author you don't care for.
Of course, you cannot assume you know everything about an author from a quarter of one book, but I did not see where OSC said that. All I got from the above post was that Card's sense of humor did not jive with Adams's sense of humor, and that Adams's work could not have influenced Card's as Card has not read much of it.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
i just wanted to say that the little quible between OSC and clod was one of the funniest things i've read on this forum. Hats off to Card. Hat back on to clod.
postscript: not sure if quible is the right word, but hopefully you know what i mean.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I have yet to read a post by Clod that actually makes sense.
Posted by dcabrera35 (Member # 8574) on :
In my opinion, you can't compare two different styles of writing that are so very different. They both may be dealing with space travel, but not much else. Both authors' books have their own distinct quality to them.
I thoroughly enjoyed all the Ender novels, due to the great plots, and the new sets of problems that kept the reader's glued to the books.
I also enjoyed the absurdity with which Douglas Adams viewed the universe. Something such as the "Improbabability Drive" is something so crazy and unique that the reader can't help but find it funny.
RIP Douglas...
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: Adams is only fun up until you realise he himself has no idea what the hell he's writing - that may work for some people, but IMO that does not make a very 'fun' reading experience. It's "Monty Python" for sci-fi fans and it's nothing sophisticated
Hmm...I've got to disagree with most of this. Yes, Douglas Adams is kind of like Monty Python for Sci-fi fans, but I think he knew exactly what he was writing. I'd recommend reading "The Salmon of Doubt," among other things, it includes a whole bunch of rather intellectual essays, and a even a speech he gave at Oxford. DA, while a satirist, was very intelligent and knew exactly what he was writing.
He may have been trying to be funny, but he was making some good points about life and human nature. Sometimes humor is a great way to express societal woes.
That said, it's a little unfair to compare OSC to DA, because their writing genres are so different. DA, while an intellectual, with some in depth opinions about science, astronomy, the evolution of mankind, and society's future, was a satirist at heart, not an in depth novelist.
Posted by starter (Member # 9073) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus:
quote: Adams is only fun up until you realise he himself has no idea what the hell he's writing - that may work for some people, but IMO that does not make a very 'fun' reading experience. It's "Monty Python" for sci-fi fans and it's nothing sophisticated
Hmm...I've got to disagree with most of this. Yes, Douglas Adams is kind of like Monty Python for Sci-fi fans, but I think he knew exactly what he was writing. I'd recommend reading "The Salmon of Doubt," among other things, it includes a whole bunch of rather intellectual essays, and a even a speech he gave at Oxford. DA, while a satirist, was very intelligent and knew exactly what he was writing.
He may have been trying to be funny, but he was making some good points about life and human nature. Sometimes humor is a great way to express societal woes.
That said, it's a little unfair to compare OSC to DA, because their writing genres are so different. DA, while an intellectual, with some in depth opinions about science, astronomy, the evolution of mankind, and society's future, was a satirist at heart, not an in depth novelist.
Oh I have no doubt that Mr. Adams is an intelligent guy - however "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" really has no coherency to it, and that's what I was implying when I said he had no clue as to what he was writing. Sure it was satire about the misplaced priorities of our societies, but that doesn't mean it was quality satire.
Also, I don't know about calling him an "intellectual". That's a big shoe to fill. Do you have any links to any of his essays?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: OSC, can you really judge a writer by reading only a quater of a book? That is pretty unfair. Would you want someone to decide that you were not a good writer, or one who thought he knew everything of which he talked about, by only reading 1/4 of one of your books? I mean, if a reader were to judge you, soley on the first quarter of Ender's Game, or Seventh Son, would that be fair?
In short, is it truly fair and just to judge a writer and assume (sp?) you know everything about them, by reading a quarter of a book? Even if that first quarter says a lot? Is it?
I don't think I could do this fairly. I just thought it was worth saying, as that wasn't and isn't a way, I would judge an author...
Waiting for intelligent and logicall OSC response...
Also, you said that adams wrote as if he were funny all of the time. I love your books, and I could say the same, that you write as if everything you say is true, and and as though you write and assume you know everything you are writing about.
I really don't find this true, but it could be said.
My point still stands
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Reticulum, chill. All OSC was saying was that he didn't find Adams to be particularly amusing. That's clearly a matter of personal taste. He never said that nobody else could find him funny and interesting. And you gotta admit, if you didn't think Adams was funny, would it still be interesting to read? Probably not.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I was hoping to find others, but this is the only one I could find right off. This is the transcript of a speech he gave "off the cuff" at Magdelene College, Cambridge in 1998. He may not be a out-and-out genius, but he was very intelligent.
The point I was trying to make about DA knowing what he was writing was that even though Hitchhiker's Guide is a little random and non-sensical, he didn't just pull it out of his a**, slap a stamp on it and get it published. There was quite a bit of thought that went into it.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
At any rate, it is a matter of taste. I just get a little touchy when people suggest that humor is somehow an inferior way of expressing yourself. Which, starter, was my initial impression of your first post, so I apologize if I sounded like I was snapping at you or something.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Notice OSC has not responded. I was really hoping for a reply from him on this. I don't do any these things, but it definitely could apply to others, and their opinions of other writers also.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Why exactly do you think OSC needs to respond to your post? There were some very good answers posted immediately after your initial post. I hope you don't expect him to feel obligated to personally answer every question you have, especially when there is nothing more to say on the matter. Just be glad that he took the time to even post at all.
Posted by starter (Member # 9073) on :
Epictatus:
Thanks for the link, I'll read through it shortly.
As for HGttG: have a listen to the original BBC radio show and read the books - they are quite different in terms of plot and continuity. I think he had a rough idea for what he wanted from the original HGttG, but he lost it soon after - and you can tell that when reading the sequels to HGttG.
As for using humour to make a statement, that's fine and that's not why I was criticising his works. My complaint with Adams isn't that he's not funny (on the contrary, his stuff has made me laugh out loud quite a few times), but his stories don't 'go anywhere' and that's fine for some folks but it leaves me feeling empty. All personal taste and opinion, of course.
And don't worry I didn't take your post the wrong way.
Posted by Mary Robinette (Member # 8388) on :
quote:Yes, Douglas Adams is kind of like Monty Python for Sci-fi fans, but I think he knew exactly what he was writing.
Remember that Hitchhiker's Guide was originally written as a radio serial. If you read the annotated radio scripts you'll find numerous references by Mr. Adams saying that he wrote every episode convinced that they would be cancelled. So he would write them into a corner and then, when the series wasn't cancelled, he had to figure out how to get out of it.
One of the most famous things, Zaphod's second head, was an ad lib by the actor. So I think it is fair to say that Mr. Adams did not know where he was going with the series.
I love the radio plays. I don't think I would connect with the books if I hadn't heard the radio plays first.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Douglas Adams wrote as if he thought he were very, very funny all the time. Which was great for people who agreed that he was funny. I wasn't one of those people - can't help what I don't find amusing. But since the only Adams I've read was listening to about a quarter of Hitchhiker's Guide on tape, we can't be talking about influence.
A fools errand: How would you like it if a famous novelist expressed an opinion about your work based on say, the first 3 chapters of Shadow Puppets? That's so unfair of me since I brought this whole thing up and now realize no-one really appreciates hearing about my own private worship of this or that writer.
But seriously, Adams was a KID when he wrote Hitchikers, (he really WAS full of himself though) and though its neither fair nor wise to recommend that you suspend judgment until you've read "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency," "Last Chance to See" or even "Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul," or if you REALLY DON'T want to laugh at all, the first half of "Salmon of Doubt," I am doing it anyway, as these Four books are the ones I think of when I remember Adams.
This has been a happy fools errand, and now I shall shut up about my own stupid little fan universe. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Why exactly do you think OSC needs to respond to your post? There were some very good answers posted immediately after your initial post. I hope you don't expect him to feel obligated to personally answer every question you have, especially when there is nothing more to say on the matter. Just be glad that he took the time to even post at all.
I didn't say he needed to, I just said I wanted him too. Not a big deal. I just thought the words he...typed weren't very fair, and should not applied to judging the writing of others.
And no, I don't think hr should feel obligated, and never did I state he should. I merely said, "Notice he hasn't responded." I suppose those weren't the best words to choose.
I also did not feel that the posts answered my questions, but thought that an answer from OSC would fit better as they don't read his mind or think for him, right?
Furthermore, I do expect YOU to respond Camus. If you did not deliberately, I suppose that would prove my point, by you conceding, and end the argument.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'll pull this thread right over, and end this argument myself if your not careful.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
^ |
Grumbling
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I'm not surprised he hasn't responded, as the last comment he made in the thread was greeted with:
quote: Don't you got anything better to do? Shove off, or row the boat ashore.
If I were him I wouldn't even look at a thread anymore once it had gone in that direction. Guess he "shoved off."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Any more Grumbling and I WILL end this here and now.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
^ |
NOT grumbling.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:now realize no-one really appreciates hearing about my own private worship of this or that writer.
Actually, there are a lot of people here that really enjoy Douglas Adams, myself included as I own the entire Hitchhiker's series. In fact, I do appreciate the recommendations and information posted here about Douglas Adams.
I think the part that got some people, like myself, a little upset is the reaction to what OSC stated. He never said DA is a bad author, just that he personally wasn't too entertained by his books, and you can't fault him for not feeling the urge to keep reading other DA books when he knows he doesn't find him that interesting, especially when there are many other books out there that OSC does want to read. In fact, OSC said that people would greatly enjoy DA books, granted they enjoy that style of writing. OSC was just stating his personal taste. He never judged DA as a person or as an author.
Btw, Reticulum, you'll find that there are many reasons to end a conversation, or to not reply to a statement, that do not consist of conceding the argument. You'll find that this happens often in this forum, mostly in the more hotly debated topics.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes! You conceeded!
No, I'm just kidding. Wasn't before though.
Offical end of the Camus/Reticulum argument. Yeah!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) Nonetheless a few details leap out.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)