I don't know if it can be done. I don't know if it should be done.
No offense to Colfer because I haven't read his books, but even if he's a great author (which I don't suspect that he is because I work in a bookstore and never heard his name and the word "great" used in the same sentence before) I just can't imagine anyone truly capturing Adam's unique perspective and sense of humor.
I'd much rather Arthur stay dead than to see him resurrected as a shadow of himself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Eoin Colfer is a very good author. I love his stuff -- and I think this is a terrible idea.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So what's the difference between this and fanfic, other than the fact that the author will be getting paid for it?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That is the only difference: the owners of the license have granted permission.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It seems fairly harmless to me. I mean, I'm skeptical that the author will be able to capture Adam's style sufficiently, and I suspect that it'll suck, but it's not like the original books will be damaged by this.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I actually enjoy Colfer's Artemis Fowl series, it's got some cleverness to it, but I'm not sure about this.
I guess we'll see...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Why H2G2? HG2G, maybe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Eeeech. *shudder* I like Colfer, and I still think this is a mistake. Ten bucks says they approached Pratchett and Fforde first, but they both said no. Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
"HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy." 2 Hs, 2 Gs.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It seems mostly harmless to me. I mean, I'm skeptical that the author will be able to capture Adam's style sufficiently, and I suspect that it'll suck, but it's not like the original books will be damaged by this.
Fixed that for you Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I believe he is a great author but this won't work Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I don't really think this will work either. Anyone who has ever read 'Scarlett', the authorised sequel to 'Gone With The Wind' will know how these things usually turn out.
I probably won't read it anyway. In the last few years Doctor Who has been fulfilling most of my H2G2 needs.
But I wonder why the estate have decided to do this - especially after the radio plays ended by giving the story a more upbeat ending than the books, which was supposedly what Adams had planned to do, once he had stopped feeling extremely depressed. They could have just had someone write an epilogue to the last book where everyone lived happily ever after.
Do they need the money that badly?
It can't actually be worse than the movie. Can it? Can anything? *shudder*
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
1) I refuse to accept any Hitchiker's novel not penned by Douglas Adams. I don't even accept Salmon of Doubt.
2) There wasn't a whole lot of room left for a sequel in the first place, considering how Mostly Harmless ended.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Speaking of #2, Douglas Adams had plans for another sequel. First, one of the audio things made after that book changed the ending, so that they all didn't die.
But more interestingly, Adams pointed out that "just because they're dead doesn't mean they don't get to have any more adventures" or something like that.
Basically? We might have either had them not dead afterall, or had them tramping through the afterlife.
Now... imagine Adams' humor, as applied to the afterlife instead of the universe. Mighta been good!
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
I think that given the fact that Adams made it clear that there are infinite universes in his books that it's fine if more books are made.
As long as we realise that we are in a universe where the book will most likly suck.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks that some of Adams's own sequels sucked. When I tried to read them again a couple years ago, I couldn't get further than the beginning of the third book.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
You're all gonna eat your words when it comes out and is raved as a fine addition to the legendary series. "Adams would be proud", they'll say. And then you'll all say "Man, I can't believe how cynical we were back then".
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
As I just said at great length in my journal, I didn't believe Douglas could write another book in the series without ruining everything. I certainly don't think anybody else can.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It seems fairly harmless to me. I mean, I'm skeptical that the author will be able to capture Adam's style sufficiently, and I suspect that it'll suck, but it's not like the original books will be damaged by this.
It is harmless, but it is also tasteless. It also affords this particular literary effort, no matter its merits, mention as "part of" Adams' original works, which is always going to be a shame. It's one thing for Tom Clancy to "write" a zillion video games or "R.L. Stine" to "write" a thousand serial novels for kids, but Adams only wrote 7 and a half books, and they were special.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: As I just said at great length in my journal, I didn't believe Douglas could write another book in the series without ruining everything. I certainly don't think anybody else can.
Though I agree with you, did your 12th grade English teacher not lecture you on referring to a writer you have not met by his first name? Maybe you met him, but if not, I believe it's polite to refer to him by his last name, or his full name. I believe most style guides agree.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks that some of Adams's own sequels sucked. When I tried to read them again a couple years ago, I couldn't get further than the beginning of the third book.
The fourth and fifth were meandering and pointless, at least to me. The first three were brilliant. And Dirk Gently, and Teatime were also brilliant.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Though I agree with you, did your 12th grade English teacher not lecture you on referring to a writer you have not met by his first name? Maybe you met him, but if not, I believe it's polite.
If anybody would have said anything like that, it would have been my 9th grade English teacher, though I don't remember if the subject ever came up.
Strictly speaking, that doesn't apply in the same way once people shuffle off their mortal coils (something my English teacher did point out as being played off in "Sir Patrick Spens")... but more to the point, there are different kinds of respect. Informal usages can either be used to show disrespect or closeness; after the dozens upon dozens of times I've read the HHGTTG books (especially the final one), I feel deeply affectionate toward the late Mr. Adams, even if I never met him in the flesh.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks that some of Adams's own sequels sucked. When I tried to read them again a couple years ago, I couldn't get further than the beginning of the third book.
I *really* didn't like Mostly Harmless...
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I *really* didn't like Mostly Harmless...
I won't recapitulate the entire entry I linked to above, but I think the best novels were the first and fifth (in a dead heat; each is superior to the other in different respects), followed by the second, followed by the fourth, followed by the third.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Strictly speaking, that doesn't apply in the same way once people shuffle off their mortal coils (something my English teacher did point out as being played off in "Sir Patrick Spens")... but more to the point, there are different kinds of respect. Informal usages can either be used to show disrespect or closeness; after the dozens upon dozens of times I've read the HHGTTG books (especially the final one), I feel deeply affectionate toward the late Mr. Adams, even if I never met him in the flesh.
That is in the nature of the objection. You feel close to him, but using his first name implies that he is close to you, or familiar with you, enough to accept your informality. Particularly once someone has died, his friends do refer to him by his first name, to indicate their relationship with him. We, as people who have not met him, make this clear by not using his first name in the same way. The politeness aspect works to signify your actual relationship, not just how you feel about him, or the fact that he passed away.
Also my 12th grade English teacher was also my 9th grade English teacher, but whenever he shared this advice with me, it stuck. You are, in talking about his books, referring to his literary personality, in some degree. In this case, Mr. Adams is as inappropriate as Douglas. His name in literary circles, when he was referred to as a writer and when discusses as a writer, he was Adams. The "Mr." appellation is reminiscent of newspaper articles or biographical pieces that deal with his social or public life outside of writing. That is not what you are doing. Though there is no definite standard on usage, you'll simply find that the majority of the time, when writing about an author or an artist in regard to his work, his last name is usually sufficient. I had a newspaper article written about me recently, and it referred to me by my last name, because it was in the context of my work as a composer. The editor of the paper, for obvious reasons, would want to maintain a style in which names are used appropriately depending on the piece.
As an example of your logic: I have read 1984 about 15 times in my life, and have read most of the works of George Orwell. Does it sound appropriate to call him George? His been dead much longer than Adams, and yet he is universally referred to as Orwell, or George Orwell. Not Mr. Orwell, but Orwell. You'll find that to be true in any anthology, any forward to any of his books, and virtually anything written about him in the literary sphere that was not penned by a close relation. If for nothing else, the use of the last name is clearer, as there are many authors with the same first names, and not as many with the same last names. And, if for nothing else, it makes your position clear- you were not his friend, or a family member, but a reader.
This is all about being clear. And here, having used his first name to refer to him for your own reasons, you were not clear. You left open the possibility that you did know him, and simply explaining that you feel close to him is fine- whereas ignoring etiquette in order to make that point is simply unclear. So, though you may believe you have a clever or appropriate reason for putting it as you did, it clearly was not effective in at least one case.
[ September 18, 2008, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I agree with Tom and rivka.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mostly Harmless is a book that benefits from a little emotional distance. If you like Arthur and Ford, as I do, and were happy to see Arthur happy in So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish, then Mostly Harmless -- despite a few clever bits, and an eloquently resolved series of interlocking plotlines -- often feels like a mean-spirited slog. I mean, why is Trillian a sad-sack harpy? Why is Ford so unable to get a handle on things? It's only when you understand what was going on in Adams' personal life that the nasty undercurrent makes sense. Heck, he noted in retrospect that he'd used that book to vent a bit and had come to feel that it was unfair to readers.
For my part, the best book in the series is Life, the Universe, and Everything; his best individual novel, IMO, is Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
[ September 18, 2008, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Though I agree with you, did your 12th grade English teacher not lecture you on referring to a writer you have not met by his first name? Maybe you met him, but if not, I believe it's polite.
If anybody would have said anything like that, it would have been my 9th grade English teacher, though I don't remember if the subject ever came up.
Strictly speaking, that doesn't apply in the same way once people shuffle off their mortal coils (something my English teacher did point out as being played off in "Sir Patrick Spens")... but more to the point, there are different kinds of respect. Informal usages can either be used to show disrespect or closeness; after the dozens upon dozens of times I've read the HHGTTG books (especially the final one), I feel deeply affectionate toward the late Mr. Adams, even if I never met him in the flesh.
It's more common now to feel a personal connection with writers as many of them converse with readers on a more personal basis through blogs and their attitudes in essays and interviews. I think of Neil Gaiman as "Neil" even though I've seen him in person exactly once, during a book signing, and exchanged e-mails twice. But his site stresses "Neil," he tells everyone he meets to call him "Neil," and its plainly his preference. Were I to write an article or essay about him I'd go with "Gaiman," but in these informal settings, informal usage don't bug me. Heck, many Pratchett fans refer to him as "PTerry"...
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Mostly Harmless is a book that benefits from a little emotional distance. If you like Arthur and Ford, as I do, and were happy to see Arthur happy in So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish, then Mostly Harmless -- despite a few clever bits, and an eloquented resolved series of interlocking plotlines -- often feels like a mean-spirited slog.
There's no arguing with personal preference, and I certainly respect yours.
For my part, I like Arthur, but I wasn't happy to see him happy in Book Four. It never rang true for me. (Plus I felt flying was the prime example of the series having jumped the shark in the third book; I was happy that DNA jettisoned that bit in the final installment.) This is a series that begins with the Earth being destroyed to make way for an interstellar highway bypass. This is not a happy premise. It is not supposed to end with sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows. Arthur and friends are adrift in a universe no longer their own, and it's a mercy when it all ends at last.
(Though I am glad he was granted a short stint as Sandwich Maker first. That bit rang true.)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: As an example of your logic: I have read 1984 about 15 times in my life, and have read most of the works of George Orwell. Does it sound appropriate to call him George?
No, I'm way beyond pseudonyms with my man Eric.
I had a much longer and snarkier post written, but I think Chris said it better, so I'll leave it that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I agree with Tom and rivka.
Darn it Scott, are you courting the apocalypse?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, you know, rivka, those Horsemen start to look mighty attractive after a time...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For my part, the best book in the series is Life, the Universe, and Everything; his best individual novel, IMO, is Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
Agreed. Why do people constantly harp on the H2G2 books, while ignoring the absolute gem that is DGHDA? It's Adams' best book, I think not only because it is so complexly (and implausibly) plotted, but because beneath all that, it has a depth of characters that is quite unlike anything in H2G2, where everyone was a cartoon character- and you never really could be sure of what was or was not possible. With Dirk Gently, there is that element of human nature that keeps things grounded- Dirk is lazy and greedy, above all, but he is also naturally curious. That's just an interesting combination.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I love the "Dirk Gently" books as well. I think they're better than some of the Hitchhiker sequels, but not as a funny as the original.
One of my favorite books by DNA is "Last Chance to See." His adventures with the komodo dragons and his reflections on the kakapo (the world's largest non-flying parrot) are at the same time hysterical and sobering.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just so everybody knows: Mostly Harmless was only written the way it was because Douglas Adams' life was crap at the time. Later, he said he'd .. you know, fix all that stuff.
Especially the part about earth being dead in all dimensions everywhere forever always along with everyone but Zaphod in all their incarnations forever always.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just so everybody knows: Mostly Harmless was only written the way it was because Douglas Adams' life was crap at the time. Later, he said he'd .. you know, fix all that stuff.
Pbbbt. The book is what it is. It's possible that the author's having been in a foul mood when he wrote it had no bearing on the final product (no matter what that author claimed), or it's possible that it achieved greatness[1] as a direct result of the author's troubles (one so inclined might take this as being consistent with a long-standing correlation between art and pain). Either way, that has no bearing whatsoever on the book's integrity, validity, or meaning.
And, yes, it's well known that Adams had made noises about revisiting the series someday, eventually, once he got around to it and/or was held hostage by a rampaging group of editors and fans. That doesn't mean he would have been right to do so. Look at Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. Look at Tom Sawyer, Detective.[2] Look at the revised version of Knight Life and its sequels. Look at everything Frank Miller's done related to Batman since The Dark Knight Returns. Some authors have trouble knowing when to let go.[3]
[1] in my opinion. You may feel free to substitute "sucked" if you prefer. [2] Didn't know this existed? There's good reason for that. But you don't have to take my word for it... [3] I totally just set myself up, didn't I.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What would you say the meaning of Mostly Harmless was, besides "I hold you, the reader, and the society that spawned you, in utter contempt?"
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What would you say the meaning of Mostly Harmless was, besides "I hold you, the reader, and the society that spawned you, in utter contempt?"
I don't see how you get that from it at all.
(Seriously, how on Earth do you get that from it? Is that what you take away from all tragedies?)
...and I think I answered that question in an earlier post, not to mention the journal entry, though I can overexplain even more if I have to.
(But okay, here goes, one-line summary of the entire trilogy: you can't really get over having your homeworld destroyed. Seems reasonable to me.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is that what you take away from all tragedies?
No. But the end of Mostly Harmless basically amounted to Adams jumping up and down on his own toys, picking up the pieces, and going home. And, for that matter, I would say that most people wouldn't consider H2G2 a work of tragedy.
quote:you can't really get over having your homeworld destroyed
Hm. See, I think the destruction of Earth was largely a narrative excuse to toss Arthur out into the universe without having the ability to retreat to safety. I don't see the bypass thing working as a larger metaphor for the loss of innocence.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hm. See, I think the destruction of Earth was largely a narrative excuse to toss Arthur out into the universe without having the ability to retreat to safety. I don't see the bypass thing working as a larger metaphor for the loss of innocence.
I don't see the destruction of the world as a narrative excuse, or a metaphor for anything. I see it as the destruction of the world.
Ford's never had a homeworld to call his own, thanks to the Great Collapsing Hrung disaster. Arthur's lost his. Both spend a few books wandering aimlessly, pretty solidly making the point that this isn't any sort of tenable existence.
So you have a choice. You can go the route suggested in Book Four and undermine the whole initial premise of the series. You can see the Earth as being rather less than unique, with its destruction being reversible, and with any activities thereon being not very consequential because, hey, jillions of parallel universes anyway, and you can chalk the whole series up to a bunch of random laughs... or you can respect the premise and make it (and the books) count. The world ends. Really, truly, irrevocably, with all loose ends tied up.
I like the latter a lot more.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think this is a bad idea. The series became boring and repetative after the first three when Adams wrote the books.
"can chalk the whole series up to a bunch of random laughs . . ."
Thats what I do. Without the laughs the story makes no sense. To take any part of it seriously, I think, destroys the premise that the Universe doesn't care and we pretend that it does. Having one universe or jillions of parallel universes doesn't matter because existance is a comedy of errors.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
LeVar? Is that you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you can chalk the whole series up to a bunch of random laughs
Um....That's what it was. It's what it was intended to be from the start. There's a reason that reviewers generally call Pratchett a satirist and Adams a humorist -- and it's that Adams' work was generally a bunch of random laughs.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Though I agree with you, did your 12th grade English teacher not lecture you on referring to a writer you have not met by his first name?
If English teachers are spending class time lecturing about things like that, I can't say I'd blame students for not seeing the value in English class...
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: LeVar? Is that you?
[awards rivka five points]
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:you can chalk the whole series up to a bunch of random laughs
Um....That's what it was.
So you didn't like the fifth book because it failed to live down to your expectations? Whatever.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, in your opinion, a book full of tragedy is more fulfilling than a book full of random laughs?
Why is that?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So, in your opinion, a book full of tragedy is more fulfilling than a book full of random laughs?
Why is that?
Why is a meaningful book more fulfilling than a meaningless one?
If you have to ask that, then I can't explain it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
to me the only reason why I would read the HHGTTG (omfg there's 2 of each letter! Coincidence? I think not) is the very fact that the Earth WAS brought back, I absolutely sternly refuse Scifi like Andromeda where Earth is some backwater of no importance or destroyed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why is a meaningful book more fulfilling than a meaningless one?
That's not what I asked. Why do you think a series that's ultimately about the tragic loss of one's home is more meaningful than a series that's ultimately about a bunch of clever punchlines?
I'm willing to go a very long way for a joke. That's not because I think jokes are worthless.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why is a meaningful book more fulfilling than a meaningless one?
That's not what I asked. Why do you think a series that's ultimately about the tragic loss of one's home is more meaningful than a series that's ultimately about a bunch of clever punchlines?
Unless the clever punchlines are themselves about something, the answer seems self-evident.
(Incidentally, Occasional's reading -- which is way darker than mine, but no less valid, of course -- either passes that test with flying colors or renders it irrelevant: in that reading, the randomness itself is making a larger point, one which becomes belabored the longer the series drags on. Your claim, on the other hand, appears to be that the jokes are merely clever for the sake of cleverness, and not really making any sort of point at all. That can have value, sure, but it's of a much lower order. Why? If you have to ask...)
quote:I'm willing to go a very long way for a joke. That's not because I think jokes are worthless.
I'd be the last person to say jokes are worthless.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Your claim, on the other hand, appears to be that the jokes are merely clever for the sake of cleverness, and not really making any sort of point at all.
I think they're meant to be self-contained; I don't think they're part of a larger "rootless" theme. In fact, I think Adams might well have been horrified by the suggestion.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think they're meant to be self-contained; I don't think they're part of a larger "rootless" theme. In fact, I think Adams might well have been horrified by the suggestion.
I don't know whether he'd have been horrified or not. I also don't think it makes a smidgen of difference. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Though I agree with you, did your 12th grade English teacher not lecture you on referring to a writer you have not met by his first name?
If English teachers are spending class time lecturing about things like that, I can't say I'd blame students for not seeing the value in English class...
The voice you use in your writing contributes to your credibility. I had a teacher who found that important. There is no subject that cannot be made interesting, by the right teacher. It's a very valid point of criticism when dealing with the work of a 17 year old writer. Have you read a paper by a 17 year old recently? Awareness of one's own voice is something that can be helped along by the use of specific examples. In my class, this happened to be one, and I remember it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: the answer seems self-evident.
This is Hatrack. Nothing is self-evident.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Your claim, on the other hand, appears to be that the jokes are merely clever for the sake of cleverness, and not really making any sort of point at all.
I think they're meant to be self-contained; I don't think they're part of a larger "rootless" theme. In fact, I think Adams might well have been horrified by the suggestion.
Adams isn't necessarily the authority on the final meaning of his own work. It takes time, but eventually the discrete characteristics of his interests and expressive needs will become clearer and clearer to readers as time marches on, and styles change. The words on the page are out of his hands, and if they inspire readings of his work that he might not have agreed with- that's his fault, but there's nothing to be done about it, other than pointing out why they might be wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Adams isn't necessarily the authority on the final meaning of his own work.
I was an English major, you know. So let me give you a heartfelt slap on this one, since you just made me flash back to all the litcrit BS I had to survive in college. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Adams isn't necessarily the authority on the final meaning of his own work.
I was an English major, you know. So let me give you a heartfelt slap on this one, since you just made me flash back to all the litcrit BS I had to survive in college.
If a future person says, "Adams meant for HHGTG to be a satirical examination of Western foreign policy in the late 20th century," and yet Adams wrote, "I meant HHGTG to be a farce. A romp. It doesn't mean anything," then Futuro-boy is obviously wrong.
If a future person says, "HHGTG is a stunning rebuke of commercialism and Western decadence," but Adams says, "HHGTG is a farce. A romp. It doesn't mean anything," then the future person's interpretation can still stand (pending review of the text).
I believe, currently, there's a certain plasticity in stories that readers must be allowed, so that they can enjoy the story more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't mind when readers bring something to a work that the author didn't intend. But for that reader's interpretation of the text to be considered valid, we have to keep in mind that what they're really interpreting is their reading of the text, full of their own baggage. Anyone else reading it might have a different experience -- and, of course, that way lies deconstructionism.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Adams isn't necessarily the authority on the final meaning of his own work.
I was an English major, you know. So let me give you a heartfelt slap on this one, since you just made me flash back to all the litcrit BS I had to survive in college.
Tom, you're a nice guy so I'm going to ignore the condescension I read into this.
There remains some validity in the idea that a person's work can exist outside of his own personal mythology or approved interpretation. I find it hard to believe that you don't see any value in it- you are just arguing that in this case, Adams is right. He could be right. I simply want to point out that we as readers are not responsible to the writer to interpret his work in the way he claims to intend. Without trust in our own abilities and perceptions, what good are we as readers and critics anyway? I think of OSC's afterword to Empire- which seemed to be wanting to reinterpret the book for the reader, when there were serious flaws in the way the groups and characters were represented. Now, the afterword is also part of the book- but to take it at face value, and not judge the rest of the work for yourself, is to ignore all of those problems, and act as if they don't exist, or make the book less than it could be.
Edit: Scott made my point for me. Adams' intention and the final product are distinct things. He only gets to tell you what he intended, and you don't have to believe him. Besides, there's plenty of room outside what he directly intended that shows his experience with the world, and how he dealt with it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Anyone else reading it might have a different experience -- and, of course, that way lies deconstructionism.
I personally believe that, valid or not, each person contributes to the history of a given piece of artwork, until it is either eliminated in its direct effect on our culture, or consumed in it. Either way, everything eventually becomes drained of meaning over time- we either identify so much with a work, that everything in it is reflected in us, or we become so distant from it, that it makes no sense to us at all.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't see how you get that from it at all.