Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

[tishsparrow]

I love these books! They're some of the funniest, most confusing stuff I've ever read. I've read the first, second, and fourth ones. (actually, i read the fourth first ) But, uh, is the second one supposed to skip from page 154 to 187? I just got it today, and got to that part about 20 minutes ago, and maybe I just dont get it. the spine of the book isnt messed up, but theres a weird edge on page 187.

Whoa... off topic...

But anyway... Did anyone else ever read them?

[Caraccioli]

I don't believe there should be any missing pages.

After seeing the movie a few months ago, I went back and re-read them (except the fifth book which I never bought) and the first Dirk Gently novel. You know...they're sort of interesting, but...I can't quite put my finger on it.

Part of Adam's humor is that minor points become major setpieces later on in the novels, but... what is it? Ah. They just seem to wander all over the place and have no real point other than to show how vapid and pointless everything really is. They're sort of funny, but not hilarious funny. They're British pop humor in that British pop humor sort of way. But so's the Avengers tv show and the Jeeves novels - both of which I like better and find funnier. Still, I've read the HHGTG novels twice and I haven't tossed them.

OTOH, I've a friend who loves them and thinks they're the epitome of humor.

Speaking of humor that's something of an acquired taste, I watched Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. Some of it was funny, some of it was completely out of place (and time) and some of it was just plain weird. Overall, though, I suspect I didn't get it. Do you have to be a Shakespeare fan?

[William Brand]

I loved them because I understood them too well.

[Zephaniah W Nash]

Regarding Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, it does help some to be a Shakespeare fan, and it helps even more to be an Existentialist - okay, you don't have to be one, but it helps to know a bit of the ideas and mental calisthenics they tend to go through. And if you think the movie is confusing, try reading or (if you can ever find it being done) seeing the original play. Even crazier.

But, if nothing else, it probably contributed to the Simpsons making the reference to RosenCarl and GuildenLenny.

Even so, any time I flip a coin and it comes up heads, I have to worry just a tiny bit...

[Caraccioli]

It's not that it was confusing from a philosophical or scientific POV, it's just that I didn't get it. There were a few things that were funny, a few things that were clever, but for the most part it was just odd. It didn't hang together well.

Oddly, I get a similar vibe out of the Hitchhiker's books - although not quite as intensely. It's as if the writers have a bunch of dislocated ideas to give us and they want a framework on which to hang them.

[Rumba Rue]

I've read the first two and still didn't get it. I agree with Caraccioli, there were some funny bits, but it was too dislocated for me to truly understand it.

[Patrick Hand]

When I was taking Physics, the teacher was explaining how artificial satellites stay in orbit….. I started cracking up…..I then asked the teacher if he’d ever read the Hitchhikers books (the trilogy of 5…) …..

Hey…. That’s the same way you fly…. Throw yourself at the surface, and miss…….

[tishsparrow]

unfourtunately philosophy teachers tend to get upset when you try to convince then that the answer to all is 42...

[Gentleman of Fortune]

When i first read them, I really enjoyed them. Some of the stuff was great (the SEP... Someone Elses Problem)...

But I just tried to re-read them a few months ago, and it bored me. I guess I knew what to expect from it.

It was kind of like a friend forgetting that they have told you a particular joke and tell it again (and again) and you feel like you have to laugh, but it aint funny anymore.

But, by all means. Enjoy them the first time around...

And when your done, try a John Irving novel.

GoF