Douglas Adams Continuum (DAC)

UK paperback seems to have come out in the last week of May.

It has some extras at the back. Some are from www.6of3.com but some of them are not.

ISBN: 9780141042138

_________________
(... don't piss us off)

cool, i think i will take a look at this book, he kicks b3ta squar in the nuts in that interview

who cares if more Hitch Hikers material comes out, so long as its good? If the HHG universe has any merit as a piece of art/culture it will inevitably be picked up and continued by others

_________________
if you can keep your head whilst all around you people are losing theirs, you may have misjudged the situation

a lot of people, i think you´ll find...
also, with "so long as its good" you´ve put the proverbial finger on the main problem.

_________________
"The human gene pool needs more lifeguards!
Either that or stronger chlorination...." (Pitbull)

I know what you mean

I used to be more precious and 'purist' about things and i spose i still tend to look more critically at 'new' people adding to a body of work which i like (Tolkien, Dune, Star Trek/Wars, the list goes on)

however Douglas Adams himself collaborated on many of his projects and wrote a Dr Who story but you don't hear the >insert main doctor who scriptwriter names here< fans having a go at him.
Dr Who is perhaps a bad example since it suits the many writer format very well, but if you look back to authors like HP Lovecraft, you can see a body of work which was started by one person but reinterpreted and expanded on by his peers and generations since and is now much stronger than it might have been because it's 'owned' by the community at large.

If you only allow a select few to venture nervously into the realm of sequels and spin offs in a particular franchise (i apologise for the use of the f word in this context) then the material won't ever develop beyond the original vision or the most literal interpretations. I think the Hitch Hiker universe has a lot of life left in it in the hands of other writers (film makers, artists, cocktail bar technicians, musicians, computer games developers and so on) and would like to see this stuff. Why not invite 100 authors to write a Hitch Hiker or Dirk Gently story?

_________________
if you can keep your head whilst all around you people are losing theirs, you may have misjudged the situation

Another question is why? Can't some things just remain good on their own without plumbing the depths of the idea until everyone is well sick of it?

For me, I'm not a dyed in the wool purist. I'd love to see Hitchhiker's expanded on as long as it is enjoyable. Hell, I was one of the few that enjoyed the movie version the first few times and fought to overlook some of the obvious flaws. And I've still not read the new book, not for want of trying. I own it, it is on my bedstand, and I've tried a couple times to get beyond the first chapter or two. I haven't managed it yet, but I also haven't been reading much lately. But the fact that I've tried a couple times does not bode well. I'll give it a try again soon, and I do want to give it a fair shake. But I also don't see the sense of the project.

_________________
It's terrible, but I guess songs are just interesting things to do with the air.
-Tom Waits

I tried a few times before I managed. The trick is to get the audio book and let Simon Jones do the reading for you. This removes the book from your hands and therefore negates the impulse to throw the book across the room when you get to a passage which you think Douglas would never have even thought about writing.

_________________
(... don't piss us off)

I find I fall asleep listening to it as audio. I read the book very quickly when it first came out and have no desire to read it again

_________________
D.
The Thirteenth Triskaidekaphobe
--------------------------------------

I'm a little uncomfortable about anybody other than Douglas writing a Hitchhikers book. However, I don't think it's really a problem as long as it's done will.

My problem with "And Another Thing" is not that it wasn't written by Douglas, but that it's crap.

It lacks all of the charm, wit, and beautiful word play that made Adams' works great. Hitchhikers without those things simply isn't Hitchhikers.

I'm not talking about creating the McGargleblaster, no one would be forcing anyone to read tosh, no one need get sick of anything. This is THHGTTG here, not a new type of ringtone. Its not about improving or changing the original body of work at all. I certainly don't think the hitch hikers universe can be plumbed to the depths if it's allowed to be expanded on, its an awfully large place after all

Having just re read the hitch hikers books again (except for life the universe and everything - i think we may have packed that one away as we're moving house) for the n th time, I often found myself staring out of the window with the text still running along in my head without needing to read it, they're so familiar to me . Nothing will spoil these books for me

If someone like Stephen Fry wrote "Tales of Han Dold City" (off the top of my head, i am not suggesting that this could or should happen), would that be so terrible? Ford Prefect, parrot and disembodied arm needn't be anywhere near these short stories, the style of writing can be entirely the authors', with no pressure to emulate Douglas Adams.

The Hitch Hiker universe could be the star of the show and the whole body of work starting with the radio series would benefit from being part of an ongoing story. Aside from the charm, wit, beautiful wordplay mentioned by Brendan, DNA also had some stonking good ideas ... there is scope here to create original Hitch Hikers material is all i'm suggesting

_________________
if you can keep your head whilst all around you people are losing theirs, you may have misjudged the situation

i´m also not a purist, and i´m certainly a great fan of adaptations in general - if they are well done, which can be surprisingly tricky. for me, the key is quality and originality here. some works of fiction work well as a concept, and the idea can easily be played with by many creative authors in many different mediums - see doctor who, see batman etc... others, not so much, because of the author´s idiosynchratic and special talent.
if someone else tries to tamper with the material, you just notice and it won´t be as good.

also, the question "why" has been raised. an excellent point. i can´t help but feeling that this procedure lacks respect. oh, the creator of this book has died, when we still could be making money with it? get the next one in line!

_________________
"The human gene pool needs more lifeguards!
Either that or stronger chlorination...." (Pitbull)

a book and a movie have been made since we lost Douglas Adams,
the Hitch Hiker's Guide has been out in the ether for thirty years now - once a work of art is out there, it takes on a life of its own, whether through writers posting stories on the internet for free or the concept being copied and ripped off

the "why" question is a good one but the obvious answer is "because it's worth doing" and I'm suggesting that there are people out there able and willing to prove this.
We might look at star wars prequels and largely see a shamelessly cynical flogging of a cherished story to make money; this does not have to be the way it's done

but yes, i totally agree the memory of the author and wishes of his estate are paramount. Fear that these are abused are the main fuel for the arguments I have against HHG adaptions

_________________
if you can keep your head whilst all around you people are losing theirs, you may have misjudged the situation

Dispensing with the making money argument, I still don't honestly see why it is worth doing. Sometimes it is best to leave things alone as they are. And sometimes this goes for the original authors.

You brought up Star Wars - well, it should have been interesting to see the backstory to the "Holy Saga," but with a few exceptions (the clones being the most interesting aspect of the prequels in my opinion), it wasn't. Well, it's Lucas' baby, but he tried to cater too much to everyone and ended up failing everyone, or nearly everyone.

Tolkien and Middle Earth - Lots of people love these stories and want more stories about Hobbits and such. Tolkien died before he could cobble anything else together, but had made tons of notes. The estate used these notes and put together the Silmarillion, which is blindingly dull to most but the hardcore history or Tolkien folks, and recently The Children of Húrin, which I have not read, but what I have heard makes me not want to bother.

Mostly Harmless - I have gotten used to this book, but I wasn't a big fan when it came out (I have since gotten used to it and am fond of it). It seemed a bit like he was fed up with people bothering him about HHGG, and wanted an end to it. He put some blood and sweat into it, but overall it felt cynical and that he just wanted it irrepairably over. I still don't quite forgive him for quickly and suddenly disposing of Fenchurch. To get into the mind of the author as best I can, the first two books seemed to be a joy, LTUAE seemed a bit forced and contractually obligated, SLATFATF seemed like he really had a story to tell and was excited about it again, and MH was basically felt like him saying, "I'm done with it already. I want to move into other things now." That is why Salmon of Doubt being another HHGG story was a big surprise to me. I wonder if that would have been a bit of a mea culpa for shooting HHGG in the head. It would have been interesting to find out.

Nell has an especially good point that many of us believe Hitchhikers is something very specific to the author, and everything else produced by others just simply feels strange. I think I used this analogy before when first discussing the idea that a new HHGG book was being written, but it tends to feel like those movies based on old TV shows. I'll give two examples - The Brady Bunch movie and the Flintstones movie. The Flintstones was weird because it was initially a cartoon made live action, while the Brady Bunch movie was live action as was the original show. The problem with both was mainly that they tried so hard to get the look and feel of the original show that it just seemed...I dunno.....wrong and disturbing. There is something familiar on the screen, but it is just...off. And that is also not mentioning that those two things also tried to update things for modern audiences a bit, and a bit more adult humor, and that also seemed completely off as well.

From what I could tell from what I have read from the new book, it seems Colfer tried to stick with the spirit, but didn't try to write as DNA, which I respect. However, the hardest thing for me to get used to in what little I have read is that Colfer uses the same characters we have come to love, and know and understand. I don't think I could have done any better with many of the things Colfer and even the screenwriter of the HHGG movie had to face. And the biggest part of that is that no matter how hard you try, your writing voice is different than someone elses, and that will inevitably strike someone else as wrong. And sometimes the same authors pick up their own characters after years and it all comes out wrong.

_________________
It's terrible, but I guess songs are just interesting things to do with the air.
-Tom Waits

yeah, i agree totally with Nell on the point about Douglas being the spirit of HHG, anyone trying to emulate that style is doomed to failure imo

Lucas i think doesnt apply much personality to his work (American Graffiti is an exception) so i suspect he was derailed very quickly when making the prequels and threw a lot of babies out with the bath water, its one of the few cases where i reckon i could have done better with the material lol

I can't say I disagree with your post at all, Mostly Harmless for me is the book too many, for me So Long is optimistic, fun, imaginative and joyous. Mostly Harmless was a dour contrast to that, hope has been abandoned and replaced by civil servants and mega corporations.

The fact that the movie and sequel book were made at all without the input of the man himself (I know he came up with the material for the movie but at the best of times the film making process can severely curtail the original vision as we all know) I wondered if anyone on this site felt that the material itself, had potential without Douglas Adams there to guide it. He was a man who was full of ideas and happy to work with others to get them realised, perhaps his death does mean the end of the HHG story

_________________
if you can keep your head whilst all around you people are losing theirs, you may have misjudged the situation

Hitchhikers should really have been left as a trilogy. The first two books were great and the third (much like return of the jedi) was only average but it was a fun trilogy. The first two books, original radio series and the 80s TV show capture the true spirit of Hitchhiker in my opinion. In some sense HHGTTG was a product of its time and it is hard not to associate the series with the culture of the late 70s/early 80s. I say that in a kind way. As for the fourth book, well Douglas always hated it and his opinion never really softened regarding that. It was the weakest of the series and not funny at all. At the time he had just come back from LA (which he found stressful) so writing it was a kind of therapy I guess but his heart was not in it. That was one book too many. The fifth book was much better but again there was no real reason to write it, in fact he struggled to finished it and had to get Michael Bywater to help him write the ending. Douglas spoke about writing a sixth book and in he said in one of his last interviews that his biggest worry was not having enough time to write all the novels that is in his head yet we all know that Douglas was a big procastinator and I personally could not see him writing another book. I agree that Colfer's effort was lackluster but Adams killed the series off way before. Hitchhikers is slowing becoming like Robocop, in that every addition to the franchise is more absurd and unnescessary.

Really? Douglas hated So Long And Thanks For All The Fish? That seems weird. It was so full of joy and hope, and I felt it really stretched him as an author, especially with several of the scenes with Arthur falling for Fenchurch. I don't get how his "heart wasn't in it," as that was the first time I really saw some heart in his fiction writing. Are you sure that wasn't Mostly Harmless? That book reads like his heart wasn't in it.

As for you, Mattbot, the book and movie sans Douglas Adams to guide it - sure, it had potential. Especially the movie. In fact, I think bits of it they carried off brilliantly. I like the dolphin song and the beats right before the destruction of Earth. The Guide moments are also very satisfying. And there are quite a few things in between that are good as well. However, had Douglas been there, I don't think jokes would have been clipped short and rendered unfunny, and there almost certainly wouldn't have been the final "joke" about the restaurant at the end of the universe that left fans scratching their heads thinking, "have they even read the next book beyond the title?" I felt satisfied the first couple times I saw the movie, but since then the bits that bugged me the first time bug me more on subsequent viewings.
As for the potential of the book, I suspect I'll get a few laughs out of it. A good joke is a good joke, no matter the source. After hearing about a new book not from DNA, I had some hope that it would be a big surprise and be well worth the read, even though on the surface I never thought it was a particularly good idea. It hasn't had the best reception, but I intend to read it to decide for myself.

_________________
It's terrible, but I guess songs are just interesting things to do with the air.
-Tom Waits

Yeah, i'd have thought it was the other way round too, So long was the big feel good book, like he wanted to give Arthur a happy ever after moment and lay the project to rest for a while. Well, there you go

Douglas seemed to have had loads of ideas which he probably thought all merited the same attention, so for Hitch Hiker's Guide to be the one which really took off would have been a double edged sword - on the one hand the success allowed great freedom but he was also obliged to go back to HHG at the expense of other things.. its par for the course for any creative person who's known for one thing despite doing so much else

I think tho that if he'd seen the movie up to and including the opening song, he would have been very happy

I like to see wikipedia planet Earth's version of the Guide for, although is frequently out of date and has much in it which is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over other encyclopaedia formats in that it's free and very accessible. The spirit of Douglas Adams lives on

_________________
if you can keep your head whilst all around you people are losing theirs, you may have misjudged the situation