[stevage]

I always kind of wish HHGttG was as good as the geekdom's fondness of it suggests. I read it, I enjoyed it, but really, it is such a depressing series. And there is very little that's particularly funny or interesting after the first book and a half. So many dull and drawn out scenes of characters in miserable situations. And that whole tortured Krikkit gag trying to explain the origins of cricket. Sigh.

[cjs_ac]

I think it's a lot like a lot of the Monty Python stuff: a lot of it is reflecting on a social order that was particular to Britain and no longer exists in quite the same way, so a lot of the satire doesn't land any more. The offbeat quirkiness has also become mainstream in British comedy, and so has also lost its edge. I think the fandom remains stronger in the US because American comedy still feels industrially mass-produced, and so the absurdism is still a bit novel there.

[rikroots]

I really like Stephen Fry's take on the difference between American and British comedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k2AbqTBxao (YouTube)

[jvm___]

Animaniacs has the same problem, they mock politicians and celebrities from the early 90's, but the person their making fun of is just a drawn version of themselves so you're assumed to know who they are and why their being made fun of.

[Aeolun]

I don’t think you need to be familiar with that specific social order to appreciate the jokes?

[mike-the-mikado]

Much of the impact of comedy comes from novelty and originality. We have had several generations of comedians influenced by Adams and Python. Unsurprisingly, younger people who didn't hear them when their work was new do not appreciate the full impact of their originality.

[RGX9]

I completely agree, it's one of those works where the pop culture lens filters a lot of things. I think Adam Douglas himself mentions in an interview that the later HHGttG books reflect his personal depression, and the enormous time pressure they were written in. Probably the whole series should have been one book, but it also makes it feel a bit human - here's this really smart guy with a lot of brilliant ideas, he just didn't manage to fully finish everything before it's shipped.

[sooperserieous]

"I love deadlines. I love the WHOOSHING sound they make as they go be." -- DA

[stevage]

Ah, they were written under time pressure? That actually explains a lot.

[atq2119]

I believe it's more that Douglas Adams was a huge procrastinator.

[thom]

I consider myself an enormous Douglas Adam’s fan, but I only really enjoy the original radio series of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, so I don’t think I can get too uppity about your comment. I’m not sure I’d call it depressing though, if anything it’s absurd in the tradition of Camus, and lit up my world during some bleak periods in my youth. The cultural impact of those early works is still enormous, at least in the UK, so I can’t begrudge the later works, and I still find the end of So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish quite moving.

[lukan]

"I still find the end of So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish quite moving."

Moving, but maybe still depressing?

So warning of spoilers, but Arthurs sole mission is to find the place he is supposed to visit, before he can finally die. (His only wish because his girlfriend vanished from existence)

And in the end he finds the place, which is not what anyone expected and they indeed all die, including his daughter.

After they concluded, there is no other place, no other home, because, every other place is also falling apart. Pretty dark ending in my opinion.

[thom]

That's Mostly Harmless, and yes, Adams was quite depressed when he wrote it. I still don't hate that ending - I segued in my youth from these books straight into existential philosophy (I was a tiresome bore then and still am, apologies) and I could very much sympathise with Ford at the end finding it all hilarious. But you could easily stop reading at So Long and feel quite satisfied no matter your outlook, I think, even after shedding some tears for Marvin.

[lukan]

Ah yes, "thanks for the fish" was rather the book of unusual luck happening to poor Arthur.

But I also don't hate the ending of "Mostly harmless". It is a fitting end alltogether. Absurd and dark, just like the very beginning of the books are.

[JKCalhoun]

I haven't re-read. Perhaps I was lucky then to have read it when it was not yet a "cultural" touchstone. "42" was not yet a meme, for example.

[eszed]

I kind of agree with you, much as I loved them when I first read them (and maintain a fondness based on that). I am looking forward to reading at least the first two books to my son in a few years time.

That apart, have you read the Dirk Gently books? I think those are DA's best, and I've happily re-read them multiple times.

[stevage]

I read the Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul, but it's a good reminder to read the whole series, thank you.

[hermitcrab]

>And that whole tortured Krikkit gag trying to explain the origins of cricket.

I remember the 4th and 5th books as pale shadows of the others. I got the impression they were only written for the money.

[t-3]

It's a great middle school book, but it doesn't really hold up all that well afterwards. I've tried to reread the series a few times as an adult and couldn't even get through the first book.

[Aeolun]

Isn’t that more because you re-read it? I read it first as an adult, and it was still funny.

[t-3]

Being enjoyable the first time is just meeting the standard. To rise above mediocrity the book needs to be able to be read more than once. Great books get better the more times you read them.