I was 9 when he published Hitchhiker's guide. I'd just started reading and would go on to spend my teens reading ANYTHING I managed to lay my hands on. And throughout my teens everyone went on and on about Hitchhiker's Guide, and it just didn't... push me to read it. I eventually read it after being consrcipted. And it left me feeling as ambivalent as I felt before reading it.
As the comments here evidence, people read much into it, and the number 42. This is great. I felt books like The Ugly American [0], Honey Badger (Robert Ruark) and King Rat [1] had more to offer. My opinion hasn't much changed - but I feel the problem lies with me, in that depth and meaning are what I value.
Is humour the entirety of the draw for Hitchhiker's Guide, or (probably more likely) have I missed something?
Hitchhikers is more or less a series of vignettes that describe some human activity or historical event in such a way as to foreground it’s inherent absurdity. In a way, it’s meaning is to strip other things of meaning. Appreciating it goes hand in hand with appreciating Monty Python, who do the same thing. Hitchhikers is brilliant not insofar as it is layered with meaning as a work of literature, but in that it is quite dense with successful and memorable “skits” that poke fun at English society’s sacred cows. It’s a great example of science fiction as an analytical tool, where by redescribing something outside of its culturally weighted context a new perspective can be gained. I’d say that’s the primary “meaning” to be gained outside of the humor itself. As an example, one of the sections where he describes a whole series of absurd events that culminates in someone getting nailed to a tree for suggesting that everyone should get along, at which point you realize he’s describing the Jesus story. I think it’s a great read for someone in their adolescent years, to help them build some deconstructionist tools, but in a gentle way (Adams is quite humanist in the midst of all the absurdity).
You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value.
Your question can't be taken in good faith when that's the ground you plant your feet on.
My opinion is that much of what Adams was getting across is that meaning is where and when you find it. Something that means nothing to others can mean the world to you, and vice versa. Other's in this conversation have said much the same thing.
> You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value.
Rather, it seems that the statement is saying that HHTTG lacks depth and meaning for him. (In the context that people like it anyway, but that doesn't imply they don't value depth and meaning; maybe they just like the humor, too, which he doesn't get that much.)
> You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value.
I think, to the extent that it is an argument for that, it is offset by the question "(probably more likely) have I missed something?". That seems to be a clear indication that, since other people here do value it, FourthProtocol thinks it likely that the depth and meaning are there, just that they haven't found them.
(I also think that many of us here, me included, have such an emotional attachment to HHGttG that it's easy to be offended by such statements, whereas clearly subjective statements like "Lisp is ugly and hard to read" and "Haskell is obscure and too obsessed with theory for a practical programmer to use" would, while surely provoking argument, probably not garner such an emotional response even from Lisp and Haskell fans.)
Maybe you're right. Maybe our understanding of "depth and meaning" is not quite the same. Some of us like apples, others oranges. Diversitry makes humanity awesome.
I think there is a lot of depth in HHGG. I read the whole 42 saga as a parable on society's tendency to trust computer outputs without understanding what they really mean. There's a lot of great social commentary in there, one example that springs to mind is a planet run by middle managers declaring leaves as fiat currency as that way money really does grow on trees. Eventually this leads to mass deforestation in an attempt to halt inflation. A good critique of the economic status quo about 20 years before such things were widespread.
Humour is what drew me to it the first time I read it. A friend pointed out that there are some hidden jokes that only make sense when you already know how it will end, so I read it again, and again... And kept discovering new layers. With years (I take it in my hands from time to time) these discoveries became a rare occurance, but I'm quite sure I still missed some of the gems. And it took some growing up to understand some of the messages.
Adams really was a master of observation. Especially if you consider that many things we take for granted today either didn't exist or were in very early stages (like Internet). Predicting basically "wikipedia on a phone" that far back is mindblowing. And of course, the exaggerared (but still believable) characters are a work of genius.
Maybe give it a second chance if you have spare time?
That said, I only read the last book twice because it makes me depressed. Ymmv of course.
I read Voltaire's Candide a few years before reading The Hitchhikers Guide. I'm glad I did.
The characters, style, themes, were all taken from Voltaire's master work. I still enjoyed reading Douglas Adams. Comparing the two gave me an understanding of what English Lit is. Enjoying each, in a different way, taught me to appreciate works as stand alone objects, and in a larger canon of literature. Though I'm still glad I read Voltaire first.
I think that the quaint wackiness in HHTTG is simply a cult thing; it provides its fans (plus a broader body of geeks) with a body of references they can draw upon in order to communicate. Like this 42 thing. You don't need depth for that, or even humor that is rib-splitting. I think that the work simply holds a charm for some people, which may be all stylistic; it's okay to dig style. Just like quantity can be a quality of its own (who said that, Stalin?), style can be a depth of its own.
As the comments here evidence, people read much into it, and the number 42. This is great. I felt books like The Ugly American [0], Honey Badger (Robert Ruark) and King Rat [1] had more to offer. My opinion hasn't much changed - but I feel the problem lies with me, in that depth and meaning are what I value.
Is humour the entirety of the draw for Hitchhiker's Guide, or (probably more likely) have I missed something?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_American
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Rat_(Clavell_novel)