New Edition of HHGG Gives Away The Punchlines in the Preface!!

[Wowbagger]

How sick is this?!

Eoin Colfer, the author of the "6th" HHGG novel*, has also written a new preface for Douglas Adam's first HHGG novel.

First of all: The preface is not written very well: It seems to target kindergarten students who would, presumably, be too young to actually read the actual book. But, besides that point, he also...

...Gives away the most important jokes!! Before you even read the book itself!!!

Yes, including the Great Answer to the Great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything! It's right there, right in the preface: The actual number! And, it's not even hidden or obscured**!! There is actually a line in the book that says it. Something like:


"oh, and watch out for the number 42. That is the answer to the question of life the universe and everything."

That might not be an exact quote, but that is essentially what it actually states.

Yes: In the preface!

This is not really a preface, at all! This is a deface! And, I hope Douglas Adams gets to strangle him, whenever he reaches the pits of Hell!!

----------------------------------------------
*This new book entitled, And Another Thing..., might be the subject of a different thread. I have not read it, yet. But, for some weird reason, I don't feel very anxious about that. I suppose we could talk about it here, if anyone wants to turn this into a general Eoin Colfer bashing thread. But, for now, I would rather focus on his hideous preface. It makes me want to throw things around the house!!

**Like some examples that might be found, around here. ;)

[Ysidro]

Does anyone NOT know this stuff yet? I figure we're pretty much in "rosebud" territory here.

[Puppycow]

Does anyone NOT know this stuff yet? I figure we're pretty much in "rosebud" territory here.

What is this "rosebud" of which you speak? :confused:

[Puppycow]

There seems to be a trend of adding "sequels" to the works of dead authors these days.

Plenty of opportunity for Nerd Rage, like the OP. :rub:

I recently read about a "sequel" to the Winnie-the-Pooh books.

A new Winnie-the-Pooh? Oh bother (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-pooh8-2009oct08,0,7744908.story)

As one who can see a cloud in any silver lining, I have a soft spot for Winnie-the-Pooh's melancholy friend, Eeyore. So I wasn't surprised to find myself agreeing with the donkey's gloomy prediction in the introduction to author David Benedictus' new book of Pooh stories, "Return to the Hundred Acre Wood," which was released this week. "He'll get it wrong," Eeyore says of the writer. "See if he doesn't."

This is the first authorized sequel to A.A. Milne's tales of the beloved bear, and it was clearly penned with all the care a conscientious and talented author could muster. And yet, even if Benedictus got it right, with great attention to the nuances that made us love Milne's original stories from the 1920s, he got it wrong. The guileless Pooh and his pals were just fine as we left them decades ago in the enchanted forest, where "a little boy and his Bear will always be playing."

Literature belongs to its era and can't simply be added to decades later, especially after the author has died. Call me cranky, but I don't think we need another Pooh book. And we certainly don't need a new character like the otter, Lottie, that Benedictus has added, even if she helps address a gender imbalance in the Hundred Acre Wood. Why couldn't Benedictus have made the haughty otter the hero of her own book, giving future generations of children a new story, while leaving intact the Pooh tales their parents and grandparents treasured?

[technoextreme]

42 isn't the punchline.

[Wowbagger]

Does anyone NOT know this stuff yet? I figure we're pretty much in "rosebud" territory here. Even if that were true, the actual publishers of books have a professional obligation not to spoil their own secrets.

Could you imagine if a new release of Fight Club was made, that included an introduction that stated:

In this movie, it will be revealed that Tyler and the Narrator are, in fact, the same person, so watch out for those clues!!

It would be exactly the same attitude portrayed in that preface!

Or, how about The Sixth Sense:

And, just wait until you see the look on Dr. Crowe's face, when he finds out he was already dead!!

(Of course, some films and books choose to give away their ending early. But, that would be the original artist's decision, not the publisher's or the commenter's.)

Secondly:

If you read the preface, it was clearly written as an introduction to those who have not, yet, read the book. Particularly young readers, who might not have heard about that gag, already. It comes complete with descriptions of the characters you will meet, etc. (Oh yeah, he gives away jokes about them, too!)

isn't the punchline.
Eh. Close enough to count. (And, please show some respect, and use spoiler tags, if you are going to mention the number.)

[Wowbagger]

There seems to be a trend of adding "sequels" to the works of dead authors these days. I am going to try to hold off commenting on the new book, until I read. I have not even read any reviews about it, (but I have glimpsed some less-than-positive headlines). And, if the new deface of the HHGG book is anything to go by, it sounds like this guy's writing skills would be more suitable for his mother's refrigerator.

But, yes, I do intend to read it, eventually. For the historical necessity, if nothing else. One can not claim to be a True HHGG Completeist, without it, I'm afraid.

I recently got into the habit of read one "bad" book a year. For three years they have been pseudo-scientific attempts at "non-fiction". Maybe next year I will read And Another Thing... in place of that.

If it turns out that I actually like it (which is unlikely, but this is only a hypothetical conjecture) then I suppose I could read something else, for the spot. (I hear Dianetics is some good, awful rubbish to waste one's time with.)

[alfaniner]

This reminds me of the first time I read Lord of the Flies. The foreword/preface actually said that when Piggy is killed it's like all symbolic and stuff. Thanks a lot.

I have been hesitant to read any literary introductions ever since. At least, before reading the actual book.

[Dave Rogers]

What is this "rosebud" of which you speak? :confused:

http://xkcd.com/109/

Dave

[Meridian]

I was lucky that I only looked at the back cover of The Third Policeman after reading it; the blurb on the back of some editions gives away that the narrator is dead through most of the book.

Even worse is the Ken Follett novel called The third twin. The title gives away a key element of the plot!

[Trifikas]

It's not like "The Answer" is a major plot twist to the books. It really is just the MacGuffin of the first few books, and barely mentioned in the rest. That it gets mentioned in the new preface isn't all that Spoiler-iffic.

[technoextreme]

Even if that were true, the actual publishers
Eh. Close enough to count. (And, please show some respect, and use spoiler tags, if you are going to mention the number.)
No. It isn't even close. And I'm not going to use spoiler tags on a freaking number that I keep on forgetting and yet everyone and their mom knows what the hell I am talking about. 42 is the freaking set up to the punchline.
Me: 47.
Someone: You mean 42.
Me: 49
Someone else: You mean 42.

[Careyp74]

I am going to try to hold off commenting on the new book, until I read. I have not even read any reviews about it, (but I have glimpsed some less-than-positive headlines). And, if the new deface of the HHGG book is anything to go by, it sounds like this guy's writing skills would be more suitable for his mother's refrigerator.

But, yes, I do intend to read it, eventually. For the historical necessity, if nothing else. One can not claim to be a True HHGG Completeist, without it, I'm afraid.

I recently got into the habit of read one "bad" book a year. For three years they have been pseudo-scientific attempts at "non-fiction". Maybe next year I will read And Another Thing... in place of that.

If it turns out that I actually like it (which is unlikely, but this is only a hypothetical conjecture) then I suppose I could read something else, for the spot. (I hear Dianetics is some good, awful rubbish to waste one's time with.)

If the writer can't even write a good preface, what makes you think he can write a book, nonetheless one that continues a story written by someone as good as Adams?

BTW, isn't Arthur Dent's detective agency the 6th book? Haven't read it.

[Darat]

Didn't Adams design a cover for one print run that had 42 on the cover?

ETA: Thought so - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hitchhiker's_Guide_(book_cover).jpg

[commandlinegamer]

At one point in the story, I think just as the Heart of Gold nears Magrathea, we are warned that there will be turbulence ahead and that one member of the crew will sustain a bruised forearm, so as not to shock the readers (though he does hold back the name of the individual concerned so that not all the suspense will be lost).

[Trifikas]

BTW, isn't Arthur Dent's detective agency the 6th book? Haven't read it.

I'm guessing you mean "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" and it's Sequel; Arthur Dent isn't a part of it.

[Ian Osborne]

<sigh>

The DVD box set of Planet of the Apes shows

the ruined Statue of Liberty on the beach

telegraphing one of the most breathtaking surprise endings in cinematic history.

[Wowbagger]

It's not like "The Answer" is a major plot twist to the books. It really is just the MacGuffin of the first few books, and barely mentioned in the rest. That it gets mentioned in the new preface isn't all that Spoiler-iffic.But, it is one of the principal jokes in the book: One that takes a lot of effort to set up, and the payoff in the "punchline" works best if you don't see it coming.

It's the psychology of how the mind's humorous surprise response is triggered, that we should be taking into consideration, here.

42 is the freaking set up to the punchline.
The problem with Douglas Adams' writing - actually one problem with his writing for there are several - is that the set-up for his jokes are often funny enough that they are indistinguishable from the actual punchline content.

We can try to argue about what exactly constitutes a punchline or not. My main point is that the revelation of The Answer is one of the key funny points in the book, and one that is ruined if given away too early.

If the writer can't even write a good preface, what makes you think he can write a book, nonetheless one that continues a story written by someone as good as Adams? Well, I do know he can write a book, because he has already done so. It's probably not written well... but I am willing to see his train wreck for myself, eventually. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.

BTW, isn't Arthur Dent's detective agency the 6th book? Haven't read it.You could be referring to one of two things:

Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, by Douglas Adams, which is not related to HHGG.

The Salmon of Doubt, which remained unfinished when Douglas Adams died. It started as a new Dirk Gently novel. But, Adams was considering transforming it into another HHGG novel, instead. Since it was never finished, we will probably never know it's true intended final fate.

Didn't Adams design a cover for one print run that had 42 on the cover?
That one was hidden and obscured. (Which reminds me of another form of that number, somewhere... hmmm...) And, there was no suggestion that it was connected with LU&E, anyway.

The movie posters and DVD cover for the 2005 movie has a more blatant number on it. I was never happy about that. But, at least there was no connection with LU&E.


At one point in the story, I think just as the Heart of Gold nears Magrathea, we are warned that there will be turbulence ahead and that one member of the crew will sustain a bruised forearm, so as not to shock the readers (though he does hold back the name of the individual concerned so that not all the suspense will be lost). That was the original artist's creative decision. That is not some outsider knocking down his more carefully set up jokes.

Though, it's not necessarily the mere act of revealing the punchlines that bugs me, so much as the fact that this was IN THE BOOK'S OWN PREFACE. If he just wrote about it on a blog, it would not matter to me, so much.

Giving away the jokes in the preface strikes me as unprofessionally disrespectful, to say the least.

[BobTheDonkey]

At one point in the story, I think just as the Heart of Gold nears Magrathea, we are warned that there will be turbulence ahead and that one member of the crew will sustain a bruised forearm, so as not to shock the readers (though he does hold back the name of the individual concerned so that not all the suspense will be lost).

The difference is the way in which it's presented.

DA included that warning as a joke, in it's own right. It's humorous in that the author pauses the book in the middle of quite a bit of action to reassure the reader.

Not at all the same as reading that bit of info in a preface...Besides, it adds to the intrigue/suspense - we know they're in danger, we know they get out of it relatively unscathed, but we're still left wanting to know how it all resolves (complete with it's own interesting quirks).

With the preface informing us of the answer, there's no suspense left really. The joke about the answer is the answer itself. Throwing it out there before even reading the book doesn't build any suspense.

[Fitter]

One should never read a foreward prior to reading the work itself.

[Darat]

...snip..

With the preface informing us of the answer, there's no suspense left really. The joke about the answer is the answer itself. Throwing it out there before even reading the book doesn't build any suspense.

I disagree, I would say the joke is really about the reaction there is to the answer.

[Wowbagger]

One should never read a foreward prior to reading the work itself. Good adivce, in general. But, how many people are instinctively going to know that?

And there are some possible exceptions:
1. If the foreward was written or endorsed by the original author.

2. If it is a work of non-fiction, sometimes the forewards can make interesting points. (Though, sometimes they will pick on details you have yet to read about, especially in second-editions. So, sometimes it is best to save them for later, too.)

3. Books older than, say, 100 years or so. Sometimes there is a language barrier, and some historical context, that has to be explained, before you get into the actual book. And, the authors of classics tend to be very professional about these things. (though, there might be exceptions.)

I disagree, I would say the joke is really about the reaction there is to the answer....which, I might add, the reader can experience, and be part of ...if it is not revealed in advance.

[Careyp74]

I'm guessing you mean "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" and it's Sequel; Arthur Dent isn't a part of it.

I am having one of those days.

[Careyp74]

<sigh>

The DVD box set of Planet of the Apes shows

the ruined Statue of Liberty on the beach

telegraphing one of the most breathtaking surprise endings in cinematic history.

That is a big one. I remember seeing that, and the whole thing came together the right way. Not as interesting the second time around knowing it was, you know, where it was.

[BobTheDonkey]

I disagree, I would say the joke is really about the reaction there is to the answer.

:D Ok, you put it better than I managed. I agree that the joke is about the reaction to the answer - but the reaction just isn't there if you already know what the answer is before you get to the why...

[Ian Osborne]

That is a big one. I remember seeing that, and the whole thing came together the right way. Not as interesting the second time around knowing it was, you know, where it was.

My blood ran cold first time I saw it. I remember thinking when I bought the DVDs, 'maybe they reckon everyone knows anyway by now', but this is no excuse. When I watched it again with my partner (who had never seen it before), I made sure she didn't see the box in advance. She was blown away by that ending too, a reaction she was almost cheated from by a careless piece of packaging.

[Almo]

No. It isn't even close. And I'm not going to use spoiler tags on a freaking number that I keep on forgetting and yet everyone and their mom knows what the hell I am talking about.

There is a special circle in hell reserved for people who spoil things for others. It doesn't matter how ubiquitous the event/plot element in question is.

Example:

In film class, we were about to watch Psycho. The prof said, "Has anyone here not seen this?"

One person raised their hand. He made the stabbing gesture. "Do you know what this is?" She said no. He said "SHHHH!!!!! Don't spoil this for her!!"

So, afterward, we were able to get a very special perspective on the film. How someone feels about it when they don't know what's going to happen. Psycho does something very unusual (especially for its time period), and its effect is lost if you know what's coming.

The main character gets killed before the halfway point in the film. It sets you up to identify with her, then yanks her away. Then you transfer your identification to Norman. Then you find out he's the bad guy and you sympathized with him. Very effective film making! Also the stabbing scene is one of the earliest uses of quick-cut editing.

And what's more, it's EASY to use spoiler tags. Not doing so is lazy and disresepectful. The presence of people who refuse to do so is why I won't read any thread on this forum about a movie I haven't seen yet.

You can rail and kick and scream about how it's unreasonable for us to ask for spoiler tags. But in reality, it is those who refuse to use them that are being unreasonable given how easy it is, and that you can still say whatever you want inside the spoiler tags.

[technoextreme]

The presence of people who refuse to do so is why I won't read any thread on this forum about a movie I haven't seen yet.
We're talking about stuff that existed before I was even alive. I'm sorry. I will never put Han shot first into spoiler tags to appease someone who hasn't seen Star Wars. The statue of limitations is over. Han shot first. Luke is Darth Vader's son. And the answer to the meaning of life is 42. The Heart of Gold blows up in the third book. And the Restaurant at the End of the Universe's egg's are a bit runny. So far I've only seen a bunch of whinnying about stuff that was parodied so much that there should be no reason for you to not know about its existence.
With the preface informing us of the answer, there's no suspense left really. The joke about the answer is the answer itself. Throwing it out there before even reading the book doesn't build any suspense.
No. The joke is not the answer.
Its the question. The punchline is the question. Its the reason why Earth was created. Its the reason why it was rebuilt. The question pretty much is the cause of the entire plot to the book.

[BobTheDonkey]

I disagree. The joke is the search for the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Part of the joke is that the Earth was created (and then recreated) to answer that question. The punchline of the joke is that, ultimately, the two pan-dimensional beings don't care what the real answer is - they just want the fame and money from having an answer.

[technoextreme]

I disagree. The joke is the search for the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Part of the joke is that the Earth was created (and then recreated) to answer that question. The punchline of the joke is that, ultimately, the two pan-dimensional beings don't care what the real answer is - they just want the fame and money from having an answer.
Good point. And yes I'm not that much of a jerk that I would give away the entire plot to a book.

[JohnG]

The publishers of the new edition of the original Hitchhiker's Guide have this to say in response to the public outcry over Eoin Colfer's outrageous and unforgivable faux pas:

"We apologize for the inconvenience"

[BobTheDonkey]

The publishers of the new edition of the original Hitchhiker's Guide have this to say in response to the public outcry over Eoin Colfer's outrageous and unforgivable faux pas:

"We apologize for the inconvenience"

:D

Nom'd for making me laugh

[Wowbagger]

Luke is Darth Vader's son. No way!!! Shut the hell up!! :jaw-dropp

I will never put Han shot first into spoiler tags to appease someone who hasn't seen Star Wars. The statue of limitations is over. Han shot first. With the Luke example, the statute probably did expire. The phrase "Luke, I am your father" has entered our popular lexicon. And, these days, it is considered humorous by many, to fein shock at finding this this out, when it is mentioned.

(Anytime someone mentions that Vader was Luke's father, at a Sci-Fi convention, there is almost always at least one person in the audience sarcastically gasping in surprise.)

The thing about Han shooting first is that it is hardly giving anything away. It is a character-defining moment, that Lucas mucked up in one of his revisions.

And the answer to the meaning of life is 42. Not quite the same level of popular knowledge as Vader being Luke's daddy.

Also: Even if someone knows that the number 42 somehow relates to the book (or the movie, as its poster gives away), they might not expect it to show up at that particular, critical moment. Chances are, they will forget about the number as they read the book, come across the reveal and laugh; and then when looking back onto the cover, they might either say "Oh, I never even noticed that before", or "Oh, so that's why that was there!"

Blatantly telling someone the significance of the number, in very direct, unambiguous terms, before they read it, throws all that out the window.

The Heart of Gold blows up in the third book.Which version of the third book is this?!

So far I've only seen a bunch of whinnying about stuff that was parodied so much that there should be no reason for you to not know about its existence. My point is that there are plenty who probably don't. I didn't know anything about The Answer, when I first read the book, and it had already been out for 15 or so years. AND, I even had already played through some of the computer game.

Young readers, the precise audience the preface was written for, are the ones most likely NOT to have known it already.

[quadraginta]

The publishers of the new edition of the original Hitchhiker's Guide have this to say in response to the public outcry over Eoin Colfer's outrageous and unforgivable faux pas:

"We apologize for the inconvenience"


Beautiful.

I have to agree with the OP. In the final regard there is no need to explain 42 to people who have read the books, and lots of reasons not to spoil things for people who haven't.

Although it might be hard to credit in these environs, there are people who haven't encountered it yet. Seems a shame to deny them the experience.

[nathan]

I have been hesitant to read any literary introductions ever since. At least, before reading the actual book.

I don't read them either. Why do I need to have someone to tell me what to think about the story? I've got the damn story *right there*, I can make up my own mind.

[nathan]

<sigh>

The DVD box set of Planet of the Apes shows

telegraphing one of the most breathtaking surprise endings in cinematic history.

They ruined the movie! They ruined it all to hell!

[nathan]

(Anytime someone mentions that Vader was Luke's father, at a Sci-Fi convention, there is almost always at least one person in the audience sarcastically gasping in surprise.)

what? no!

[technoextreme]

Which version of the third book is this?!

The one I am making up in my head. And Psycho is the movie with lots of birds. Lots and lots of birds.

[McHrozni]

I only condone the capital punishment in most extreme cases. This one qualifies.

McHrozni

[alfaniner]

A great t-shirt:
http://www.threadless.com/product/844/Spoilt#zoom

[Uzzy]

There are certain spoilers it can be generally assumed that people already know about. I think 42 is one of them, given how much it's entered pop culture.

[Wowbagger]

I only condone the capital punishment in most extreme cases. This one qualifies.Wow. You're more serious about this, than I am. I was just going to write him and the publisher some angry letters.

There are certain spoilers it can be generally assumed that people already know about. I think 42 is one of them, given how much it's entered pop culture. See my previous posts on this point. That is not the issue.

And, it looks like I managed to get response #42 in this thread! :)

[Wowbagger]

Actually, this is response #42. My previous post, in here, was Post #42 which counts the opening post.

[quadraginta]

There are certain spoilers it can be generally assumed that people already know about. I think 42 is one of them, given how much it's entered pop culture.

My son, who is currently wandering around the country with his SO, sightseeing just for the hell of it, called me earlier today for no other reason than to let me know about the new HHGTG book.

I brought up the discussion here about the foreword, and he shares your viewpoint.

I raised him well, and carefully inculcated a sense of good judgment. Perhaps I am falling victim to old-fogey sacred-cowism, and should rethink mine.

[Wowbagger]

The Answer was already well into pop culture, apparently, before I read HHGG, for the first time. But, I was young enough that I hadn't actually heard it, already.

It's one thing to discuss The Answer outside of the book: Say in a blog, or (*shudder*) Cliff's Notes, etc. Or, perhaps even a forum thread like this (I guess I'll take back the request to place it in spoilers, the Genie's already out of this bottle).

But, it's quite another to give it away in the preface. (And, to add insult to injury, it's given away in a rather particularly puerile and abhorrent manner. Much of the preface reads like a five year old first learning naughty words, or something.)

Not even Star Wars gives away that Vader is Luke's daddy, in its own introduction!

[quadraginta]

The Answer was already well into pop culture, apparently, before I read HHGG, for the first time. But, I was young enough that I hadn't actually heard it, already.

It's one thing to discuss The Answer outside of the book: Say in a blog, or (*shudder*) Cliff's Notes, etc. Or, perhaps even a forum thread like this (I guess I'll take back the request to place it in spoilers, the Genie's already out of this bottle).

But, it's quite another to give it away in the preface. (And, to add insult to injury, it's given away in a rather particularly puerile and abhorrent manner. Much of the preface reads like a five year old first learning naughty words, or something.)

Not even Star Wars gives away that Vader is Luke's daddy, in its own introduction!

See. That's the thing. I think that it is difficult, from the perspective of the company many of us keep, to understand that there are lots of people who know nothing about Doug Adams or HHGTG.

My gut instinct is, as I posted earlier, that it would be sad to deprive them of the same enjoyment we had. Others seem to be addressing the inevitability of this foreknowledge, but I don't assume it. Unless it was otherwise some sort of kick-ass foreword there isn't any really good reason to stick in a spoiler.

My son made the point that people wouldn't be reading this book if they hadn't already read the others, but that doesn't seem to be enough to me. They're going to be hustling the old books on the coattails of this new one, and many potential new fans are going to start by picking up this new book at some display and perusing it to see what the fuss is about.

Oh, well.

[Rogue1stclass]

It was spoiled for me by my idiot friends.

However, I still read it back to back three times in a row, did the same with the second and third, and read the third and fourth as soon as they came out. Mostly Harmless in hardcover that I still have around here someplace.

By contrast, Empire Strikes Back filled my 10 year old heart with rage. No way was Vader Luke's father. Take that back, Movie!

[JohnG]

By contrast, Empire Strikes Back filled my 10 year old heart with rage. No way was Vader Luke's father. Take that back, Movie!


I was 14 when Empire was released. A friend of mine read the novelization before the movie was released and gave away the twist despite the fact that I emphatically told him I didn't want to know anything. We weren't so friendly after that.

[fleabeetle]

Not about “spoilers, yes or no” – just indulging myself in a bit of perhaps not-very-fair prejudice and spleen-venting. Pretty well no idiocy or ineptitude on the part of Eoin Colfer, would surprise me. As soon as I heard, a while ago, that he was writing a HHGG series sequel, I resolved to have no truck with said sequel.

Was briefly introduced a year or two back, to the first of Colfer’s “Artemis Fowl” series: IMO poorly, clunkily written, and stupefyingly dull. Seemed to me, to rely on just one flogged-to-death joke: that the fairies’ hidden, parallel-to-our-own society (cf “Harry Potter”, but the HP “wizarding world” infinitely more engaging and interesting) has “office politics”, and indulges a great deal in same, just as human society does. I struggled through the first book, with almost zero enjoyment; and resolved never again to open anything by Colfer.

I was introduced to the abovementioned book, by my brother; who had happened on it, as possible entertainment for his then ten-year-old son. Son and father (who is not generally much of a reader) fell in love with the “A. Fowl” series, and rapidly read their way through the lot. My brother is on the whole, a bright and sensible guy… people’s mileage just varies, I suppose.

[Hawk one]

We're talking about stuff that existed before I was even alive. I'm sorry. I will never put Han shot first into spoiler tags to appease someone who hasn't seen Star Wars. The statue of limitations is over. Han shot first. Luke is Darth Vader's son. And the answer to the meaning of life is 42. The Heart of Gold blows up in the third book. And the Restaurant at the End of the Universe's egg's are a bit runny. So far I've only seen a bunch of whinnying about stuff that was parodied so much that there should be no reason for you to not know about its existence.
Why should there be a statute of limitations in the first place? Sure, the stuff existed before you were alive, but how is that actually relevant? Should only those who were alive (and in the target audience) when the book/movie/game was released be allowed to have an unspoiled experience (pun intended)? Must we take a kid at ten and forcefeed them all these "classical" movies in short order just so you won't have to spend all those five seconds making those spoiler tags?

Me, I try to be rather polite about this, and assume there will always be at least one person that doesn't know what I'm talking about. No "statute of limitations", simply trying not to spoil the damn thing.

[Cactus Wren]

I was 14 when Empire was released. A friend of mine read the novelization before the movie was released and gave away the twist despite the fact that I emphatically told him I didn't want to know anything. We weren't so friendly after that.

Different movie, similar experience, except that I was an adult and the spoiler came from a kid of ten who no matter how urgently (or loudly) I repeated "I haven't seen it yet, don't tell me what happens!" went on eagerly, "So Elliot thinks E.T. is dead, and he doesn't see the light go on so he doesn't realize E.T. is alive ... "

[Accidental Martyr]

Reading this thread has made me realize how long it's been since I read the Hitchhiker books. It actually makes me want to go back and read them again.
Oh, and I agree, the writer shouldn't have mentioned 42 in the preface.

[Father Dagon]

I've seen quite a lot of novels that has little giveaways in italics at the start of every chapter. Like: Eliza finds a long lost object and a stranger is saved from a wake in the ice. These mini-blurbs never ceases to amaze me. Is it cues to the person reading the book aloud? Or is the author or the editor making things exciting by gambling with the contract between the reader and the book? Trading the surprise for amazement of how well it was executed? You see, no one sees a Shakespeare play to be surprised, but rather how the n:th permutation of the play is.

I think that the answer to these little spoilers lies in the backside blurbs - neither are really part of the book, but are defining the expectations.

[quadraginta]

I've seen quite a lot of novels that has little giveaways in italics at the start of every chapter. Like: Eliza finds a long lost object and a stranger is saved from a wake in the ice. These mini-blurbs never ceases to amaze me. Is it cues to the person reading the book aloud? Or is the author or the editor making things exciting by gambling with the contract between the reader and the book? Trading the surprise for amazement of how well it was executed? You see, no one sees a Shakespeare play to be surprised, but rather how the n:th permutation of the play is.

I think that the answer to these little spoilers lies in the backside blurbs - neither are really part of the book, but are defining the expectations.


I believe that you are more right than you know, but perhaps not for the reasons you think.

In modern novels these are something of an emulation (or occasionally parody) of a nineteenth century style. Some of that style evolved as as result of the fact that no few of today's Great Writers In History were actually hacks who made their gelt hustling serial stories in periodicals before they achieved literary deification. Charles Dickens is an outstanding example.

Chapter headings such as you describe often were teasers and advertising blurbs, and when the works came out in book form they were often included as part of the work. Because they were. It gradually became something of a stylistic convention.

I don't say this in an effort to put down any of that literature. None of it is any less (or more) deserving of respect because it was first published in pieces in a magazine as opposed to a complete work in a book, but more than a few conventions and stylistic approaches which are considered puzzling to modern sensibilities can take on a different cast when viewed with that reality in mind.

[Father Dagon]

I believe that you are more right than you know, but perhaps not for the reasons you think.

In modern novels these are something of an emulation (or occasionally parody) of a nineteenth century style. Some of that style evolved as as result of the fact that no few of today's Great Writers In History were actually hacks who made their gelt hustling serial stories in periodicals before they achieved literary deification. Charles Dickens is an outstanding example.

Chapter headings such as you describe often were teasers and advertising blurbs, and when the works came out in book form they were often included as part of the work. Because they were. It gradually became something of a stylistic convention.

I don't say this in an effort to put down any of that literature. None of it is any less (or more) deserving of respect because it was first published in pieces in a magazine as opposed to a complete work in a book, but more than a few conventions and stylistic approaches which are considered puzzling to modern sensibilities can take on a different cast when viewed with that reality in mind.Thanks!

So you could say that the mini-blurbs are more like taglines than real blurbs? (And blurbs are a constant source of amusement for me. Because it's the nexus between art and commercialism. A blurb can make or break a book or a film.) But I haven't seen any these mini-blurbs in a modern novels, maybe in some Moomin book. Do you please have any examples?

[AdMan]

In modern novels these are something of an emulation (or occasionally parody) of a nineteenth century style. Some of that style evolved as as result of the fact that no few of today's Great Writers In History were actually hacks who made their gelt hustling serial stories in periodicals before they achieved literary deification. Charles Dickens is an outstanding example.



It actually goes farther back than that. Cervantes used a similar technique early in the 17th century in Don Quixote, the first true novel.

E.g.:

CHAPTER VIII
OF THE GOOD FORTUNE WHICH THE VALIANT DON QUIXOTE HAD IN THE TERRIBLE AND UNDREAMT-OF ADVENTURE OF THE WINDMILLS, WITH OTHER OCCURRENCES WORTHY TO BE FITLY RECORDED

[Mojo]

42 isn't the punchline.
I disagree, I would say the joke is really about the reaction there is to the answer.

No. The joke is not the answer.
Its the question. The punchline is the question. Its the reason why Earth was created. Its the reason why it was rebuilt. The question pretty much is the cause of the entire plot to the book.
I disagree. The joke is the search for the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Part of the joke is that the Earth was created (and then recreated) to answer that question. The punchline of the joke is that, ultimately, the two pan-dimensional beings don't care what the real answer is - they just want the fame and money from having an answer.


No, the punchline originally came near the end of Fit the Sixth of the radio series, when it turned out that according to Arthur's subconscious the question was "what do you get if you multiply six by nine", prompting him to say "I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe."

Didn't Adams design a cover for one print run that had 42 on the cover?

ETA: Thought so - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hitchhiker's_Guide_(book_cover).jpg


That has the right number of stones, or beads, or whatever they are, but arrived at by the wrong method - see the punchline above.

[quadraginta]

It actually goes farther back than that. Cervantes used a similar technique early in the 17th century in Don Quixote, the first true novel.

E.g.:

CHAPTER VIII
OF THE GOOD FORTUNE WHICH THE VALIANT DON QUIXOTE HAD IN THE TERRIBLE AND UNDREAMT-OF ADVENTURE OF THE WINDMILLS, WITH OTHER OCCURRENCES WORTHY TO BE FITLY RECORDED


You're right!

I have always been interested in the way that various social norms and conventions can affect the way literature is received by different generations. Sometimes it is needful to learn how to read a book written in a different era before it can be truly appreciated, simply because our expectations and sensibilities are so different today.

I'm starting to see some of the same effect in movies. Certainly the silent movie era is an example of this, but less apparent is the tenor of movies from the thirties and forties, which can disappoint a modern viewer who may not be accustomed to presentation styles which were the norm and expected at the time the movies were made.

[phildonnia]

Soylent Green is people..

[quadraginta]

Soylent Green is people..


Yeah, but soylent steaks aren't.

[/nitpick]

[uruk]

If I'm not mistaken. Isn't "42" the set up and the question, to which 42 is the answer, the punchline?

Remember the "Ultimate Question of Life, the Univers, and Everything" is not the actual question. The "question" to which "42" is answer is the actual answer to the "Ultimate Question of Life, the Univers, and Everything".


And if you can understand that, then you may have a chance of understanding HHGG.

Or at least why the Earth was commissioned to be built by the Magrathea Planet Construction Company.

[Father Dagon]

It actually goes farther back than that. Cervantes used a similar technique early in the 17th century in Don Quixote, the first true novel.

E.g.:

CHAPTER VIII
OF THE GOOD FORTUNE WHICH THE VALIANT DON QUIXOTE HAD IN THE TERRIBLE AND UNDREAMT-OF ADVENTURE OF THE WINDMILLS, WITH OTHER OCCURRENCES WORTHY TO BE FITLY RECORDEDSo Dickens etc reinvented the technique and used it for a different purpose? Because Don Quixote wasn't serialized, right? And if it wasn't that, why had Cervantes those mini-blurbs? :confused:

[LarianLeQuella]

*This new book entitled, And Another Thing..., might be the subject of a different thread. I have not read it, yet.


Someone significant does feature quite prominently in that other book. May inspire you to another written missive.

[AdMan]

So Dickens etc reinvented the technique and used it for a different purpose? Because Don Quixote wasn't serialized, right? And if it wasn't that, why had Cervantes those mini-blurbs? :confused:


No, I don't think Don Quixote was serialized. I'm no expert, but I think those mini blurbs served almost as chapter titles, and this was just a traditional way these stories were written (Cervantes wasn't the first--it dates from centuries before him), spoilers or not!

[Dr. Keith]

No, I don't think Don Quixote was serialized. I'm no expert, but I think those mini blurbs served almost as chapter titles, and this was just a traditional way these stories were written (Cervantes wasn't the first--it dates from centuries before him), spoilers or not!

If I remember correctly, and that is not at all certain, Cervantes used them to great effect. He set the reader up to expect the plot to go in one direction, but it would go in another. Or he would make a boring chapter sound more interesting and vice versa.

Of course, it gets a bit predictable after the first 500 pages.

[Dorian Gray]

One Kurt Vonnegut novel, Timequake I think, tells you when people are going to die by putting an asterisk by their name. It explains this within the book. It doesn't spoil anything.

I think that the 42 in the preface doesn't spoil the book, it spoils the joke. Shouldn't be there, but whatever. It's not the one thing like Fight Club, Sixth Sense, Crying Game, etc. When you know those 'one things', it's all over.

[AdMan]

One Kurt Vonnegut novel, Timequake I think, tells you when people are going to die by putting an asterisk by their name. It explains this within the book. It doesn't spoil anything.




I think that was Galapagos.

[Brainache]

Someone significant does feature quite prominently in that other book. May inspire you to another written missive.

See the "Worst Books You Ever Read" Thread. I'm still waiting for Wowbagger to post his scathing review.

[Father Dagon]

No, I don't think Don Quixote was serialized. I'm no expert, but I think those mini blurbs served almost as chapter titles, and this was just a traditional way these stories were written (Cervantes wasn't the first--it dates from centuries before him), spoilers or not!If I remember correctly, and that is not at all certain, Cervantes used them to great effect. He set the reader up to expect the plot to go in one direction, but it would go in another. Or he would make a boring chapter sound more interesting and vice versa.

Of course, it gets a bit predictable after the first 500 pages.That would prove my theory of how the writer is raising the bet during the "negotiation" of the contract with the reader. It's more "sell" than "book".

EDIT: I just recalled some satirical guide on how to pick a video. Found it at some site devoted to bad films. Blurbs that didn't say anything about the film, but threatened to scare the pants of the reader got a lot of points.

[Wowbagger]

Someone significant does feature quite prominently in that other book. May inspire you to another written missive. Oh yes, I did eventually read it.

You can get a teaser of my wrath towards that hideous thing, here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187493

I will try to publish the full review by next weekend. I also have to get a server up and running again, to stick it on to.

[NobbyNobbs]

At one point in the story, I think just as the Heart of Gold nears Magrathea, we are warned that there will be turbulence ahead and that one member of the crew will sustain a bruised forearm, so as not to shock the readers (though he does hold back the name of the individual concerned so that not all the suspense will be lost).

The difference being that a) that was done in the course of the story, not in the preface, and b) an artist can do anything he wants to his own creation, for better or for worse (as George Lucas has so amply demonstrated). It's an entirely different matter to screw around with someone else's work.

They ruined the movie! They ruined it all to hell!

Get yer stinking ideas off my graphic design, ya damned, dirty marketer!


This reminds of the annoyance I feel when I buy a DVD and during the previews they show a trailer for the very same movie I'm about to watch.

[autumn1971]

I have to mention that I have had the experience of watching Psycho with a friend who not only had never seen the film or heard about any of its twists, but held a graduate degree in some drama-related discipline (I believe it was something to do with stage-management, but she had to have taken some film classes in there at some point).
I was watching her as much as I watched the movie! The best was the final scene and fade. That movie gives to the last frame.
That said, I can't wait to force my son to see it someday. Same with THHGTTG.

[AdMan]

I have to mention that I have had the experience of watching Psycho with a friend who not only had never seen the film or heard about any of its twists, but held a graduate degree in some drama-related discipline (I believe it was something to do with stage-management, but she had to have taken some film classes in there at some point).
I was watching her as much as I watched the movie! The best was the final scene and fade. That movie gives to the last frame.
That said, I can't wait to force my son to see it someday. Same with THHGTTG.


I'd love to be able to watch Psycho with fresh eyes! I first watched it on TV when I was much too young to really appreciate it and it didn't make anywhere near the impression on me as it did with audiences back in 1960 when it first came out. These days I can still appreciate its technical mastery. It's amazing to think that even after these many years, some people who don't know what to expect can still be jolted by it.

And to keep th thread somewhat closer to the original topic, I'd love to have the experience of reading THHGTTG for the first time again, as, alas, I do already know the answer to the ultimate question... :)

[Wowbagger]

It's like this:

Imagine you are waiting in line to see a new act from a famous stand-up comedian. And, while doing so, one of this comedian's best friends decides to entertain the crowd, while everyone is waiting.

And, without even getting permission from the comedian, this friend lets the crowd in on some of the jokes they are about to hear, during the show... including some of the punch lines they should "watch out for".

Now, you might say to yourself: "No way! That scenario is far too unrealistic! No one could possibly be that... retarded!" (for lack of a better term)

But, that is my point! Eoin Colfer really is that "retarded"! His introduction really is that destructively stupid!! He really does disrespect Douglas Adams to that degree!!

And, if you don't believe me, I urge you to find a copy of that introduction, and read it for yourself. If you can tell me, in all honesty, that this introduction was not problematic, then we will talk. Otherwise, you're talking about crap you don't know anything about.

Thankfully, they have not published that introduction in any of the new books, for a while. Apparently, someone along the chain of command put a stop to it.

[technoextreme]

And to keep th thread somewhat closer to the original topic, I'd love to have the experience of reading THHGTTG for the first time again, as, alas, I do already know the answer to the ultimate question... :)
And that would be 47.
:cry:
Ehhh... My version of THHGTTG managed to spoil the story twenty thousand times over and you don't see me :cry: about it.

[AdMan]

And, if you don't believe me, I urge you to find a copy of that introduction, and read it for yourself. If you can tell me, in all honesty, that this introduction was not problematic, then we will talk. Otherwise, you're talking about crap you don't know anything about.

Thankfully, they have not published that introduction in any of the new books, for a while. Apparently, someone along the chain of command put a stop to it.


So which edition is this introduction in? I thought it was supposed to be a new edition.

(ETA: Well, new a year ago, so it's still relatively new.)

[technoextreme]

So which edition is this introduction in? I thought it was supposed to be a new edition.
Twenty thousand of them.

[LarianLeQuella]

I have the set from Easton Press (and Mostly Harmless is even signed by DNA). No horrid introductions there that spoil it for you.

[Wowbagger]

So which edition is this introduction in? I thought it was supposed to be a new edition.

(ETA: Well, new a year ago, so it's still relatively new.)

Funny thing, that. I can't seem to find any copies of it, any more, at all.
And, not even Google is helping, right now. I will ask around, though. This could not have all been in my head, the whole time.

[uruk]

Soylent Green is people..

If Soylent green is people, please don't tell me what Soylent yellow and Soylent brown are.

[nathan]

If Soylent green is people, please don't tell me what Soylent yellow and Soylent brown are.

Are you implying Soylent green is Wowbagger?

[TSR]

Are you implying Soylent green is Wowbagger?
.
mmmmmm wowbagger

< /homer simpson >
.