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

Wowbagger · 12th October 2009, 04:52 PM

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:

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 · 12th October 2009, 06:54 PM

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

Puppycow · 12th October 2009, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ysidro

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?

Puppycow · 12th October 2009, 07:55 PM

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.

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

A new Winnie-the-Pooh? Oh bother

Quote:

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 · 12th October 2009, 08:27 PM

42 isn't the punchline.

Wowbagger · 12th October 2009, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Ysidro

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:

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

Or, how about The Sixth Sense:

(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!)

Originally Posted by technoextreme

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 · 12th October 2009, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

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 · 12th October 2009, 11:29 PM

This reminds me of the first time I read Lord of the Flies. The foreword/preface actually said that

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 · 13th October 2009, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

What is this "rosebud" of which you speak?

http://xkcd.com/109/

Dave

Meridian · 13th October 2009, 05:01 AM

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

Even worse is the Ken Follett novel called

The title gives away a key element of the plot!

Trifikas · 13th October 2009, 05:36 AM

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 · 13th October 2009, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

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 · 13th October 2009, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

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 · 13th October 2009, 05:58 AM

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:Hi...ook_cover).jpg

commandlinegamer · 13th October 2009, 06:13 AM

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 · 13th October 2009, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Careyp74

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 · 13th October 2009, 07:34 AM

<sigh>

The DVD box set of Planet of the Apes shows

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

Wowbagger · 13th October 2009, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by technoextreme

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.

Originally Posted by Careyp74

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.

Originally Posted by Careyp74

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.

Originally Posted by Darat

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.

Originally Posted by 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).

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 · 13th October 2009, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by 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).

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 · 13th October 2009, 09:06 AM

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

Darat · 13th October 2009, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

...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 · 13th October 2009, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Fitter

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.)

Originally Posted by Darat

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 · 13th October 2009, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Trifikas

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 · 13th October 2009, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

<sigh>

The DVD box set of Planet of the Apes shows

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 · 13th October 2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

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

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 · 13th October 2009, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Careyp74

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 · 13th October 2009, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by technoextreme

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.

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 · 13th October 2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

BobTheDonkey · 13th October 2009, 07:37 PM

I disagree.

technoextreme · 13th October 2009, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

I disagree.

Good point. And yes I'm not that much of a jerk that I would give away the entire plot to a book.

JohnG · 13th October 2009, 09:43 PM

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:

BobTheDonkey · 13th October 2009, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by 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:

Nom'd for making me laugh

Wowbagger · 13th October 2009, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Luke is Darth Vader's son.

No way!!! Shut the hell up!!

Originally Posted by technoextreme

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.

Originally Posted by technoextreme

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.

Originally Posted by technoextreme

The Heart of Gold blows up in the third book.

Which version of the third book is this?!

Originally Posted by technoextreme

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 · 13th October 2009, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by 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:

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 · 14th October 2009, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

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 · 14th October 2009, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

<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 · 14th October 2009, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

(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 · 14th October 2009, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

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 · 14th October 2009, 07:30 AM

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

McHrozni

alfaniner · 14th October 2009, 10:45 AM

A great t-shirt:

12th October 2009, 04:52 PM	#1
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,725	New Edition of HHGG Gives Away The Punchlines in the Preface!! 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.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter!

12th October 2009, 06:54 PM	#2
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,853	Does anyone NOT know this stuff yet? I figure we're pretty much in "rosebud" territory here.
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,853	__________________ "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

12th October 2009, 07:48 PM	#3
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by Ysidro 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?
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

12th October 2009, 07:55 PM	#4
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	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. I recently read about a "sequel" to the Winnie-the-Pooh books. A new Winnie-the-Pooh? Oh bother Quote: 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?
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

12th October 2009, 08:27 PM	#5
technoextreme Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,886	42 isn't the punchline.
	__________________ It's amazing how many of these "paranormal" icons seem to merge together. There always seem to be theories about how they link together in some way. I'm sure someone has a very good explanation as to how Bigfoot killed JFK to help cover Roswell.-Mark Mekes This isn't rocket surgery.-Bill Nye Last edited by technoextreme; 12th October 2009 at 08:37 PM.

12th October 2009, 08:45 PM	#6
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,725	Originally Posted by Ysidro 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!) Originally Posted by technoextreme 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.)
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter!

12th October 2009, 09:01 PM	#7
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,725	Originally Posted by Puppycow 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.)
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter!

12th October 2009, 11:29 PM	#8
alfaniner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sorth Dakonsin Posts: 7,648	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.
	__________________ It's pronounced "alpha-nine-er". Last edited by alfaniner; 12th October 2009 at 11:30 PM.

13th October 2009, 02:45 AM	#9
Dave Rogers The Unbanned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Notlob Posts: 8,013	Originally Posted by Puppycow What is this "rosebud" of which you speak? http://xkcd.com/109/ Dave
	__________________ "I guess for Truthers the great thing about Google is that it abolishes context automatically, thus saving your precious reserves of stupid for more important tasks." - Dr. Adequate GENERATION 6: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

13th October 2009, 05:01 AM	#10
Meridian Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 63	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!
Meridian Scholar Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 63

13th October 2009, 05:36 AM	#11
Trifikas Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Philly 'burbs Posts: 274	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.

13th October 2009, 05:48 AM	#12
technoextreme Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,886	Originally Posted by Wowbagger 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.
	__________________ It's amazing how many of these "paranormal" icons seem to merge together. There always seem to be theories about how they link together in some way. I'm sure someone has a very good explanation as to how Bigfoot killed JFK to help cover Roswell.-Mark Mekes This isn't rocket surgery.-Bill Nye Last edited by technoextreme; 13th October 2009 at 05:52 AM.

13th October 2009, 05:52 AM	#13
Careyp74 Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 1,656	Originally Posted by Wowbagger 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.

13th October 2009, 05:58 AM	#14
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,705	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:Hi...ook_cover).jpg
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 13th October 2009 at 05:59 AM.

13th October 2009, 06:13 AM	#15
commandlinegamer Muse Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Scotland Posts: 816	Douglas did it too 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).

13th October 2009, 07:29 AM	#16
Trifikas Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Philly 'burbs Posts: 274	Originally Posted by Careyp74 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.

13th October 2009, 07:34 AM	#17
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Bath Posts: 5,456	<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.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

13th October 2009, 08:45 AM	#18
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,725	Originally Posted by 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. 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. Originally Posted by technoextreme 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. Originally Posted by Careyp74 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. Originally Posted by Careyp74 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. Originally Posted by Darat 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. Originally Posted by 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). 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.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter!

13th October 2009, 09:03 AM	#19
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 913	Originally Posted by 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). 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.
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 913	__________________ [As] to the pointy of moral lessons, I may as well take them from Bruce Lee as Jesus. He's contradictory, fallible, arrogant...But at least I know he existed. - Red3

13th October 2009, 09:06 AM	#20
Fitter Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Just outside Balzac Posts: 2,406	One should never read a foreward prior to reading the work itself.

13th October 2009, 09:20 AM	#21
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,705	Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey ...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.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

13th October 2009, 09:35 AM	#22
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,725	Originally Posted by Fitter 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.) Originally Posted by Darat 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.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter! Last edited by Wowbagger; 13th October 2009 at 09:36 AM.

13th October 2009, 09:44 AM	#23
Careyp74 Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 1,656	Originally Posted by Trifikas 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.

13th October 2009, 09:49 AM	#24
Careyp74 Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 1,656	Originally Posted by 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. 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.

13th October 2009, 09:54 AM	#25
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 913	Originally Posted by Darat I disagree, I would say the joke is really about the reaction there is to the answer. 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...
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 913	__________________ [As] to the pointy of moral lessons, I may as well take them from Bruce Lee as Jesus. He's contradictory, fallible, arrogant...But at least I know he existed. - Red3

13th October 2009, 10:11 AM	#26
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Bath Posts: 5,456	Originally Posted by Careyp74 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.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

13th October 2009, 11:21 AM	#27
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 3,049	Originally Posted by technoextreme 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.
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers." — Paul Erdős Stop being so rational. It doesn't make any sense. - Gauthier Malou

13th October 2009, 04:07 PM	#28
technoextreme Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,886	Quote: 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. Quote: 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.
	__________________ It's amazing how many of these "paranormal" icons seem to merge together. There always seem to be theories about how they link together in some way. I'm sure someone has a very good explanation as to how Bigfoot killed JFK to help cover Roswell.-Mark Mekes This isn't rocket surgery.-Bill Nye Last edited by technoextreme; 13th October 2009 at 04:33 PM.

13th October 2009, 07:37 PM	#29
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 913	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.
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 913	__________________ [As] to the pointy of moral lessons, I may as well take them from Bruce Lee as Jesus. He's contradictory, fallible, arrogant...But at least I know he existed. - Red3

13th October 2009, 08:39 PM	#30
technoextreme Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,886	Originally Posted by 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. Good point. And yes I'm not that much of a jerk that I would give away the entire plot to a book.
	__________________ It's amazing how many of these "paranormal" icons seem to merge together. There always seem to be theories about how they link together in some way. I'm sure someone has a very good explanation as to how Bigfoot killed JFK to help cover Roswell.-Mark Mekes This isn't rocket surgery.-Bill Nye

13th October 2009, 09:43 PM	#31
JohnG Pedantic Bore Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: North of Andover Posts: 1,793	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"
	__________________ Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza And if your hands were metal, that would mean something. - Mike Nelson

13th October 2009, 09:58 PM	#32
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 913	Originally Posted by 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" Nom'd for making me laugh
BobTheDonkey Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 913	__________________ [As] to the pointy of moral lessons, I may as well take them from Bruce Lee as Jesus. He's contradictory, fallible, arrogant...But at least I know he existed. - Red3

13th October 2009, 11:45 PM	#33
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,725	Originally Posted by technoextreme Luke is Darth Vader's son. No way!!! Shut the hell up!! Originally Posted by technoextreme 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. Originally Posted by technoextreme 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. Originally Posted by technoextreme The Heart of Gold blows up in the third book. Which version of the third book is this?! Originally Posted by technoextreme 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.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter! Last edited by Wowbagger; 13th October 2009 at 11:47 PM.

13th October 2009, 11:49 PM	#34
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 2,029	Originally Posted by 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" 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.
	__________________ "... you're a discredit to this Forum and deserve to be expunged - shamefully." - Southwind17 (AKA, Lord High Expunger)

14th October 2009, 12:56 AM	#35
nathan witty nothing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Renaissance Italy Posts: 1,793	Originally Posted by alfaniner 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.
	__________________ Crank works have one advantage: they don't really lose anything in translation. Skeptic That's the beauty of Paranormal claims - there are no failures, only newly discovered restrictions on the ability. Ashles