Surely all great writers explain us to ourselves in the last analysis, isn’t that why we read them? DNA wrote quite profoundly in language which generally avoided being “literary” but so did Pushkin and Joseph Heller. (I’m not sure about Queneau, even after more than forty years since I first read Zazie dans le Métro, and then the rest of his books, I don’t know whether he was a profound analyst of the human condition or a bit of a fraud.)
I reread The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy a few weeks ago, the first time I’d gone back to it in years. I’m a very different person than I was when I first read it and it’s a very different book to me now. I wouldn’t say it’s better, but it’s a lot less funny and a lot more thought-provoking.
I am incredibly jealous of Neil Gaiman.
If my entire accomplishments in life were “interviewed Douglas Adams” and “co-wrote a story with Terry Pratchett,” I would be happy, and he has done both of those, and so much more awesome stuff.
I rather like the first book but the other ones just weren’t very enjoyable. They had glimmers of greatness in some chapters but overall they never delivered like the first book did. Personal opinion however.
I am curious though, someone had told me… or perhaps i heard/read somewhere that Adams was never really keen on writing more after the first book, and wrote the sequels mostly out of obligation. Which seems likely to me considering how the story progresses, but i don’t know how true that actually was.
I met him once and was too tongue tied to tell him he made me a miserable bastard.
As I understand it, basically yes, but it was the first two.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
