Week 14: "Mostly harmless" (reading: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
God’s review: “Oh dear”.
This week I read The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Noel Adams. I also watched the 2005 film adaptation. When I was younger, I watched the 1981 show several years ago, so I was excited to see how these versions of the story compared to it.
I really enjoyed the book. I found it interesting that fantastic, unimaginable coincidences were continually set up, but then the narrator always made a point of specifying that these coincidences meant nothing. At times they wouldn’t affect the story at all. The fact that these coincidences meant nothing almost makes them seem more realistic. Things that don’t make sense happen constantly. It becomes harder to accept them when the author then tries to make the unlikely events mean too much to the story.
The fact that the book is humorous helps this as well. Things don’t have to make sense. They can function in a way that focuses on adding comedy.
In Hitchhiker’s Guide, there is this weird co-existence with bazar anti-climatic events that only sometimes further the narrative, but that always add to the tone and humor of the story. There seems to be a different motivation for sharing a lot of the information that is presented. Things happen because they happen and the narrative moves on alongside these other events. At points, they interact, but they don’t always. In a way, this widens the universe of the story. We get a wider picture.
Another way that the story is able to depict a wide view of this fictional universe, is through the use of a third-person omniscient narrator. Many of the stories I’ve read for this course have been much more connected to main protagonists. Many of them use an epistolary style for a large portion of the text. It’s interesting as the Hitchhiker’s Guide in the story works almost as a form of a diary. It gives a personal view of many aspects of the universe. What makes it interesting is that it’s not Author’s point of view. And even though Ford gathers information for the guide, the portions that are shared from it are more closely tied to the narrator.
The narrator’s close ties with the guide, along with other – sometimes seemingly random – stories about the universe, make it so that the narrator functions as a separate character in the story.
I found the way that Douglas Adams structured the story added a lot of impact to what was said. He really shaped where the emphasis was put with carefully constructing paragraphs and sentences. This was often done to get through droning details to end with a stronger impact on the punchline. When the poor sperm whale was falling towards the planet, its thoughts started brief and built into a couple dense paragraphs filled with free-flowing thoughts. This was punctuated with extremely brief paragraphs. An example of this was a paragraph that was simply, “no.” (p. 82)
Another way that the author shows masterful control of balance in the story is through the control of the gravely dark elements to humor in the story. I was genuinely more upset about the whale dying than the entire earth being obliterated. The way that both these tragic events were relayed to the reader helped shape the emotional response.
With the whale, it’s naïve optimism makes the moment easier to read but also harder. The tone is overall upbeat due to the whale being excited about life. This excitement both distracts from any remorseful thoughts the reader might be having as well as creating the perfect creature that could never deserve what’s about to happen to it. When the whale’s death does happen, it’s vaguely alluded to. Immediately after the whale dies, the story moves on to what the bowl of petunias.
What the flower thinks is so interesting and bazaar that it easily distracts from the previous events. However, it’s relevant enough as it was falling towards the ground in the same situation as the whale, so it’s not so removed from those events that the audience would become angry at the abrupt transition. It makes sense for the petunias’ thoughts to be immediately compared to what the whale was thinking.
The dark humor was sprinkled throughout Author coming to terms with the fact that the earth was gone. It was also destroyed so quickly and for such absurd reasons that it’s hard to really take the event seriously on an emotional level. It’s shocking, but the author crafts the way that it is discussed in the book so that the impact adds to the dry humor of the novel, rather than being a tragic moment.
The fact that the earth was coincidentally destroyed for similar reasons to why Author’s house was being destroyed, doesn’t mean much in the large scale of things. There’s an element of dramatic irony tied to the fact that we know the earth really is going to be destroyed so it doesn’t matter what happens to the house. It’s used to make the daily events on earth all of a sudden seem inconsequential. Even the earth being destroyed isn’t a big deal to the universe. It’s just annoying to some rats who paid to have it made. But the crowning moment is when it’s revealed that new technology means the earth was destroyed for nothing. There isn’t even any meaning to its destruction, there’s nothing gained. This idea fully embodies Douglas Adams’ sense of dark humor throughout the story.
In some ways, Douglas’ humor functions on a paradoxical level. It’s oddly funny because it’s hard to wrap your mind around. One of my favorite examples is that in one portion of the story it is “proven” that God doesn’t exist because there’s proof that he does. The way that it is revealed that the proof is being used in the argument that he doesn’t exist caught me off guard and it seemed a perfectly human conclusion to come to.
I had previously heard that the film version wasn’t worth watching. I was excited at the start of it as it was following the story much more than I expected before seeing it. However, it quickly became derailed. I didn’t understand the benefit of changing the story in the way that it was. I think they wanted some events to make more sense. I didn’t understand the benefit of not immediately going to Margarathea. In the film, they needed some form of navigations to get the Heart of Gold to the planet. But I felt this made things all too probable for the Infinite Improbability Drive. And in the book, it was such a beautiful moment when they realized where they were. The argument around how improbable that event was. The film lost the magic of many moments.
There was also the added element of love. The film focused much more on Trillian and Arthur. I think that changed the story from a high focus on the adventure into being a more conventional film format. Why would the protagonist be motivated to do anything if he wasn’t fighting for a pretty girl that he’s met a couple of times but he somehow knows she’s the love of his life?
It’s been a while since I’ve seen the television show. However, when comparing it to the movie I remember many aspects being more effective. It held closer to the original narrative. I found it interesting the difference in how Zaphod’s second head. I feel like Ford’s character is much more memorable in the television version.
The casting was an interesting distinction between the two versions. I was constantly amazed by the stare power in the 2005 adaptation. Martin Freeman has always worked really well in the role of insignificant British male that becomes wrapped up in a larger than life adventure. The fact that Marvin was voiced by Alan Rickman was stunning. I honestly don’t know if there’s anyone who could have better fit voicing the character. Although, in some ways I think that the star power was distracting from the actual quality of the film. It was exciting to see familiar faces and I was excited to see them in it.
Overall, the story brings up a number of interesting questions. There are more reliable sources – and more evenly edited – that are available to the beings of the universe to gather information than what the Hitchhiker’s guide has to offer. It is completely subjective most of the time. Since the guide is a major player in getting information widely spread it would lead to tons of stereotypes of many different planets and their inhabitants.
I think it’s interesting that we now have the urban dictionary that functions in a similar way to the Hitchhikers guide. What’s really interesting is that at times the only way to get the appropriate definition for a word or phrase is to look for it in the urban dictionary. Someone being salty doesn’t always mean they’re just covered in salt. Usually, the dictionary works by giving scenarios and thus, stories to describe what it’s talking about. I think this mirrors the function of the Hitchhiker’s Guide.
In some way, I think that the story is cautionary against the kind of information that people are interested in. It shows how damaging misinformation can be and shows a large population more interested in a celebrity, the president, than science. Looking at the book with a modern view point I can see where there are some issues with that in modern day. I think it’s important to have information from reputable sources but that tools such as the urban dictionary can also play an important role in keeping people informed. So long as it’s used appropriately, it can be mostly harmless.
Comments
Post a Comment