• Steeve@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I found the book over the top and a cringy “penguin of doom” “I’m so random” style of humour. I don’t get that series

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would imagine that it’s tough to go back to a book that defined humor for a generation of readers, spawning copycat jokes and stories across the world. Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog, per E.B. White, nobody is that interested and the frog dies. So I won’t go into why Adams’ writing is considered some of the funniest literature in modern history, but I will say two things:

      First, none of it is actually random. It might seem random, but that’s just how it looks from your limited perspective. That’s part of the beauty in the stories, things come back around later. It’s a story centered around a literal improbability generator, and yet everything exists for a reason (even if that reason is to be a cosmic punchline).

      Second, I would suggest you don’t compare it to the overwhelming number of pale imitations. There are famous, successful authors who learned to write humor reading the HGttG, and for every one of them there are thousands of untalented failures who think “lol so random” is all it takes to be funny. To complain about how Adams’ writing reminds you of stupid cliches is like complaining about how a Van Gogh painting looks like hotel art.

      The last thing I’ll say is you don’t have to like the books. Taste is subjective, and you might not find the books funny. That’s OK. Read something that makes you laugh, makes you think, and makes you want to keep reading. But if you say you don’t understand why something is enjoyable to everyone else, you’re going to get long-winded rants from internet strangers who care very deeply about the thing you don’t understand. You don’t have to read those, either. I probably should have started with that bit.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude this is such a lame reply. I gave my personal opinion of the book and you wrote a whole condescending lecture of hand wavy arguments about how my opinion is apparently objectively wrong and then had the gall to follow it up with:

        The last thing I’ll say is you don’t have to like the books. Taste is subjective, and you might not find the books funny

        Yeah, no shit. I didn’t like the book and frankly I don’t need your permission to not like the book.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except you didn’t say you didn’t like it, you said you didn’t get it, and proved you didn’t get it with an invalid criticism.

          Hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are.

          • Steeve@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I found the book…

            This is my opinion, I do not need you to validate my opinion. Surprised you managed to finish the book when you couldn’t be bothered to actually read my comment. Go be a condescending twat elsewhere.