OK, so first off, as the title says, there will be spoilers in here. So if you’re planning on reading it and haven’t yet already, please stop.
I read the series as a teenager and absolutely love them. Recently, I have taken the time to reread all five of them, and have to say I was slightly disappointed. I still thought that the writing was very amusing, the social commentary was good and the lightly touched philosophical discussions were good as well. My main problem concerns character development, or better said, the complete lack thereof in my opinion. I found that most disturbing into different aspects:
The lack of real, meaningful friendship between characters
As an example, Arthur and Ford are supposed to be friends, but from the interaction in the book it seems more like they tolerate each other and don’t really appreciate each other’s presence or influence on their adventures. Every time they get out of touch, they don’t appear to feel sorry about it, and when they see each other again, they are extremely British about it. This also applies to the other characters in my opinion.
the complete abandonment of the relationship between Arthur and Fenchurch
So, in the first three books, Arthur is like this maladjusted guy, who really doesn’t know what his place in the universe is. This also applies to his personal relationships. Then, he meets a woman that is presented as his soulmate, someone that finally understands him and respects/likes him the way he is. All of a sudden, she disappears into thin air, and she’s only mentioned one more time in the book series. Arthur seems happy to just make sandwiches and doesn’t seem to mourn this loss too much after the initial search. To me, this makes the character rather shallow. I appreciate the author was not trying to write a novel about love in space, or whatever, but still, it feels a bit lacking to me.
I will end my rant here, I am very curious as to your opinions on this matter. Do you feel like I’m just expecting too much from these books or do you tend to agree with these criticisms?
I think you are expecting too much from these stories. This crux of HHGTTG is situational humor. Arthur is set up to have no clue and bumble through. Zafod is a narcissist. Ford is Ford. Having them grow takes away from their ability to contribute to the type of humor that is the objective. It’s like saying Mr Bean skills have gotten smarter.
I think these are all valid. I’ve enjoyed the bood, but the overarching plot felt a lot like the Star Wars sequel trilogy. I didn’t feel like it was planned ahead of time.
That being said I highly recommend the first book. There’s an audiobook on YouTube.and if you love it, then check out the rest. But if you stop after the first one, it’s completely fine.
Douglas Adams would probably agree with you about Fenchurch. He is on the record about regretting how he wrote that book. Apparently he was struggling with depression when he wrote Mostly Harmless, and sort of took it out in his writing.
Thanks!
Hitchhiker’s Guide is more like a sci-fi fairy tale, though without any sort of moral teachings or any life lessons outside of “Don’t Panic”. It’s just characters going from one improbable situation or interesting conversation to another. Outside of maybe Marvin the paranoid android and Zaphod, none of the other characters are particularly interesting, they’re just sort of blank vehicles to keep the story going or Arthur as the cabbagehead/Watson-esque character to ask questions for the reader.
I never saw them as “friends”. Arthur and Ford just met on the side of the road by accident, and then Arthur’s world was destroyed, and Ford happened to be there to save him. He was thrust into the universe at large and never regained his footing. Ford was there, but there was no real friendship. They were strangers in a situation together.
I guess if you want to just sort of vaguely gesture toward things that were very obviously the point and focus of the novels, and things that they do better than the vast majority of books, and instead lament the nominal failure to expand on side issues that aren’t even relevant to anything else, then you’re free to do so. I really don’t see the point though.
To me, it’s as if you’re looking at Van Gogh’s Starry Night and saying, “Well yeah, the colors and texture and movement and composition are all great and all, but I’m just disappointed that there aren’t any people in Victorian dress in it. And not even one madonna and child!”
