I read that Hitchhiker sequel novel that they got Eoin Colfer to write. It was surprisingly not-totally-awful, but read like another author trying to imitate Douglas Adams' style, without understanding why it works. But then a lot of Adams' own writing reads like somebody trying to imitate him, so I can't hold that against Colfer.

So it's not too horrible to read? I've avoided reading it because in my mind it can't be as good as Adams' writing, but if it isn't that bad I just might need to read it anyway.

I have to disagree here. And Another Thing was an actual insult to Adam's work.

Adams went to some contrived length (in Mostly Harmless) to create a situation whereby the series could be completely and finally put to bed. The whole idea of a Guide that existed pandimensionally across every conceivable universe - and have it kill off the main characters and blow up the earth - was specifically and actually to stop the series. The fact that this Guide took the form of a bird was Adams, quite literally, "giving the bird" to people who wanted more HH books.

Then Colfer comes along and does the most insultingly terrible fanfic retcon sidestep of Adam's deliberately final HH book, and he might as well have reconstituted Adam's ashes and shat on them.

Do not read it. You will be thankful for not.

I thought the same, and just got the book because it was given away free somewhere. I honestly can't remember a single thing about the story, just that it wasn't as insulting awful as I expected. It was just somebody doing a reasonable impression of his style, without the occasional moments of sheer brilliance. And without the self-hate of Mostly Harmless. But, as I said in the other comment, if you haven't read Last Chance to See, that's the real McCoy.

"The most poisonous spider is the Sydney funnel web. We get about five hundred people a year bitten by spiders. A lot of them used to die, so we had to develop an antidote to stop people bothering me with it all the time."

"So what do we do if we get bitten by something deadly, then?" I asked.

He blinked at me as if I were stupid.

"Well what do you think you do?" he said. "You die of course. That's what deadly means."

That does sound good, I'll have a search for Last Chance to See. I'm also curious about the Meaning of Liff, so shopping time it is. Thanks!

venomous, not poisonous

Have you ever eaten a Sydney funnel web?

I always feel like this is a bit selfish.

I mean don't publish it as a book; but as an analysis on writing style or something.

It is (was) probably great teaching material.

But also it was his, so, hey. (Steam) roll with it.

To quote the master himself:

"I save about twenty drafts -- that's ten meg of disc space -- and the last one contains all the final alterations. Once it has been printed out and received by the publishers, there's a cry here of 'Tough shit, literary researchers of the future, try getting a proper job!' and the rest are wiped."

When I was at University, I got seethingly angry at an English lecturer that I've never met. I wish I could remember the details better, but for some reason I was outside of their office and there was a printed out article stuck to the outside of their office door. It was about... someone, let's say J.D. Salinger, and how it was absolutely awful that they (or their family, I think) wouldn't allow their letters (maybe diaries) to be published. It waxed lyrically over the loss to the literary world of the insight that these letters might have given critics. To know the mindset of the creative at that time can offer deep and meaningful analysis and insight into the characters, the settings, and the events of a piece of work. That sort of thing.
After I finished reading it I remember thinking... fffffffuuuuuuucccckkkkk yyyyoooooooouuuu... Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you so much you don't know what month it is any more. A writer doesn't owe you anything. They wrote some things that you enjoyed, found clever, or maybe even had a revelatory emotional experience from. That's brilliant. That's amazing. Really. But fuck you for trying to impose your life on someone who doesn't (or whose family doesn't) want to expose personal life to the public. If you really respected this artist you'd take this piece of paper off your door and stop being so utterly self indulgent.

Anyway. There's no real end to this story. I think I walked away and carried on with my day. Man... tch... what a crowd.

When I was like 9, my teacher printed an unfinished story I was working on in the school newsletter, without my permission, and I'm still bloody well angry about it. I'm 32, and every now and then I still stop to think to myself "HOW FUCKING DARE THEY? CUNTS!".

Good on him.

You should have wrote your opinion on said article

I wanted to. Or to print it out and stick it on theirs.

I might take this in the same vein as Van Morrison's 1967 New York sessions, where Morrison recorded a ton of improvised-on-the-spot crap songs to meet his contractual obligations to, and thereby end his relationship with, his current record label.

Perhaps Pratchett didn't like the idea of a bunch of predatory @ssholes (and I've yet to meet a publisher who wasn't one) looting his talent and effort without him there to offer some degree of defense.

I always burn drafts. I never leave work extant. I burn everything. It’s not good enough, so why should I have it anywhere? If it’s crap, throw it away. I burn it on the fire. If it’s not good enough for me, it’s certainly not good enough for somebody else.

-- Jeanette Winterson

Good. We don't need any more dead authors that still manage to outpace GRRM.

The best analysis of GRRM I ever heard basically sums up as, he wants to be the American Tolkien, and was right on track to be so. Until he started writing A Feast for Crows, and untangling his "Mereenese Knot" caused a delay, and a hype backlash followed, and then an even bigger hype backlash followed A Dance with Dragons. The hype backlash shook him pretty hard, and he's not going to release The Winds of Winter until he's written it so well that there won't be a hype backlash and he can reclaim the title of the American Tolkien.

Not realizing that 99% of the hype backlash is due to the wait between books, and the readers going "This was great but still not worth an eight-year wait"

I've never read anything by him, but it seems a good idea to wait until he's dead to start.

and they hire someone else to finish off whatever he was working on

On the one hand, I completely understand his wishes, and I'm glad they honored them.


On the other, I loved "So Long and Thanks for all the Fish", the collection of essays published after Douglas Adams died, that included fragments of his unfinished novel.

I think there is great artistic value in seeing the unfinished works of the masters.

If you haven't already, it's really worth reading Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams. I had assumed it was just something about endangered species, and I read it only when Adams was already a long time, sad memory. Suddenly finding so much writing as great as anything in Hitchikers or Dirk Gently felt like a revelation, or receiving a letter from a loved one.

So Long and Thanks for all the Fish was the 4th book of the Hitchhiker's trilogy. The Salmon of Doubt was the posthumous one.

I was better off not knowing this. :(

He created and deserved to shape his legacy. This loss is not nearly so great as he.

Sure, but I didn't need to know I just missed out on Pratchett goodness.

It's like stubbing your toe instead of falling off the cliff, the pain a reminder of great fortune.

It was pre-goodness. Like wanting more cake and trying to satisfy that by eating raw eggs and flour and drinking milk.

But I get you. It didn't have to be destroyed.

No, destroy it if that's what he wanted, I just didn't need to know I was missing out on it.

I love raw cookie dough. :D

How Kafkaesque (except not).