7 ms·

Unpopular opinion: I haven't been able to get into the whole hype about this book. This quote is perfect example of my frustration actually. Maybe I am OCD or

Unpopular opinion: I haven't been able to get into the whole hype about this book. This quote is perfect example of my frustration actually. Maybe I am OCD or something, I dont know. I do not see the humor or anything profound with it. Except it sounds a bit quirky. Is it suppose to profoundly compare pure happiness versus struggle for progress? ...or take the whole babel fish thing; Why a fish for translation? ps: I dont mean to target your favorite quote. It was just perfect example :D Sorry to take out my frustration on your comment.

todd3834 7y ago
Do you have a hard time seeing humor in a lot of things others do? Or is this just one that doesn’t strike? I’m curious because I found that quote pretty funny and even profound. I can relate with feeling like everyone else gets something that just seems frustrating to myself. My example is living on Mars. I don’t get it, seems like a terrible idea and I can’t understand why people want to do it. I’m okay with them wanting to go but I would never want to go myself.
hutzlibu 7y ago
The joke is, that many people find New York amazing .. while it is a insane, loud nonstop rush hour for others, like the author. Or wars. In other words when progress means war and places like new york, some think not achieving progress and just enjoy life in old ways would have been better. But Douglas Adams himself did not move into the wilderness ... and in a later book Arthur Dent is indeed stranded in the stoneage living simple, but hating it! So ... it is Satire. Not to be taken literal. It can make you laugh about some absurde things of the everyday life, but does not mean to burn it all, because it is not perfect. (maybe burn only some things in a funny way) And if you do not enjoy it ... no worries, just read something else.
TetOn 7y ago
I've always taken it as the power of your point of view to color how you perceive your own reality. We're caught up in what we see as the "modern world" to the degree that we cannot understand the fact that the dolphins, who, to us, seemingly waste all their time frolicking in the oceans and eating our free fish offerings, are in fact a deeply evolved and space-faring race, sitting there right in front of our eyes (and, not coincidentally, similarly judging us for how we go about our lives).
beowulfey 7y ago
It’s a bit of the British absurdism à la Monty Python. Their humor is really similar. It’s a fish because, well, why wouldn’t a fish that eats brainwaves want to live in your ear? It could have been a spider, or a small bug, or a hermit crab... but who would want one of those in there? A fish though... it is such a random concept that somehow it can be accepted, simply because we didn’t see it coming.
- mclightning 7y ago
  I actually love Monty Python. It may be that I expect a different story-telling in a SciFi setting.
nervousvarun 7y ago
Maybe wrong here but is it possible this genre might not just be your thing? Are there other examples of this style you enjoy (maybe Vonnegut or some of Scalzi)? Or if it is maybe it's his particular style of humor (definitely in the classic British/Monty Python mold) you don't respond to. Anyways it's certainly not hard scifi and not meant to be. Basically any scifi-ish element in the book(s) is meant to be funny/surreal/absurd and won't hold up to any sortof actual scrutiny. Often not even just technical scrutiny but basic "would this ever actually happen" scrutiny. In one of the books mean he introduces an alien that spends it's entire existence traveling throughout the Universe insulting every sentient being in alphabetical order. Obviously that's not something that would ever actually happen but the idea itself has value if you find it funny (which I did but maybe you would not).
- mclightning 7y ago
  I actually love Monty Python. It may be that I expect a different story-telling in a SciFi setting. Monty Python is more of a literary comedy for me. I think we are onto something here. I might need to relax my rules and expectations in SciFi genre :D
acheron 7y ago
"Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process." -- EB White Nonetheless: > Is it suppose to profoundly compare pure happiness versus struggle for progress? The idea is something like that, I suppose. Just because one wants to muck about in the water having a good time doesn't make one unintelligent. With the added humor of summing up the collected achievements of mankind as "the wheel, New York, wars, and so on". Exaggerated understatement is funny (and particularly common in British humor, though I am not British myself).
- moate 7y ago
  I guess as a dadaist I just find metaphorically dead frogs hilarious. Or metaphorical dissection hilarious? The point is, sometimes the joke is that the joke isn't the joke.
- cjohnson318 7y ago
  I did not get much out of frog dissection. There were lot of squishy bits in there, but I could have just taken someone's word for that.
vlunkr 7y ago
> Why a fish I find this confusing. It’s an alien species from a humorous book, why not a fish? I’m sure it’s intended to be a little bizarre. Explaining humor always ruins it, but I think you do get the joke, he’s listing human accomplishments and then turning them around to appear silly. It’s also a little dark that he would include war as some kind of achievement. Edit: wow lots of people responded while I was. You’ve triggered the fan base, haha.
throwaway_law 7y ago
>This quote is perfect example of my frustration actually. This about sums it up...you, the human, spend your limited life frustrated by quotes in books you don't even enjoy. Whereas the dolphin doesn't seem to spend any part of its life frustrated, at least over meaningless quotes...rather they just enjoy life.
jvagner 7y ago
Without context, I started reading the OPs quote out loud, and my girlfriend started laughing at "For instance, on the planet Earth..." It might be that you have to discover this at a certain age. My son devoured the series and read quote upon quote out loud. I read it in my teens... I've re-read it a few times and still love it. It's an absurd response to a crazy world. Babel fish? He needed a device, so he made one, and it's funny. Travel on...
- itronitron 7y ago
  you would probably enjoy watching the Round Planet series on Netflix, particularly the episode on the Galapagos Islands and Charles Darwin
mattkevan 7y ago
Adams was friends with and wrote for Monty Python (he cameos in a few episodes) and was also script editor for Dr Who. In fact the more story-led elements of HHGTG are actually bits of unused stuff he wrote for the show. Once you think of Hitch Hiker's as a series of Monty Python sketches hung around a few Dr Who episodes, rather than a traditional story with a beginning, middle and end, the whole thing makes more sense. Well, as much as it can.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
I've always thought the original radio series worked the best. The books were a radio series rendered to paper (and different, but that's a whole other Douglas Adams story), and lost something significant in the process. Though I've read and re-read all six of the trilogy. Maybe it's just not your thing - there's always some comedy that falls flat for one, and is funniest thing ever for another. Personally I find his take on modern life, tech, and human interaction pitch perfect. Why not a fish for translation? :)
- butterfi 7y ago
  I totally agree. I remember hearing HHGTTG on PBS radio the same way I remember seeing Star Wars for the first time. Completely mind blowing for a 12 year old. Both HHGTTG and Monty Python were like secret knowledge in my school and if you met anyone who had even heard of either, you knew you had found a kindred spirit.
  - DavidAdams 7y ago
    Incidentally, did you ever listen to the NPR Star Wars radio drama? https://www.npr.org/2015/12/18/460269884/that-time-npr-turned-star-wars-into-a-radio-drama-and-it-actually-worked https://www.npr.org/2015/12/18/460269884/that-time-npr-turne...
- jfengel 7y ago
  Personally, I felt the novels worked better than the series, at least for the original series. A lot of great jokes were invented after the series. Sometimes a joke on the radio seems unfinished, as if he didn't really know how his own joke worked until afterwards. (Or maybe he had it right all along but it didn't get into the script. He was famously late with his assignments.) The second series in particular didn't seem to work very well. He never translated the Lintilla plotline into the novels, and I feel that's for the best. The actors, of course, were brilliant, and the Radiophonic Workshop production was amazing. I've really enjoyed the way they resumed the series, and you'd hardly know there was a two decade gap between series 2 and 3. I can definitely understand being in love with it. But as a matter of taste, I feel like the book versions of the first two series (the ones where the show preceded the novel) were actually better.
chrisweekly 7y ago
I hear you; Douglas Adams (like Monty Python) isn't for everyone. But, before you give up on his works forever, I highly recommend listening to* just the first chapter of his last book -- The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. It's possibly the funniest thing I've ever listened to, and I say that as someone who read but never went bonkers over his paperbacks as a young reader. *"listen" vs read, bc he narrates the audiobook himself, and it's pitch-perfect. Also, Audible lets me give away one free audiobook to any non-subscriber, so if you're willing to provide a non-audible-associated email address I'd be happy to send it to you gratis.
- marzell 7y ago
  I find this whole scenario kinda interesting - I don't expect to be able to explain why anything from Douglas Adams should appeal to someone... they can only read it and see if it clicks for them. It definitely clicks for me. On the other hand, I feel that Terry Pratchet has a similar sense of humor. However, I got all the way through The Colour Of Magic, giving it an honest shot, and deciding that it just wasn't for me. I find his humor to miss the mark, and be more obnoxious than funny. I can't quite put my finger on why I have such a polar reaction to two authors with a seemingly similar sense of humor. I guess maybe I find Pratchett to be more self-indulgent (not that Adams isn't!) while Adams adds a lot of witty perspective and his observations within his sci-fi universe are always actually observations about our universe.
  - jfengel 7y ago
    The Colour of Magic is probably not the best place to start. He hadn't yet hit whatever it is that makes Discworld click for people. There is considerable debate about the best order in which to read Discworld[1]. I know a lot of people who recommend Guards! Guards! as a good place to start, as being good in itself and the beginning of a very popular story arc. (Discworld has a number of running plots, which sometimes interact but can be read independently.) So if you didn't care for Colour of Magic, it might be worth the effort to pick up one of the later books, after he'd worked out his style and worldbuilding. There's still no guarantee it'll work for you, but you won't really know if you start at the chronological beginning. I'll note that I myself am agnostic on where to start. I like Pratchett (enough to have read all of Discworld) but do not love his work the way many people do. [1] https://www.discworldemporium.com/content/6-discworld-reading-order https://www.discworldemporium.com/content/6-discworld-readin...
gerbilly 7y ago
It may not be for you but I found the Hitchhiker's guide to be a fantastic blend of escapism and humour. The humour has a surreal, divergent type of quality. Not everyone is going to be a fan. To speak to the particular quote. It's often funny when someone trying to be clever is brought down a notch. You could argue that humans are inherently humorous¹ because, in trying to solidify our positions and make ourselves more secure, (building cities, starting wars, ...) we often end up worse off than we began. 1: And tragic.
LoveDeathRobots 7y ago
@mclightning: “I haven't been able to get into the whole hype about this book” Then try and get hold of the original radio series, which the books are based on. “Why a fish for translation”: because it is ridiculous, which most fifties sci/fi is/was. Adams did write scripts for Doctor Who. So, the babelfish takes the piss out of Sci-Fi and the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation takes the piss out of consumerism. And this quote takes the piss out of Politics: ‘The President .. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it’. Take a look at that whole quote, does it remind you of anyone. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7204835-the-president-in-particular-is-very-much-a-figurehead https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7204835-the-president-in-pa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(radio_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_th...
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Then try and get hold of the original radio series, which the books are based on. “Why a fish for translation”: because it is ridiculous, which most fifties sci/fi is/was. Adams did write scripts for Doctor Who. Yeah, I don't think that's the parent's issue... that he doesn't particularly like the book format, and that the changed lines and extra audio jokes will make it better. If anything from his description, he'd be even more puzzled...
coldtea 7y ago
Humor can't really be taught, expect by life experiences. So, you either have it or don't. And the same goes for specific kinds of humor. Some people can't get irony, or black humor, or the fun in puns, or other kinds. That doesn't mean they can't find the humor in other genres. From your comment, it seems like you overanalyze it. You talk about whether: "[it's] supposed to profoundly compare pure happiness versus struggle for progress" -- as if you expected some profound philosophical revelation/insight from it. No, it's not supposed to "profoundly compare pure happiness versus struggle for progress". It's supposed to make a tongue in cheek comment about "pure happiness versus struggle for progress". And about how "progress" is not the be all end all. It's not supposed to say something so profound that people haven't thought of before, or which is deeply philosophical and goes to the core of our being. Just to say things that a lot of us have felt/thought, about the futility of certain pursuits or how some achievements turn out not to be that great after all, in a funny/casual manner. As for the mechanics of the joke, it's the classic (found in countless jokes) reversal of premise and conclusion: Men think they're smarter because they do X and dolphins do Y, dolphins think they're smarter for the same reasons. Immediately this brings up the relativity of view points, and how interchangeable they can be. Then it makes you consider the particular example, and how what we think achievements could just be BS busy work (or even actively harmful to us enjoying our short lives). Not in a "what a deep insight / discovery", but in a "yeah, it might be silly, but I sure felt like that some times too". Then there's the listing of the achievements (mere well crafted listings can be a source of humor in themselves, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Emporium_of_Benevolent_Knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Emporium_of_Benevole... ). It goes from something most would agree as good (the wheel), to something subjective (New York), to something inherently bad (wars) but nonetheless a mark of our "progress" as species (animals might fight, but they don't do wars). >...or take the whole babel fish thing; Why a fish for translation? Now that's more the ocd you talked about. Why not a fish? It can be small (consider something like a goldfish), and has a shape not that bad for fitting into one's ear. And it's a living organism (so not inorganic rock which wouldn't do the translation as good). What Adams primarily wanted to have there in his story was something organic (not a technical babel-gizmo), and that could fit an ear. It could just as well have been a babel-worm, or babel-ant or something just as well, but fish was one good option, sounded friendly enough (better than a worm), a little out of place too (doesn't it need water?) and Adams took it.
robotresearcher 7y ago
> I do not see the humor or anything profound with it. A common feature of humor is to reverse something against expectations. Here he sets up a list of grand accomplishments and compares them with leisure and you expect the former to be superior. Then, right at the end of the paragraph, he inverts the expectation and causes you to suddenly reinterpret the whole thing. You think of the downsides of the accomplishments, and that really having a good time is important and maybe human values are messed up, etc. All in a flash at the reversal. It’s a well known and effective literary effect. The poem ‘Ozymandias’ uses this for dramatic rather than humorous effect, for example.
KineticLensman 7y ago
I think for many aficionados (disclaimer: I'm one) the appeal comes from the overall ambience / tone of the series, and any single quote pulls through the memory of the whole experience. I can see that if someone never got into the series, the individual quotes might not be weighted as much.
bena 7y ago
You're about there. We use all of our progress as a means to differentiate ourselves from other animals. We're smarter, better, etc. We have houses to live in and food to eat on demand. We want for little and don't have to worry about dying from a shark attack. But animals do seem to be generally happier. I think Adams succeeds on the sensible chuckle level rather than anything uproariously funny. He's just really good at sustaining it. You read it and go "Heh. Totally. Wars suck." So which is really more intelligent? Making an iPhone or just being satisfied with your life? The fish is a fish. It's a funny visual of seeing someone cram a fish into their ear and that's about as far as the joke goes. It could have been anything really.
Uhuhreally 7y ago
imagine that you're so smart that next time you have a great idea for a new technology you simulate in your mind how the world would be affected by that technology and, seeing that overall it would add to the misery of the world, you decide instead to say "fuck it" and continue playing around in the sea
ThomPete 7y ago
Read him as a comedian not a philosopher. Adams was a man of perspectives not truthseeking. His writing is more accidentally philosphical. He isn't some profound thinker that should be deciphered and understood, he wasnt trying to say something specific about society rather he should be enjoyed as comedy and then some of the concepts will make you appreciate his perspectives. At least thats how think of him. He was a great writer with a very unique perspective on life.

todd3834 7y ago

Do you have a hard time seeing humor in a lot of things others do? Or is this just one that doesn’t strike? I’m curious because I found that quote pretty funny and even profound. I can relate with feeling like everyone else gets something that just seems frustrating to myself. My example is living on Mars. I don’t get it, seems like a terrible idea and I can’t understand why people want to do it. I’m okay with them wanting to go but I would never want to go myself.

hutzlibu 7y ago

The joke is, that many people find New York amazing .. while it is a insane, loud nonstop rush hour for others, like the author. Or wars. In other words when progress means war and places like new york, some think not achieving progress and just enjoy life in old ways would have been better. But Douglas Adams himself did not move into the wilderness ... and in a later book Arthur Dent is indeed stranded in the stoneage living simple, but hating it! So ... it is Satire. Not to be taken literal. It can make you laugh about some absurde things of the everyday life, but does not mean to burn it all, because it is not perfect. (maybe burn only some things in a funny way) And if you do not enjoy it ... no worries, just read something else.

TetOn 7y ago

I've always taken it as the power of your point of view to color how you perceive your own reality. We're caught up in what we see as the "modern world" to the degree that we cannot understand the fact that the dolphins, who, to us, seemingly waste all their time frolicking in the oceans and eating our free fish offerings, are in fact a deeply evolved and space-faring race, sitting there right in front of our eyes (and, not coincidentally, similarly judging us for how we go about our lives).

beowulfey 7y ago

It’s a bit of the British absurdism à la Monty Python. Their humor is really similar. It’s a fish because, well, why wouldn’t a fish that eats brainwaves want to live in your ear? It could have been a spider, or a small bug, or a hermit crab... but who would want one of those in there? A fish though... it is such a random concept that somehow it can be accepted, simply because we didn’t see it coming.

mclightning 7y ago
I actually love Monty Python. It may be that I expect a different story-telling in a SciFi setting.

nervousvarun 7y ago

Maybe wrong here but is it possible this genre might not just be your thing? Are there other examples of this style you enjoy (maybe Vonnegut or some of Scalzi)? Or if it is maybe it's his particular style of humor (definitely in the classic British/Monty Python mold) you don't respond to. Anyways it's certainly not hard scifi and not meant to be. Basically any scifi-ish element in the book(s) is meant to be funny/surreal/absurd and won't hold up to any sortof actual scrutiny. Often not even just technical scrutiny but basic "would this ever actually happen" scrutiny. In one of the books mean he introduces an alien that spends it's entire existence traveling throughout the Universe insulting every sentient being in alphabetical order. Obviously that's not something that would ever actually happen but the idea itself has value if you find it funny (which I did but maybe you would not).

mclightning 7y ago
I actually love Monty Python. It may be that I expect a different story-telling in a SciFi setting. Monty Python is more of a literary comedy for me. I think we are onto something here. I might need to relax my rules and expectations in SciFi genre :D

acheron 7y ago

"Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process." -- EB White Nonetheless: > Is it suppose to profoundly compare pure happiness versus struggle for progress? The idea is something like that, I suppose. Just because one wants to muck about in the water having a good time doesn't make one unintelligent. With the added humor of summing up the collected achievements of mankind as "the wheel, New York, wars, and so on". Exaggerated understatement is funny (and particularly common in British humor, though I am not British myself).

moate 7y ago
I guess as a dadaist I just find metaphorically dead frogs hilarious. Or metaphorical dissection hilarious? The point is, sometimes the joke is that the joke isn't the joke.
cjohnson318 7y ago
I did not get much out of frog dissection. There were lot of squishy bits in there, but I could have just taken someone's word for that.

vlunkr 7y ago

> Why a fish I find this confusing. It’s an alien species from a humorous book, why not a fish? I’m sure it’s intended to be a little bizarre. Explaining humor always ruins it, but I think you do get the joke, he’s listing human accomplishments and then turning them around to appear silly. It’s also a little dark that he would include war as some kind of achievement. Edit: wow lots of people responded while I was. You’ve triggered the fan base, haha.

throwaway_law 7y ago

>This quote is perfect example of my frustration actually. This about sums it up...you, the human, spend your limited life frustrated by quotes in books you don't even enjoy. Whereas the dolphin doesn't seem to spend any part of its life frustrated, at least over meaningless quotes...rather they just enjoy life.

jvagner 7y ago

Without context, I started reading the OPs quote out loud, and my girlfriend started laughing at "For instance, on the planet Earth..." It might be that you have to discover this at a certain age. My son devoured the series and read quote upon quote out loud. I read it in my teens... I've re-read it a few times and still love it. It's an absurd response to a crazy world. Babel fish? He needed a device, so he made one, and it's funny. Travel on...

itronitron 7y ago
you would probably enjoy watching the Round Planet series on Netflix, particularly the episode on the Galapagos Islands and Charles Darwin

mattkevan 7y ago

Adams was friends with and wrote for Monty Python (he cameos in a few episodes) and was also script editor for Dr Who. In fact the more story-led elements of HHGTG are actually bits of unused stuff he wrote for the show. Once you think of Hitch Hiker's as a series of Monty Python sketches hung around a few Dr Who episodes, rather than a traditional story with a beginning, middle and end, the whole thing makes more sense. Well, as much as it can.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

I've always thought the original radio series worked the best. The books were a radio series rendered to paper (and different, but that's a whole other Douglas Adams story), and lost something significant in the process. Though I've read and re-read all six of the trilogy. Maybe it's just not your thing - there's always some comedy that falls flat for one, and is funniest thing ever for another. Personally I find his take on modern life, tech, and human interaction pitch perfect. Why not a fish for translation? :)

butterfi 7y ago
I totally agree. I remember hearing HHGTTG on PBS radio the same way I remember seeing Star Wars for the first time. Completely mind blowing for a 12 year old. Both HHGTTG and Monty Python were like secret knowledge in my school and if you met anyone who had even heard of either, you knew you had found a kindred spirit.
- DavidAdams 7y ago
  Incidentally, did you ever listen to the NPR Star Wars radio drama? https://www.npr.org/2015/12/18/460269884/that-time-npr-turned-star-wars-into-a-radio-drama-and-it-actually-worked https://www.npr.org/2015/12/18/460269884/that-time-npr-turne...
jfengel 7y ago
Personally, I felt the novels worked better than the series, at least for the original series. A lot of great jokes were invented after the series. Sometimes a joke on the radio seems unfinished, as if he didn't really know how his own joke worked until afterwards. (Or maybe he had it right all along but it didn't get into the script. He was famously late with his assignments.) The second series in particular didn't seem to work very well. He never translated the Lintilla plotline into the novels, and I feel that's for the best. The actors, of course, were brilliant, and the Radiophonic Workshop production was amazing. I've really enjoyed the way they resumed the series, and you'd hardly know there was a two decade gap between series 2 and 3. I can definitely understand being in love with it. But as a matter of taste, I feel like the book versions of the first two series (the ones where the show preceded the novel) were actually better.

chrisweekly 7y ago

I hear you; Douglas Adams (like Monty Python) isn't for everyone. But, before you give up on his works forever, I highly recommend listening to* just the first chapter of his last book -- The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. It's possibly the funniest thing I've ever listened to, and I say that as someone who read but never went bonkers over his paperbacks as a young reader. *"listen" vs read, bc he narrates the audiobook himself, and it's pitch-perfect. Also, Audible lets me give away one free audiobook to any non-subscriber, so if you're willing to provide a non-audible-associated email address I'd be happy to send it to you gratis.

marzell 7y ago
I find this whole scenario kinda interesting - I don't expect to be able to explain why anything from Douglas Adams should appeal to someone... they can only read it and see if it clicks for them. It definitely clicks for me. On the other hand, I feel that Terry Pratchet has a similar sense of humor. However, I got all the way through The Colour Of Magic, giving it an honest shot, and deciding that it just wasn't for me. I find his humor to miss the mark, and be more obnoxious than funny. I can't quite put my finger on why I have such a polar reaction to two authors with a seemingly similar sense of humor. I guess maybe I find Pratchett to be more self-indulgent (not that Adams isn't!) while Adams adds a lot of witty perspective and his observations within his sci-fi universe are always actually observations about our universe.
- jfengel 7y ago
  The Colour of Magic is probably not the best place to start. He hadn't yet hit whatever it is that makes Discworld click for people. There is considerable debate about the best order in which to read Discworld[1]. I know a lot of people who recommend Guards! Guards! as a good place to start, as being good in itself and the beginning of a very popular story arc. (Discworld has a number of running plots, which sometimes interact but can be read independently.) So if you didn't care for Colour of Magic, it might be worth the effort to pick up one of the later books, after he'd worked out his style and worldbuilding. There's still no guarantee it'll work for you, but you won't really know if you start at the chronological beginning. I'll note that I myself am agnostic on where to start. I like Pratchett (enough to have read all of Discworld) but do not love his work the way many people do. [1] https://www.discworldemporium.com/content/6-discworld-reading-order https://www.discworldemporium.com/content/6-discworld-readin...

gerbilly 7y ago

It may not be for you but I found the Hitchhiker's guide to be a fantastic blend of escapism and humour. The humour has a surreal, divergent type of quality. Not everyone is going to be a fan. To speak to the particular quote. It's often funny when someone trying to be clever is brought down a notch. You could argue that humans are inherently humorous¹ because, in trying to solidify our positions and make ourselves more secure, (building cities, starting wars, ...) we often end up worse off than we began. 1: And tragic.

LoveDeathRobots 7y ago

@mclightning: “I haven't been able to get into the whole hype about this book” Then try and get hold of the original radio series, which the books are based on. “Why a fish for translation”: because it is ridiculous, which most fifties sci/fi is/was. Adams did write scripts for Doctor Who. So, the babelfish takes the piss out of Sci-Fi and the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation takes the piss out of consumerism. And this quote takes the piss out of Politics: ‘The President .. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it’. Take a look at that whole quote, does it remind you of anyone. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7204835-the-president-in-particular-is-very-much-a-figurehead https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7204835-the-president-in-pa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(radio_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_th...

coldtea 7y ago
>Then try and get hold of the original radio series, which the books are based on. “Why a fish for translation”: because it is ridiculous, which most fifties sci/fi is/was. Adams did write scripts for Doctor Who. Yeah, I don't think that's the parent's issue... that he doesn't particularly like the book format, and that the changed lines and extra audio jokes will make it better. If anything from his description, he'd be even more puzzled...

coldtea 7y ago

Humor can't really be taught, expect by life experiences. So, you either have it or don't. And the same goes for specific kinds of humor. Some people can't get irony, or black humor, or the fun in puns, or other kinds. That doesn't mean they can't find the humor in other genres. From your comment, it seems like you overanalyze it. You talk about whether: "[it's] supposed to profoundly compare pure happiness versus struggle for progress" -- as if you expected some profound philosophical revelation/insight from it. No, it's not supposed to "profoundly compare pure happiness versus struggle for progress". It's supposed to make a tongue in cheek comment about "pure happiness versus struggle for progress". And about how "progress" is not the be all end all. It's not supposed to say something so profound that people haven't thought of before, or which is deeply philosophical and goes to the core of our being. Just to say things that a lot of us have felt/thought, about the futility of certain pursuits or how some achievements turn out not to be that great after all, in a funny/casual manner. As for the mechanics of the joke, it's the classic (found in countless jokes) reversal of premise and conclusion: Men think they're smarter because they do X and dolphins do Y, dolphins think they're smarter for the same reasons. Immediately this brings up the relativity of view points, and how interchangeable they can be. Then it makes you consider the particular example, and how what we think achievements could just be BS busy work (or even actively harmful to us enjoying our short lives). Not in a "what a deep insight / discovery", but in a "yeah, it might be silly, but I sure felt like that some times too". Then there's the listing of the achievements (mere well crafted listings can be a source of humor in themselves, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Emporium_of_Benevolent_Knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Emporium_of_Benevole... ). It goes from something most would agree as good (the wheel), to something subjective (New York), to something inherently bad (wars) but nonetheless a mark of our "progress" as species (animals might fight, but they don't do wars). >...or take the whole babel fish thing; Why a fish for translation? Now that's more the ocd you talked about. Why not a fish? It can be small (consider something like a goldfish), and has a shape not that bad for fitting into one's ear. And it's a living organism (so not inorganic rock which wouldn't do the translation as good). What Adams primarily wanted to have there in his story was something organic (not a technical babel-gizmo), and that could fit an ear. It could just as well have been a babel-worm, or babel-ant or something just as well, but fish was one good option, sounded friendly enough (better than a worm), a little out of place too (doesn't it need water?) and Adams took it.

robotresearcher 7y ago

> I do not see the humor or anything profound with it. A common feature of humor is to reverse something against expectations. Here he sets up a list of grand accomplishments and compares them with leisure and you expect the former to be superior. Then, right at the end of the paragraph, he inverts the expectation and causes you to suddenly reinterpret the whole thing. You think of the downsides of the accomplishments, and that really having a good time is important and maybe human values are messed up, etc. All in a flash at the reversal. It’s a well known and effective literary effect. The poem ‘Ozymandias’ uses this for dramatic rather than humorous effect, for example.

KineticLensman 7y ago

I think for many aficionados (disclaimer: I'm one) the appeal comes from the overall ambience / tone of the series, and any single quote pulls through the memory of the whole experience. I can see that if someone never got into the series, the individual quotes might not be weighted as much.

bena 7y ago

You're about there. We use all of our progress as a means to differentiate ourselves from other animals. We're smarter, better, etc. We have houses to live in and food to eat on demand. We want for little and don't have to worry about dying from a shark attack. But animals do seem to be generally happier. I think Adams succeeds on the sensible chuckle level rather than anything uproariously funny. He's just really good at sustaining it. You read it and go "Heh. Totally. Wars suck." So which is really more intelligent? Making an iPhone or just being satisfied with your life? The fish is a fish. It's a funny visual of seeing someone cram a fish into their ear and that's about as far as the joke goes. It could have been anything really.

Uhuhreally 7y ago

imagine that you're so smart that next time you have a great idea for a new technology you simulate in your mind how the world would be affected by that technology and, seeing that overall it would add to the misery of the world, you decide instead to say "fuck it" and continue playing around in the sea

ThomPete 7y ago

Read him as a comedian not a philosopher. Adams was a man of perspectives not truthseeking. His writing is more accidentally philosphical. He isn't some profound thinker that should be deciphered and understood, he wasnt trying to say something specific about society rather he should be enjoyed as comedy and then some of the concepts will make you appreciate his perspectives. At least thats how think of him. He was a great writer with a very unique perspective on life.