|
- Hitchhiker's Guide
makes fun of a lot of things, but are
there any things that this book takes seriously? Are any of the
characters treated seriously? Are any institutions (like businesses,
governments, or churches) treated seriously? Or is everything made
fun of here?
- Hitchhiker's Guide
is full of digressions and little stories
that are set into the larger story. For instance, there's the story
of the ballpoint planet in Chapter 21, or the story about Earth that
Slartibartfast tells Arthur. Do you enjoy these digressions? Do they
take away from the pacing of the story? Did you ever find it
confusing to follow the many different plots and digressions going
on? Or are some of these digressions just regular flashbacks that
fill in information we need?
- Who do you think is the most important character in this book?
Is there a hero/heroine here? Is there a character that you care
about more than the others? Are there any villains? Another way to
ask this question is: "Is there a conflict in this book and if so,
between whom?"
- Do you need to know about science fiction to find this book
funny or meaningful? Were there any times where you felt bored
because Adams was using (or abusing) some science fiction idea? Or
is the science fiction aspect not really the focus here? How would
you feel if this book used some other genre's idea—could you write a
version of this story where it was about, say, a mystery or a
romance, but still have the same comedic style? What would be
different if you changed the genre?
- Do you feel that this book has an episodic structure, where
Arthur keeps facing new problems that are only slightly related to
his old problems? Or do you think the book isn't as episodic as some
critics say? If it is episodic, does it seem like the episodes are
organized in a logical way? On a related note, what do you think of
Adams's cliffhangers?
- Arthur stumbles through the book getting lectured by a variety
of sources—Ford, the Guide, Slartibartfast, Slartibartfast's
Sens-O-Tape documentary. Do these sources of info tell us things we
need to know? Are they primarily used for comic relief? What would
the book be like if Arthur didn't have any guide at all?
- Does this book seem particularly British to you? Is there a
particular style of humor that seems British? Does this book remind
you of other comedies that you've read or seen?
- Douglas Adams may be Jokey McJokerson, but in interviews he
noted that he wanted things to make sense. For instance, he needed
Arthur to understand what people said, so he spent a lot of time
thinking about the Babel fish and how he could describe it so it
would make sense, both to Arthur and to the reader. But are there
things that don't make sense to you here? Are there issues that seem
like they are purely here to make us laugh? Does that change the way
you read?
- If you were writing this book today, what changes would you
make? Would you want to add in modern technology? Would you want the
book to take some sort of side on important issues of the day?
- This question might require more time and some scavenging
skills, but if you can find a copy of the movie, TV show, or radio
show, what sort of differences are there between these versions and
the book? How do different versions deal with the narrator and the
many digressions? Do you think that any of these versions are the
best? Why do you like one more than the other?
* Some questions from SHMoop.
|
|
