I posted this in general so I'll stick it here as well:
I feel uneasy, and a little unclean. It's been announced that a sixth HItch-hikers guide to the Galaxy book will be released in Oct 2009, and will be written by Eoin Colfer the author of the Artemis Fowl books.
Apparently Colfer was approached directly by Douglas Adams' widow Jane Belson and asked to ressurect the story, so at first glance it seems like it has the backing of the family but somehow it just doesn't seem right to me.
I heard Colfer on radio 4 this morning and he said he wouldn't be trying to write in the style of Adams he would just use the characters but with his own style. Does this sound weird to you?
Incidently, the holders of the Hitch-hikers book licenses etc are Ed Victor and Sophie Hicks who also hold the licenses for the Colfer books. Hyperion will publish the new book and is part of the Disney company who had no real luck when they released the 'hitch-hikers guide to the Galaxy' film. Co-incidently, Disney are to release a film about Artimis Fowl next year.... The plot thickens.
Either way they should just leave poor Arthur alone.
Actually my opinion was that Adams tried very hard to kill off any sequel with the lat book.
Howvere the multiverse in which the Hitchhiker is set has a lot of open possibilities, so wrriting a book set there could prove to be quite a good idea.
About Eoin Colfer: I like his writing and his figures, but he is distinctly different to Adams, so it wn't eb anything like another Hitchhiker volume.
The post that was quoted here has been removedYes he did say he wasn't happy with the last book, but then he died and thats it. Adams was well known to be highly protective of his work.... Thats probably why the film took so long to make. You think it was co-incidence that after 20 years of trying to make it, it only came out after his death?
I know it's happened with other books, like Asimov's and Tolkien's but to be honest the world that Tolkien created was so vast you only have to look at any of the fighting fantasy type books to see his influence. And Asimov had a style that was quite impersonal in some ways...
If you have it you should read the introduction that Stephen Fry wrote in the Salmon of doubt. Theres a bit where he talks about... Aww hell... I've got it in front of me.... if you'll indulge me a second...
"Douglas has in common with certain rare artists... ...the ability to make the beholder feel he is addressing them and them alone: I think this in part explains the immense strength and fervour of his 'fan base', if I can use so revolting a phrase. When you look at Velazquez, listen to Mozart, read Dickens or laugh at Billy Connolly, to take four names at random.. .. you are aware that what they do they do for the world and the results are of course, magnificent. When you look at Blake, listen to Bach, read Douglass Adams or watch Eddie Izzard perform, you feel you are perhaps the only person in the world you really gets them. Just about everyone else admires them of course, but no-one really connects with them in the way that you do."
The rest of it's quite nice too. The point is that they style in which Adams wrote is a personal one and the characters in the books fit with and belong with that style. And they belong to the fans.
I don't really like cover versions of songs that much, I don't like people writing other peoples sequels. I think it's also a bit soon... I'm wondering how many publishers are sat there waiting for Pratchett to shuffle into the light fantastic so they can pillage his characters. It just seems a bit ickky to me.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI haven't read the Foundation books, and I got bored with Dune before I came to the volumes not written by Frank Herbert. I am not sure what books you are talking about regarding Tolkien. Do you mean books like Unfinished Tales? If so, I don't really see the parallel, as they are collections of Tolkien's own writings that he didn't finish or publish, and they aren't a continuation of the story, but rather give some more background.
Originally posted by NordlysNot even Paris Hilton?
Agreed. Even if he were the man for the job, why not write something original? I don't like this tendency to beat anything that has proven to be popular to death.
I'd like to read a revisionist Lord of the Rings spin-off from the Orcish viewpoint. "We were aboriginals, not monsters ... Those fiendish elves and their Final Solution ... "
Originally posted by NordlysUnfinished Tales was all right, but Christopher Tolkien's zeal in unearthing every single last scrap of Tolkien's writing, down to a humorous dwarf scribbled on a napkin in a restaurant (the only extant reference to dwarven plumbing in the oeuvre), went beyond the bounds of duty, I thought. There's about a dozen of those things. Now there is 'The Lay of Hurin'. Anybody read that?
I haven't read the Foundation books, and I got bored with Dune before I came to the volumes not written by Frank Herbert. I am not sure what books you are talking about regarding Tolkien. Do you mean books like Unfinished Tales? If so, I don't really see the parallel, as they are collections of Tolkien's own writings that he didn't finish or publish, and they aren't a continuation of the story, but rather give some more background.
Originally posted by NordlysNeither do I. One of my favorite fantasy series when I was a kid - the Dragonlance series - is now tainted by all the official Dragonlance stuff now written by Weiss and Hickman.
Agreed. Even if he were the man for the job, why not write something original? I don't like this tendency to beat anything that has proven to be popular to death.
Then again, Dragons of Summer Flame was written by Weiss and Hickman, and I hated it.