›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights 100204 - Book Club: HHG2G

AprecheApreche
edited February 2010 in GeekNights
Tonight on GeekNights it's the book club episode covering The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the news, the Superb Owl is this Sunday and neuroscience is getting crazy.
«1

Comments

  • CremlianCremlian
    I wonder if I even need to listen to this eps or do I already know what will be said.
  • WalkerWalker
    Is just me or is the sound quality a bit funny on this episode? It sounds like you had the input volume up too high or something.
  • Jordan O.Jordan O.
    So the opening bit lamenting on how harsh you were at RIT was hilarious, as was the rest of the sports bit.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    I did a non-spoiler review here: SFBRP
  • ErwinErwin
    Man, this book was awesome, I can't wait to hear what you guys thought about it while I am at work tomorrow.
  • Dr. TimoDr. Timo
    edited February 2010
    The speed of fart is actually close to the speed of sound, at least theoretically. In practice it depends on the odiferousness of the flatus i.e. how many molecules of it need to be delivered onto the olfactory epithelium to produce a sensation, the size of the flatus and the size of the molecule. The mean free path in air is very small, but for very high concentration flatii it may not be statistically improbably that single molecules travel macroscopic distances. Also there are complex interplays of the size and weight of the olfactory molecule compared to air molecules and the respective temperatures (which correspond to different mean velocities of the particles) that produce the speed of diffusion of a flatus. The foremost front of this diffusion, in ideal circumstances, could move faster than the speed of sound, but in reality it is, sadly, much slower.

    Not that I've thought about this much.
    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited February 2010
    What the fuck Scott.. What the fuck.

    You didn't find Hitchhiker's guide funny?

    Edit: As I listen to this Scott is completely missing the fact that he read it before and the jokes influenced so much of the media that he consumes that the work that originated the humor is not resonating with him. Many of Robert Heinlein works seem contrived at this point until you realize those stories were some of the first of that type... WARRRRGBUIRGHHHHHGHGHHAHHH....
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • AprecheApreche
    Edit: As I listen to this Scott is completely missing the fact that he read it before and the jokes influenced so much of the media that he consumes that the work that originated the humor is not resonating with him. Many of Robert Heinlein works seem contrived at this point until you realize those stories were some of the first of that type... WARRRRGBUIRGHHHHHGHGHHAHHH....
    Big deal. Stan Lee was incredibly revolutionary and influential, but his writing sucks balls. Just because something has historical value doesn't mean it's good or worth reading now.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    What the fuck Scott.. What the fuck.

    You didn't find Hitchhiker's guide funny?

    Edit: As I listen to this Scott is completely missing the fact that he read it before and the jokes influenced so much of the media that he consumes that the work that originated the humor is not resonating with him. Many of Robert Heinlein works seem contrived at this point until you realize those stories were some of the first of that type... WARRRRGBUIRGHHHHHGHGHHAHHH....
    Y'know, I probably wouldn't be able to re-read it for that very reason, but not finding it funny at all? That's a little out there. I might actually listen to an episode of Geeknights for the first time in, like, a year.
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited February 2010
    Big deal. Stan Lee was incredibly revolutionary and influential, but his writing sucks balls. Just because something has historical value doesn't mean it's good or worth reading now.
    That's not the point, it's like watching an awesome stand up 3 times, the 3rd time your not going to laugh out loud to it but you still are going to find it enjoyable. Same goes with Hitchhiker, it's not going to be witty after you already know the observations and jokes. Also to answer you above point, your not going to say Asimov is not worth reading because other people have put out robot stories after him that take his orginal ideas and expand on them.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • JasonJason
    I haven't listened to this episode yet, but I can tell you reading The Hitchhiker's Guide now feels childish for the same reason listening to MC Hammer feels childish.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited February 2010
    That's not the point, it's like watching an awesome stand up 3 times, the 3rd time your not going to laugh out loud to it but you still are going to find it enjoyable. Same goes with Hitchhiker, it's not going to be witty after you already know the observations and jokes. Also to answer you above point, your not going to say Asimov is not worth reading because other people have put out robot stories after him that take his orginal ideas and expand on them.
    Well, having more ideas and expanding doesn't necessarily equal better.

    If something really is better and redundant, you probably should ignore the inferior one, except for historical purposes. The only reason to read an old Superman or Spider-Man comic is for reasons of history. If you are looking for quality, Stan Lee is not your friend.

    Also, even if I'm listening to a stand-up comedian tell the same joke for the fifth time, I may not laugh out loud, but I laugh on the inside. Like if I watch a Bugs Bunny Cartoon, I probably won't laugh at all. But if you ask me if it's funny, I'll probably say yes.

    On top of that, things that are actually really funny are funny every time. Silly Walks is funny every single time. I can watch it 100 times a day, and I'll lol all 100 times every day.

    It may be true that I would have laughed at HHG2G if it was all 100% completely fresh and new to me. However, the fact that I do not laugh now, inside or outside, shows that even if it is funny, it's not very funny. It's about the same level of funny as Portal. It's funny only the first time, and not ever again.
    I haven't listened to this episode yet, but I can tell you reading The Hitchhiker's Guide now feels childish for the same reason listening to MC Hammer feels childish.
    I have to agree that HHG feels childish, but Hammer is still fucking awesome. I think the reason Hammer is still awesome, though is that as a child I enjoyed his catchy beats. Nowadays his music is slightly childish to me, but now I appreciate him for his dancing skills, which I did not appreciate when I was young.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • CremlianCremlian
    I haven't listened to this episode yet, but I can tell you reading The Hitchhiker's Guide now feels childish for the same reason listening to MC Hammer feels childish.
    I can understand that feeling, I feel strongly about Hitchhiker's Guide mainly because I started to listen to the radio show at a ridiculously young age, most of my childhood was sent hanging at my scottish friend's house listening to one of the radio drama's of one of the books. We would listen to it as we went to sleep at sleep overs and the like. A big part of my early geek development revolved around the different forms of Hitchhiker's guide (be it the novels, radio plays or BBC series) and a large amount of the science/tech/atheist self was formed in those early days in elementary school listening to that series. So looking back on the series now I can see how you can feel some immaturity in the series because when you probably were introduced to it you were also immature at the time. Which is why you might find MC hammer childish because you were a child when he was popular :-p
  • CremlianCremlian
    Well, having more ideas and expanding doesn't necessarily equal better.

    If something really is better and redundant, you probably should ignore the inferior one, except for historical purposes. The only reason to read an old Superman or Spider-Man comic is for reasons of history. If you are looking for quality, Stan Lee is not your friend.

    Also, even if I'm listening to a stand-up comedian tell the same joke for the fifth time, I may not laugh out loud, but I laugh on the inside. Like if I watch a Bugs Bunny Cartoon, I probably won't laugh at all. But if you ask me if it's funny, I'll probably say yes.

    On top of that, things that are actually really funny are funny every time. Silly Walks is funny every single time. I can watch it 100 times a day, and I'll lol all 100 times every day.

    It may be true that I would have laughed at HHG2G if it was all 100% completely fresh and new to me. However, the fact that I do not laugh now, inside or outside, shows that even if it is funny, it's not very funny. It's about the same level of funny as Portal. It's funny only the first time, and not ever again.
    I think this is again falling into the Scott Rubin "If people tell me it's good the more I don't want to like it" area.
  • AprecheApreche
    I think this is again falling into the Scott Rubin "If people tell me it's good the more I don't want to like it" area.
    Yeah, Cowboy Bebop, Prince of Nothing, they suck.
  • CremlianCremlian
    Yeah, Cowboy Bebop, Prince of Nothing, they suck.
    A few outliers.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Silly Walks is funny every single time.
    Really? I'm done with it after one viewing. I can do that one viewing many many times, but not many times in a row.

    I haven't listened to the episode yet, so I'll just ask my one question: did you just find it to be unfunny, or did you find it to not be worthwhile overall? There's a difference.
  • AprecheApreche
    I haven't listened to the episode yet, so I'll just ask my one question: did you just find it to be unfunny, or did you find it to not be worthwhile overall? There's a difference.
    Overall it is better than good, but not great. The level to which it is beloved, revered, hyped, and the height of the pedestal upon which it is raised are far greater than the quality of the book on its own deserves.
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited February 2010
    Overall it is better than good, but not great. The level to which it is beloved, revered, hyped, and the height of the pedestal upon which it is raised are far greater than the quality of the book on its own deserves.
    I think the quote that annoyed me was (parapharse) "Eh, I'd probably tell some people it was worth reading" where as I have found that any person I've recommended it to has enjoyed it (if they are geeky). Sorta like how everyone I've shown Firefly to has really enjoyed it EXCEPT SCOTT RUBIN.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • AprecheApreche
    I think the quote that annoyed me was (parapharse) "Eh, I'd probably tell some people it was worth reading" where as I have found that any person I've recommended it to has enjoyed it (if they are geeky). Sorta like how everyone I've shown Firefly to as really enjoyed it EXCEPT SCOTT RUBIN.
    If you ask me if people will like it, the answer is yes. That has nothing to do with whether or not the thing is good or not. People like crappy reality shows more than anything, but I'm not going to tell someone to watch them, or review them kindly.
  • CremlianCremlian
    If you ask me if people will like it, the answer is yes. That has nothing to do with whether or not the thing is good or not. People like crappy reality shows more than anything, but I'm not going to tell someone to watch them, or review them kindly.
    Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what is good or not... Ugh, I know I shouldn't be arguing opinions.
  • AprecheApreche
    Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what is good or not... Ugh, I know I shouldn't be arguing opinions.
    Yeah, sorry. Just renewed my official quality arbiter certificate last week.
  • CremlianCremlian
    Yeah, sorry. Just renewed my official quality arbiter certificate last week.
    Sorry it was denied, guess you didn't realize I became the head of that organization. (prerequisite is you have to like Firefly) :-p
  • AprecheApreche
    Sorry it was denied, guess you didn't realize I became the head of that organization. (prerequisite is you have to like Firefly) :-p
    Must be a different organization. We might have to have a war, like what happens when there are two anime clubs.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    The level to which it is beloved, revered, hyped, and the height of the pedestal upon which it is raised are far greater than the quality of the book on its own deserves.
    I disagree with this statement immensely. This is where you have to consider its merits as a precursor work. I can trivially say that any given band is irrelevant in the modern musical scene, and I can make a powerful case for it, but that's missing the point. The reason HHG2G is so revered is because it was so influential. It deserves the praise it gets, even if it's not terribly funny to you now.

    Right now, there are musicians and musical groups who are far more talented and refined than the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Jimi Hendrix. Yet those precursors are so important that they continued to be revered today. The influence of a body of work can give it relevance and importance far past its impact on an individual consumer.
  • AprecheApreche
    Right now, there are musicians and musical groups who are far more talented and refined than the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Jimi Hendrix. Yet those precursors are so important that they continued to be revered today. The influence of a body of work can give it relevance and importance far past its impact on an individual consumer.
    Those are pretty bad examples, because they are still good, and new music has not made them redundant.

    Here's a better example. There is no reason to actually play the original Metroid, because you can just play Zero Mission instead. The only reason to play the original Metroid is for historical study. Maybe you want to experience what it was like, or maybe you're masochistic. Maybe you want to do it for review purposes or some such. If you are just looking for entertainment, the original Metroid has been made redundant.

    How about this. Nobody should ever play the original Ultima games. They're just bad. They were incredibly significant back in the day. Absolutely game changing, and popular. But to actually play them for serious today, is painful. Experience them for historic or educational reasons, but you can't recommend them for serious.

    Not everything that is influential has been made redundant, and much is still good. But being influential or revolutionary in and of itself is not a determinant in current quality. In fact, the number one thing that separates great works from good ones is their ability to hold up over time. Tezuka, Loony Tunes, Shakespeare, they all hold up today despite their age. Those that don't, well, just don't. And regardless of how revolutionary they may have been in their day, that doesn't make them good or worthwhile now.

    The original Macintosh was far more revolutionary than the Apple ][gs, but guess which one is actually more worthwhile today?

    If you made an mathematical equation for quality in the form q = x where q is the quality and x is a bunch of math to figure out the quality, revolutionariness would not be found anywhere in x.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited February 2010
    Those are pretty bad examples, because they are still good, and new music has not made them redundant.
    Oh yes it has, but nobody really wants to admit that. I picked my examples very purposefully. Their influence permeated the music scene and their ideas were taken up and perfected over years by better artists. It's the exact same situation as HHG2G. You're taking the stance that I take with the Beatles, only you're also dismissing the work as being less than it is claimed to be. I'm saying that significance is undiminished in the face of superior derivative works.

    Yes, there are better artists than Hendrix and Zeppelin, but that doesn't necessarily make them irrelevant. Their influence is the part that matters. You could find a book that does the HHG2G thing better than Adams did it, but it will always be a derivative work.

    I can agree that historical significance doesn't necessarily reflect on something's current quality, yes. However:
    The level to which it is beloved, revered, hyped, and the height of the pedestal upon which it is raised are far greater than the quality of the book on its own deserves.
    is patently absurd. It deserves all of the praise it gets because of its significance. It's impossible for you to assess the quality of the book on its own because you are aware of current iterations of that same thing that exist today. How can you set a standard of quality without a point of reference? It's impossible.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • SailSail
    I agree with Pete completely. And Hendrix and Zeppelin are perfect examples.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Scott, HHG2G is Citizen Kane. Same arguments apply. You're just one of those people that doesn't like Citizen Kane.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited February 2010
    Scott, HHG2G is Citizen Kane. Same arguments apply. You're just one of those people that doesn't like Citizen Kane.
    Uh no, Citizen Kane is actually good, even though it is also influential. Action Comics #1 is terrible, even though it was also incredibly influential. Zeppelin and Beatles, influential and still the best. Mario 1, super influential and good, but not as good as Mario 3. Castlevania 1, good and influential, but not as good as Castlevania 4 or SotK.

    There absolutely no relation between influential-ness and quality. They have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. When you just the quality of a work, you must take it completely out of context of the rest of the world, and judge it solely on its own merits as of right now.

    Obviously it is very difficult to take anything 100% completely out of context, because we are all human beings, but I find that I am able to do this far better than most people. I can judge a work on its own merits regardless of nostalgia, age, opinions of other people, popularity, other related works, historical significance, etc. I find that most other humans tend to critique artwork almost entirely on these meta-contextual factors while paying almost no heed to the qualities of the work itself.

    I read HHG2G. I passed my judgment on the book as it is now, without taking into consideration any of those things which have no bearing on the quality of the book as a work of entertainment in the present day. And given that, it's pretty good. It's not something to rush out and read. It's not something that will blow your mind.

    People are also unable to separate their personal taste from their judgment of quality. I love Initial D, but I know it sucks. I love Voltron, but I know it's not so great. I really don't like watching or playing Soccer, but I can recognize that it is a high quality sport.
    Post edited by Apreche on
Sign In or Register to comment.