Talk:And Another Thing... (novel)

Twitter Feeds

I'm moving the links to the Twitter feeds to the external links section- they don't really belong in the introduction.Pillcrow (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Forum transcript?

Not the most encyclopedic thing I've ever read.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reception

I believe that this section should be inlcuded in the article as it proves that there is controversy about the book before it is published. I think this is significant. ISD (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A little context and summary is fine, but I don't think we need to quote the fans' forum posts in detail. --McGeddon (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the notability of the article itself is questionable. TheScotch (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Adams' intended sixth novel"?

The contents of this section (of the article) are highly misleading considering that the material Adams was considering turning into a sixth Hitchhiker book at the time he gave this particular interview really has nothing whatsoever to do with the Colfer book. The former appeared in the posthumous collection The Salmon of Desire. (Otherwise this section should have been titled Adams' intended sixth Hitchhiker novel: Adams had already published seven novels; Salmon would have been his eighth. TheScotch (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's called the Salmon of Doubt. Otherwise, I agree, I don't really think that this book has anything to do with what Douglas Adams wanted. 70.190.96.61 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Very belated thanks for the correction. TheScotch (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Huge bias

Re: "...although there were defensive reactions from some Hitchhiker's fans...":

The term "defensive" is grotesquely blatant POV, consistent with the tone of the entire article. TheScotch (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't just remove this back then. Anyway I have now. TheScotch (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot section

I am now going through a library copy of the book and am working on a plot description as I go along. For more examples of my plot descriptions see Blood II: The Chosen or Doom 3: Maelstrom. So far the book is pretty good. If someone wants to beat me to the punch on this objective they are more then welcome too. Warning, I tend to be detailed, my work might need some abridging, but please don't gut it everyone. Comrade Graham (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My plot description is now on the Hitchhikers Wikia and I will try and abridge this lengthy work down and then upload it to Wikipedia when I have time. Comrade Graham (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, this article needs one desperately. I would have written one myself, but I haven't read more than the first few chapters yet. The Wordsmith^Communicate 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ive copied the plot from the hitchikers wiki and pasted it heare. I think its about time that the artical had a plot about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intro96 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my section everyone. I was going to make a Wikipedia version myself, only abridged, but for now I'll leave that to anyone who actively thinks that it is too long. Well, in my view, the book was not plotted out as well as the other Hitchhikers books or even Colfer's Artemis Fowl novels, so I am happy that this now has a plot section that allows people to make sense of it. I put a lot of work into it and I hope that everyone will go about fixing any and all of my errors. Comrade Graham (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The plot section is currently 1802 words long, this is way, way too long, taking up over half the article. I'll only bring this up here rather than tagging, as it's not a bad plot summary as such, but could be made much more concise. Rehevkor ✉ 15:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

^I agree with Rehevkor, the plot summary is way too long. Someone needs to just get in and cut it down. I was thinking about reading this book, so I didn't read any of that plot summary - if it's that long then it would have to spoil the story Owen214 (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I just read the book, if it still need shortenning I'd be happy to do it. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm working on it here: User:Harry Blue5/And Another Thing... (novel)/Plot summary Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you fail to see the humor in noting that the plot summary is too long, and the notibility of the book is in question? Have you read the other books? Perhaps this article should be deleted in favor of a Hyperspace bypass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.156.92 (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Reception

Aren't there any reviews by, you know, people who aren't random dudes on Amazon? The reception section appears to be entirely based on user reviews on Amazon and blogs by unknown fans. Aren't there, you know, mainstream and science fiction periodicals that have reviewed the book? Shouldn't the "reception" section be based on their input, not that of totally random people? john k (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - there's a Mark Lawson review from the Guardian, but the rest appears to be blogs and low-editorial-control sites that don't meet WP:RS. I'll cut it back. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand the need for sources which can be considered reliable but I do find a bit elitist that your opinion on a work only counts if you write for a magazine. Well, I guess that is just the way the world works... As it stands the reception section is basically fine though the press was a lot nicer to the book than many fans were and the section as it stands paints a bit more posative a perception on the work than exists in reality. But then we have to reflect the press and not reality... :-( (I should note that I personally was not displeased about the book, I just didn't think it in any way remarkable) Comrade Graham (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the book was largely ignored by the more significant publications. I couldn't find a New York Times review, for example. I did, however, find a New York Times review of a single earlier Colfer book:

"One doesn't have to search far for the author's intention in the much-ballyhooed 'Artemis Fowl.' The publicity kit is larded with comparisons to Harry Potter, pressing home the golden commercial possibilities in this summer without a new book by J. K. Rowling, and describes the book as ' "Die Hard" with fairies.' Before questioning whether a ' "Die Hard" with fairies' is suitable, desirable or even tolerable for young readers, let's [consider] how well...the [has] author done at fulfilling his aims.... If magic wands and invisible cloaks have given way to iris-cam implants -- well, fairies have to get with the times, too. This doesn't bother me, nor that the prose is clichéd. I'm troubled by the fact that though the prose lacks luster, it doesn't lack lust: a spicy, nonerotic, slobbering bloodlust. In a nervy and unnerving marriage of style and substance, Colfer adopts the rhythms of macho banter from television police dramas, Hollywood espionage thrillers and B-grade buddy war films. Lines like these are other than clever. They're insidious. They appeal to a real but ugly appetite. It's a shame to report it, but 'Artemis Fowl' has been rinsed clean of anything approaching genuine magic. Sure, I admit that introducing today's 12-year-old boys who have been raised on 'too much damned TV' to the merits of 'Mary Poppins' or 'The Wind in the Willows' is itself a sort of 'Mission: Impossible.' But in 'Artemis Fowl' we're treated to graphic descriptions of dwarf flatulence and vomiting into a closed helmet. If you have a reader curious about the uses and abuses of power, go back to the masterly 'Wizard of Earthsea,' by Ursula K. Le Guin, or the darkly complex 'Dark Is Rising' series, by Susan Cooper, or even the terrifying and funny sci-fi fantasy 'The Ear, the Eye and the Arm,' by Nancy Farmer. The truth is, fairies in their essence are said to possess glamour, a word that originally meant something like charm -- the ability to bewitch. Hardware may intrigue, caustic belligerence may be sexy to a contemporary 12-year-old, but neither ingredient bewitches. Despite a brave and promising premise, 'Artemis Fowl' is charmless."TheScotch (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My personal impression was that of a total lack of being funny at all, not an inkling of a joke with a silver lining on the event horizon of anything laughable - "ridiculous" would be the most fitting expression i could think of; sad another one: loif, don't talk to me about loif...

Killed by the Grebulons?

I may be mistaken, but wasn't the planet destroyed by the Vogons? Research is confirming this, so I'm going to change it. Please notify me if I'm wrong Lee Anderson, AF Cadet & EE Student (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it was the Grebulons, the Vogons just set them up to it.Dalek9 (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Technically, it was the Vogons the first time. The whales and dolphins brought a copy back from a parallel universe, which the Grebulons destroyed. Titaniumlegs (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference to alternate ending of Mostly Harmless

At the beginning of the book Trillian says they were rescued from Club Beta (in her version of the construct) by their babel fish and transported to the restaurant at the end of the universe.Dalek9 (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

removed review quote

I removed the following "Noted literary critic Todd J Girdler wrote, "The book is a travesty. And Another Thing... is to the Hitchhikers franchise what "Attack of the Clones" was to the Star Wars franchise. It is an abomination that symbolically exhumes the corpse of Douglas Adams and drops a steaming turd on his chest." " because it was unreferenced and I can't find the review by googling. pomegranate (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ellipsis

This article uses the ellipses (...) with no preceding space in two quotations of Adams, which is a mistake (WP:ELLIPSIS). Is it clear that there is no space in the title of the book and should be none in the title of this article?

As I understand WorldCat Formats and Editions, it shows that participating libraries catalogue the book with a variety of punctuations (hyphen, dash, ellipsis, space, colon) but all agree in making the title include an explanatory subtitle (whose variation I didn't examine).

The fact of the matter, such as it is, may be on title pages (not front covers), or in paperwork submitted by the publishers to British Library and Library of Congress. I doubt we see that in the online LCCat Record for Hitchhiker 6, as that source consistently uses some of its own caps and punct conventions. Perhaps WP should follow its own consistently.

--P64 (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on And Another Thing... (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731121356/http://www.tweetthegalaxy.com:80/ to http://www.tweetthegalaxy.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zootle.net/afda/av/AAT/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731121356/http://www.tweetthegalaxy.com:80/ to http://www.tweetthegalaxy.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on And Another Thing... (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008102040/http://community.livejournal.com/zz9/36070.html to http://community.livejournal.com/zz9/36070.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tweetthegalaxy.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202115945/http://www.thebookseller.com/news/67244-fan-site-spat-over-new-hitchhiker.html to http://www.thebookseller.com/news/67244-fan-site-spat-over-new-hitchhiker.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tweetthegalaxy.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"beach from his construct"?

I'm unable to decipher the meaning of the following sentence from the article: "Arthur finds the beach from his construct, and it becomes his new home.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slarty1 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)