You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.89 AVERAGE
3.89 AVERAGE
adventurous
dark
funny
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Douglas Adams’ unique way of describing the mundane and the peculiar at the same time make him the master of setting a scene. The oddest occurrences are met with little exasperation by his characters, in Adam’s dry and witty humour. In a story where “everything is connected” loose ends and red herrings are even more of a puzzle. Do the fit in nonetheless? What’s it all supposed to mean? (Oh, what a useless question with regard to Adams’ writing). The general taste of Douglas Adams’ books is one of confusion, but the good kind. You won’t see anything coming. And, per usual, the book is full of quotable moments, including one that has become something of a motto of mine
“I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I ended up where I needed to be.”
It is definitely worth a re-read, especially since I feel like I didn’t get half of it and can’t remember the other half properly. Adams’ manages to make confusion thoroughly enjoyable. Just don't except a linear storyline, neatly tied up loose ends or any other sort of satisfactory conclusion.
“I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I ended up where I needed to be.”
It is definitely worth a re-read, especially since I feel like I didn’t get half of it and can’t remember the other half properly. Adams’ manages to make confusion thoroughly enjoyable. Just don't except a linear storyline, neatly tied up loose ends or any other sort of satisfactory conclusion.
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
funny
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Mi viene quasi da piangere per non aver apprezzato più di tanto questo libro! Purtroppo non riesco a rimediare gli altri titoli della serie di Dirk Gently, ma spero che i buchi di trama di questo romanzo si risolvano nei libri successivi...
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
First of all I should say that I started writing this review in my mind before I even finished the book, not a good sign.
Here's the thing I absolutely LOVED Hitchhiker's and I enjoyed the first two thirds of this book. I think Douglas Adams has a unique way of writing and I really like it, his similes, metaphors and literary resources in general are among the best I've found and they go great with his general nonsense. That being said, the final part of this book got really slow and it took me about three months to actually finish it...
I can't pinpoint what is it I didn't like, I just didn't
Here's the thing I absolutely LOVED Hitchhiker's and I enjoyed the first two thirds of this book. I think Douglas Adams has a unique way of writing and I really like it, his similes, metaphors and literary resources in general are among the best I've found and they go great with his general nonsense. That being said, the final part of this book got really slow and it took me about three months to actually finish it...
I can't pinpoint what is it I didn't like, I just didn't
If the first book in this series was "dialing the nonsense all the way up to eleven," where the hades is an author meant to go for a sequel?
As previously stated, I have a very specific reasons for reading Adams. Yet somehow it was for that exact reason that I had overall mixed feelings about this book despite its many virtues. While I preferred the narrative tone of this book to that of the first one (the line "How can a girl be enigmatic under these conditions?!?" is now one of my favorites,) and I loved the interesting and wholly unique deconstruction of the "selling your soul" trope, which I am rather fond of and have seen done literally to death without achieving Adams' level of originality. I even preferred the so-called "normal" character in this book (Kate Schechter) to that of the previous book (Richard MacDuff.) But despite all that, I still came away from this book a bit unsatisfied (and I'll tell you why.)
What I missed from this book is precisely my purpose for reading Adams in the first place: commentary on the absurdity and chaos of everyday life. What bothered me about this novel is entirely down to the scope of the story, and while there was SOME of that "oh you're a time-traveller, are you? I'll just go and put the kettle on" nonchalant charm that Adams is known for, the majority of it was lost in diverging narratives and larger-than-life set pieces (I'm lookin' at you, Asgard.)
While the first novel included reality-breaking concepts such as electric monks, teleporting horses, ghosts, aliens, and impossibly-located couches, the scope of the overall narrative was very narrow. That is, it was mostly limited to one very confused person's encounter with one odd detective who then forces said confused protagonist to confront the very nature of the universe. And I think a lot of what made the first novel a success had to do with keeping Dirk Gently and the so-called "everyman/person" together so that the audience sees the world through Dirk Gently's holistic eye.
But this novel separates the detective character from the everyperson narrator for most of the story, (although in my opinion the times when they are together are easily the best bits of the entire book) which mostly deprives the reader of the aforementioned nonchalant charm of a book like Hitchhiker's Guide, or the first Dirk Gently book.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed reading this, as it was still a diverting distraction from the nonsense going on OUTSIDE by providing a controlled amount of nonsense INSIDE. "The devil that you know, etc." I just groan a little whenever I come across a book that I only liked, when it had the potential to be one I loved.
As previously stated, I have a very specific reasons for reading Adams. Yet somehow it was for that exact reason that I had overall mixed feelings about this book despite its many virtues. While I preferred the narrative tone of this book to that of the first one (the line "How can a girl be enigmatic under these conditions?!?" is now one of my favorites,) and I loved the interesting and wholly unique deconstruction of the "selling your soul" trope, which I am rather fond of and have seen done literally to death without achieving Adams' level of originality. I even preferred the so-called "normal" character in this book (Kate Schechter) to that of the previous book (Richard MacDuff.) But despite all that, I still came away from this book a bit unsatisfied (and I'll tell you why.)
What I missed from this book is precisely my purpose for reading Adams in the first place: commentary on the absurdity and chaos of everyday life. What bothered me about this novel is entirely down to the scope of the story, and while there was SOME of that "oh you're a time-traveller, are you? I'll just go and put the kettle on" nonchalant charm that Adams is known for, the majority of it was lost in diverging narratives and larger-than-life set pieces (I'm lookin' at you, Asgard.)
While the first novel included reality-breaking concepts such as electric monks, teleporting horses, ghosts, aliens, and impossibly-located couches, the scope of the overall narrative was very narrow. That is, it was mostly limited to one very confused person's encounter with one odd detective who then forces said confused protagonist to confront the very nature of the universe. And I think a lot of what made the first novel a success had to do with keeping Dirk Gently and the so-called "everyman/person" together so that the audience sees the world through Dirk Gently's holistic eye.
But this novel separates the detective character from the everyperson narrator for most of the story, (although in my opinion the times when they are together are easily the best bits of the entire book) which mostly deprives the reader of the aforementioned nonchalant charm of a book like Hitchhiker's Guide, or the first Dirk Gently book.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed reading this, as it was still a diverting distraction from the nonsense going on OUTSIDE by providing a controlled amount of nonsense INSIDE. "The devil that you know, etc." I just groan a little whenever I come across a book that I only liked, when it had the potential to be one I loved.
adventurous
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Weird. Not a good mystery, even though features detective. Not fantastical enough to be fantasy, not funny enough to he comedy.
Writer has obvious skills, just didn't put together a book I would enjoy.
Writer has obvious skills, just didn't put together a book I would enjoy.