The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy question

Not after a couple of Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters.

There is enough straight laced science fiction out there, what Adams wrote is more of a grand farce than anything else. It's that very English humour, exceptionally silly while still managing to have genuine intelligent content.

I think the absurdity/surrealism of Douglas Adams is what makes his writing so unique. True, perhaps it mightn't have happened like that in real life, but (and maybe this is biased, but) I think this book still deserves to be called a classic. It's absurd in kind of the same way Monty Python is absurd.

Adams plays the surreal for laughs - as any other comedy writer would - and many of his gags appear to be throwaway one-liners but end up being resolved much later. His surreality isn't without substance - it often illustrates themes in real life and has gravitas and meaning. It makes the point that we live in a universe that seems to be run on a kind of perverted clockwork; rather than cause and effect, the improbability drive is a cause of unintended, usually chaotic consequences.
A lot of the pay-offs for his gags - whale included - are also rather poignant and sad (the famine-stricken planet, where all the occupants died of cholesterol poisoning after being improbably showered in fried eggs is a similar example).
My point is: the surreality often has its own point beyond the silliness.

No, this contains the right amount of lunacy while incorporating aspects of science, history, religion, etc... that is relatable. But, the reader has to be in the right frame of mind to read this fabulous silliness, otherwise, Douglas Adams' brilliance will be lost on the reader.

My advice? Jump into these books as if you're a lemon and the books are a gin and tonic! If you've read the books, you'll get what I'm trying to say!

Douglas Adams has written his books much in the same way Monty Python did their comedy. Edgy. Surreal. Absurd. Forces one to dispense with everything and just enjoy the humor.

Adams was not only hilarious but prescient--and sometimes didn't go far enough. Now we can see, in 2014, that we are much sillier than even the silliest of the Golgafrinchans.

I think Scott hit the nail on the head, sometimes you just have to sit back and enjoy the absurd. That's what I enjoyed about the book. I mean, how cool would it be to have a depressed android walking around. Well actually, it may get tiresome after a while. But hey, we all can't be super intelligent mice.

42

I would say "absurd" rather than "surreal." As for it being too much, I don't think so... although I did feel bad for the whale.

One man's surreal is another's morning constitutional. Personally, I find it my breakfast muffin dripping with real butter and every cran and nookie filled with sweet jelly. Crunchy. Yet..., thought-provoking.

Well, he DID use David Bowie as a means of measurement ...

Nope, its written so well that it just works. Every once and a while I would get a little lost with what was going on, but in general it was great and its surreal nature just made it all the better!

I agree with the word absurd, Scott.

Both absurdity and surreal concepts abound, and are my primary reasons for reading this work! Meat and Potatoes gets real old, real fast.