O guia do mochileiro das galáxias (Douglas Adams)

[Lu Eire]

Fiquei curiosa agora =D

Imagino que deva ser mais legal ler no original... vou procurar!

 

[Rahmati]

e ae? alguém já leu esse "volume seis da trilogia de cinco"?

sabe dizer se vale o ga$to?

 

[Marcileia]

e ae? alguém já leu esse "volume seis da trilogia de cinco"?

sabe dizer se vale o ga$to?

A Anica fez uma resenha no Blog Meia Palavra

 

[skitterisdead]

Lembro que me diverti bastante quando estava lendo a série. Tem umas porções bem interessantes quando comparadas à psicologia evolutiva. O tom de sátira que a série vai levando torna o enrendo bem divertido; mas tive a impressão de que ficou forçado com o passar dos livro. >.<

 

[rafaparreira]

Espero que volte a fazer as resenhas dos outros volumes também!
Gosto muito do humor non-sense que tem no livro e algumas teorias hilárias que Douglas Adams apresenta sobre a criação da Terra ou a destruição da mesma haha.
Por exemplo, acho que isso se passa no segundo livro, quando Arthur pega carona numa nave que é tripulada pela população "ralé" de um outro planeta, iludida que seria salva de uma grande destruição sendo mandada pra outro planeta, que seria a Terra. Essa população é muito burra e destrutiva, e assim que chega na terra começa a dizimar os nativos que lá estavam, ainda numa época pré histórica. Arthur tenta impedir essa destruição dos nativos pois, se eles desaparecerem, será a população "ralé" que dará origem a civilização que conhecemos hoje. Muito interessante esse fato e me fez pensar sobre invasões de territórios na época das navegações e também do imperialismo.

E acho que no começo do segundo livro também tem uma frase que diz mais ou menos assim: existe uma teoria que diz que o universo é tão complexo que se descobrirem pra que ele serve, outra coisa ainda mais complexa e inexplicável surgirá. Existe uma segunda teoria que diz que isso já aconteceu. Genial!

Recomendo a leitura a todos e sobre o sexto livro espero poder ler em breve.

 

[dermeister]

Acordando o tópico porque parece que teremos mais uma adaptação para uma série, dessa vez feita pela Hulu: https://deadline.com/2019/07/the-hi...ulu-from-carlton-cuse-jason-fuchs-1202652440/

 

[Jhulha]

De novo não
Quando se fala em adaptação eu deixo o choro correr livremente, Douglas antes de morrer iria fazer a unica adaptação assistível dessa obra, mas com a morte dele tivemos aquela adaptação sofrível (que mudou completamente o roteiro sugerido por ele) de 2005, nem a serie inglesa de 1981 foi tão ruim assim, embora eu tenha gostado da adaptação de Dirk Gently (so conheço os livros) ela passava longe do estilo do autor.
Isso não vai dar certo outra vez, é necessário um roteirista com um humor sarcástico/critico tão bom quanto o dele, mas os investidores não vão aprovar.

 

[dermeister]

Acordando o tópico de novo (e olha que eu nem fui atrás de que fim levou essa adaptação da Hulu) só pra lembrar que hoje faz 42 anos do lançamento original:





Porque a gente sempre encontra uma desculpa pra postar um 42 por aí.

 

[dermeister]

Tinha um link perdido aqui nas minhas coisas pendentes para ler e eu só fui dar atenção agora: é uma carta de 1992 (mirror), que na verdade foi via fax, do Douglas Adams para o editor americano de uma adaptação em quadrinhos que tomou algumas liberdades demais no trabalho dele. O alvo maior da crítica é a tentativa de americanizar a obra, trocando as referências britânicas por outras que o editor achava que um leitor americano identificaria melhor, mas vai um tanto além disso e é interessante ver como ele comenta sobre outras mudanças sem sentido, solta piadas e espetadas, e gasta basicamente um terço da carta criticando relógios digitais! Que por pouco não viraram celulares, bem os tijorolas que a gente esperava para 1992. Pelo outro lado, ele aproveita a oportunidade atualizar a conta do pub por causa da inflação. Nós sabemos bem o que é isso =)

O texto da carta/fax segue aí embaixo, mas tem muitas outras interessantes nesse blog "Letters of Note", btw. Cuidado para não se perder por lá!

January 13th, 1992

Dear Byron,

Thanks for the script of the novel… I’ll respond as quickly and briefly as possible.

One general point. A thing I have had said to me over and over again whenever I’ve done public appearances and readings and so on in the States is this: Please don’t let anyone Americanise it! We like it the way it is!

There are some changes in the script that simply don’t make sense. Arthur Dent is English, the setting is England, and has been in every single manifestation of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ever. The ‘Horse and Groom’ pub that Arthur and Ford go to is an English pub, the ‘pounds’ they pay with are English (but make it twenty pounds rather than five – inflation). So why suddenly ‘Newark’ instead of ‘Rickmansworth’? And ‘Bloomingdales’ instead of ‘Marks & Spencer’? The fact that Rickmansworth is not within the continental United States doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist! American audiences do not need to feel disturbed by the notion that places do exist outside the US or that people might suddenly refer to them in works of fiction. You wouldn’t, presumably, replace Ursa Minor Beta with ‘Des Moines’. There is no Bloomingdales in England, and Bloomingdales is not a generic term for large department stores. If you feel that referring to ‘Marks & Spencer’ might seriously freak out Americans because they haven’t heard of it… we could either put warning stickers on the label (‘The text of this book contains references to places and institutions outside the continental United States and may cause offence to people who haven’t heard of them’) or you could, I suppose, put ‘Harrods’, which most people will have heard of. Or we could even take the appalling risk of just recklessly mentioning things that people won’t have heard of and see if they survive the experience. They probably will – when people are born they haven’t heard or anything or anywhere, but seem to get through the first years of their lives without ill-effects.

Another point is something I’m less concerned about, but which I thought I’d mention and then leave to your judgement. You’ve replaced the joke about digital watches with a reference to ‘cellular phones’ instead. Obviously, I understand that this is an attempt to update the joke, but there are two points to raise in defence of the original. One is that it’s a very, very well known line in Hitch Hiker, and one that is constantly quoted back at me on both sides of the Atlantic, but the other is that there is something inherently ridiculous about digital watches, and not about cellular phones. Now this is obviously a matter of opinion, but I think it’s worth explaining. Digital watches came along at a time that, in other areas, we were trying to find ways of translating purely numeric data into graphic form so that the information leapt easily to the eye. For instance, we noticed that pie charts and bar graphs often told us more about the relationships between things than tables of numbers did. So we worked hard to make our computers capable of translating numbers into graphic displays. At the same time, we each had the world’s most perfect pie chart machines strapped to our wrists, which we could read at a glance, and we suddenly got terribly excited at the idea of translating them back into numeric data, simply because we suddenly had the technology to do it.



So digital watches were mere technological toys rather than significant improvements on anything that went before. I don’t happen to think that’s true of cellular comms technology. So that’s why I think that digital watches (which people still do wear) are inherently ridiculous, whereas cell phones are steps along the way to more universal communications. They may seem clumsy and old-fashioned in twenty years time because they will have been replaced by far more sophisticated pieces of technology that can do the job better, but they will not, I think, seem inherently ridiculous.

‘Disused lavatory’ has been changed to ‘unused lavatory’ and I’m not sure why. To me ‘unused’ suggests that something is new and unsullied, whereas ‘disused’ suggests that it has fallen into disuse and might therefore be in a derelict state, which is what I meant.

I’d be careful of underlining jokes. For instance, there’s a line that ends ‘which is odd, because on the whole it wasn’t the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.’ All I’m saying there is that the banknotes were not the things that were unhappy. Not that they were positively happy. The point is that the banknotes are actually completely irrelevant. It isn’t their problem. So I’m not sure about having the queen grinning broadly on the notes. (Incidentally, I noticed a few years ago, when we still had £1 notes, that the Queen looked very severe on £1 notes, less severe on five pound notes, and so on, all the way up to £50 notes. If you had a £50 the queen smiled at you very broadly). Another thing to think about here is this: this opening section is about Earth as a whole rather than England, so given that dollars are still the most widely recognised currency on Earth, it makes quite good sense to show a greenback. Also dollars don’t change. English notes are always being redesigned the whole time as they get to be worth less and less.

One other thing. I’d rather have characters say ‘What do you mean?’ than ‘Whadd’ya mean?’ which I would never, ever write myself, even if you held me down on a table and threatened me with hot skewers.

Otherwise it looks pretty good.

Douglas Adams

 

[Indu]

Feliz dia da Toalha!

 

[Béla van Tesma]

 

[Jhulha]

Nesse dia cheio de chuva a toalha é importante.