Eoin Colfer to write new "Hitchhiker" book

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

And let's face it, HHG doesn't have a consistent canon in the way that Star Wars or LOTR does.

No, but the writing style and characters are fairly distinctive. Colfer might do better to explore the perspective of minor characters from the series.

I've generally been very disappointed with sequels written posthumously by other authors. (Great King's War and Fuzzy Bones spring to mind. I haven't even bothered with The Wizard of Karres.) Author-approved collaborations or "guest" writers are a different matter, especially when the guest authors explore an area or character that the original author did not.

[HarryT]

Such works should, I think, be judged on their own merits, rather than as an imitation of the original author. That's perhaps easier said than done, though, as we must inevitably make a comparison with the original!

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Such works should, I think, be judged on their own merits, rather than as an imitation of the original author. That's perhaps easier said than done, though, as we must inevitably make a comparison with the original!

I disagree. Colfer's own works should be judged on their own merits, but when an author chooses to try to extend the work of another author, there is an implicit requirement that the new work be comparable to the old. Otherwise, why bother? (Apart from one or more people trying to make money, I mean.)

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Such works should, I think, be judged on their own merits, rather than as an imitation of the original author. That's perhaps easier said than done, though, as we must inevitably make a comparison with the original!

If a book is called "Sixth book of the hitchhiker series" - then I *will* judge it according to the first five books. And yes, that means that it will be judged against the original author.
If they call it "a book in the hitchhiker universe" - thats a different kind of cake (or maybe even some kind of bread or whatever-else pastries). But even then - why not just continue with his own universe?

@nekokami:

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I disagree. Colfer's own works should be judged on their own merits, but when an author chooses to try to extend the work of another author, there is an implicit requirement that the new work be comparable to the old. Otherwise, why bother? (Apart from one or more people trying to make money, I mean.)

Being a commercial success is, of course, a prime motivation, and we shouldn't sneer at it; that's why the vast majority of books are published, of course.

I don't agree with you in saying that a new work should make a conscious attempt to immitate the writing style of the original author. To my mind, telling a good story set in the "world" created by the original author is sufficient. Better (IMHO) for a good author to write in his own style, rather than make an attempt to immitate someone else - an attempt which is probably doomed to failure.

[Redcard]

I asked my roommate what he thought about this, and he said, "I'll judge it like I judged the six books of the Dune series." So then I said , "But wait, weren't there books written by F.."

"As I said, the six books of the Dune series."

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't agree with you in saying that a new work should make a conscious attempt to immitate the writing style of the original author. To my mind, telling a good story set in the "world" created by the original author is sufficient. Better (IMHO) for a good author to write in his own style, rather than make an attempt to immitate someone else - an attempt which is probably doomed to failure.

But then it is not a Hitchhiker book. It is a pastich like Laurie King's Sherlock Holmes books. And such a book can of course be very good like the Laurie King books.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't agree with you in saying that a new work should make a conscious attempt to immitate the writing style of the original author. To my mind, telling a good story set in the "world" created by the original author is sufficient. Better (IMHO) for a good author to write in his own style, rather than make an attempt to immitate someone else - an attempt which is probably doomed to failure.

I think Tirsales has made a good point. If the book is marketed as "a new book set in the Hitchhiker's Universe" I would agree with you; it would be better for Colfer to write in his own style. Hopefully that is the approach that will be taken, rather than setting expectations that this book will be a "sequel" to the others. That's why I hope Colfer will choose different main characters. If he writes about Arthur Dent, comparisons will be unavoidable. If, however, he chooses (for example) to write about Dent's child(ren), he would have considerably more leeway to express his own writing style

[HarryT]

Oh well, just goes to show that we all have different views of these things.

[Lemurion]

It's worth giving a try IMHO. It may be good, it may not be. I usually find most posthumous continuations lacking, but there are always exceptions to every rule.

Neither Poul Anderson's Conan nor Fritz Leiber's Tarzan really measured up to the originals-- but Karl Edward Wagner's Conan novel "The Road of Kings" was pretty good though it apparently suffered from editorial interference. Of course, I also liked Tuning's "Fuzzy Bones" better than Piper's actual third Fuzzy novel once it was finally found. The less said about Ardath Mayhar's "Golden Dreams: a Fuzzy Odyssey" the better.

I don't know if it will be like Hitchhiker, nor do I know if it will be good. But based on Colfer's reputation it will probably be at least readable which makes it worth picking up in a bookstore for a possible browse.

[nekokami]

Funny, I haven't re-read Fuzzy Bones, but I've re-read Fuzzies and Other People several times. I guess that says something about which one I liked better... and I don't think it was just because of knowing it was really Piper's writing.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Funny, I haven't re-read Fuzzy Bones, but I've re-read Fuzzies and Other People several times. I guess that says something about which one I liked better... and I don't think it was just because of knowing it was really Piper's writing.

Interesting, I've only read Fuzzies and Other People once or twice where I've read most of Piper's other works upwards of a dozen times. I've read Fuzzy Bones at least half a dozen times.

I think it just shows no two people have identical tastes in reading.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Interesting, I've only read Fuzzies and Other People once or twice where I've read most of Piper's other works upwards of a dozen times. I've read Fuzzy Bones at least half a dozen times.

I think it just shows no two people have identical tastes in reading.

Yep-- which is fine!