Salmon of Doubt

I must say that i was in a way bewildered by this text exert, purely because of the way Douglas Adams attempted to portray the story. I did get rather lost in several parts of the text, and the main thing that stumped me was trying to figure out if he was in fact riding a manta ray. Im sure that many of us have wanted to ride a manta ray at some point during our lives, and i think that the reason the character in the story wants to ride one is either because he wants to fullfill a life-long dream of travelling on top of an animal through the water at vast speeds, or he just has some sort of odd fantasy/fetish about manta rays... I wouldnt be suprised if the author was trying to incorperate both of these reasons because he did do a hillarious job at previous stories like THHG2TG.

 Although it was a peculiar way of writing, Douglas Adams still managed to in some way immerse the reader (me) into the story, many books do this, however with the deep descriptions of the ocean it felt so soothing... and on that note i think its time for a visit to the beach...

 Mr. Hislop

I agree with Tommy's statement because i like this story. I like the way the author compares nature to machine. The story also drows upon the similalties of manta rays and 'sub bugs'.

Ok, so... first of all I'd like to mention that the comment at the top of the page is confusing me to bits. This guy says that he doesn't like the piece of writing because it's not as funny as Douglas Adams normal pieces. Then he says that he likes it because it makes him feel as if he is underwater watching the beautiful scene of the manta rays. So, does he like it, yes or no? I don't know.

Anyway, I think the story, although it wasn't a comedy, had some pretty funny parts, like the bit where he says "...if it wasn't the forces of natural selection that designed fish, it must have been an Italian". Also, the whole underwater scene did sound pretty interesting.

Overall, however, I think the story was pretty weird. I mean the whole idea of riding manta rays as a means of transport was ridiculous. This story will only work for you if you have a really good imagination, and that is something which I lack. 

I liked the story because it showed the excitement of a moment.

Obviosly this moment was priceless and they are always good moments.

I will have to ride a manta ray sometime.

Or look at 1, either or.

In my opinion the stories "the Salmon of Doubt" and "Cannery Row" are a bit similar in the style of writing. I liked the second one more.

I just recognized that there is only one conversation and one speech in the whole story. In my opinion the speech makes a good end of the story.

Until the end of the story I didn’t recognized that the story is about the question which is the better transport vehicle, a manta ray or the Sub Bug.

All in all I didn’t liked the story, also I liked the under water descriptions.

I found this piece of writing a particularly intriguing story. The same style of writing could easily be used to describe some other form of exhilarating event, eg: Sky Diving, Riding a Motor Bike or bungee jumping.

 The significance of the manta ray in this piece, is the fact that it forms a relationship between the environment and the humans. It also clearly demonstrates to us how Mother Natures design for the animals, in this case the manta ray, is much more efficient that any man made designs, in this case the sea bug.

 This piece of writing could easily be modified to compare an aeroplane to a bird, or a boat to a fish. It is very descriptive of both the nature and the environment they are in, and what activity they are doing.

 Overall, I would have to say that this piece of writing is very well written, and easily conveys a message to the reader on many levels.

-Simon Langford 

The majority of comments posted so far have been made, in my honest opinion, by poorly-informed individuals. People new to Douglass Adams’ work are probably interpreting the excerpt far too literally, as his unique style of humour and commentary involve the reader making certain connections and appreciating metaphors. I believe that although each person is entitled to their own interpretation, to claim that there is no deeper meaning is foolish. The main character isn’t pondering the use of a manta ray as transport because he believes it to be a sensible idea – it is to demonstrate his opinion that, as Ryan Hodson quoted:

"Douglass Adams should have continued with his usual writing style.  This piece about underwater adventure isn't funny at all. In fact, even thinking about riding a manta ray is obscene.  "The reason you can't actually ride a manta ray is a sound ecological one, and on just about every ecological criterion the manta ray wins hands down. In fact, any form of transport that you can't actually use would be a major ecological benefit, don't you think?" He really made his objections known to the Sea Bug by calling it "the thing".
His descriptions of the manta ray show a different side of Douglass Adams. "Following the contours of the reef became like skiing in ultra slow motion-an almost Zenlike idea."  Beautiful writing, but not his usual style.   I felt like I was swimming underwater with them all."

All working systems eventually die out, succumbing to destruction or inevitable “Heat Death”. To use a system, such as a machine, will eventually lead to it wearing out and breaking down, just like all organisms all inevitably die themselves. To use anything as a form of transport is to use it as a working system, and all working systems ultimately fall apart. The only way to replace a broken system is to create a new one, and the only way to create a new organism is to grow it from the correct, treated nutrients. When Douglass Adams days “In fact, any form of transport that you can't actually use would be a major ecological benefit” he is scientifically correct by what we know today. Using any machine will make it a system, and all systems fall apart, and organisms die, so to use anything as a form of transport would be using up reasources, and any system not in use, that can’t be used is an ecological benefit because it will not use up reasources in replacement. Don’t ask me what the point of making a system and not using it is, because it doesn’t make sense to me. But I’m just explaining what I see in this quote, not what is logical.

Ryan Hodson AAL

Without the beginning or end, it makes it difficult for me to completely grasp the storyline. Of course it would be easy just to fabricate the rest of the story on my own, but then the supposed “underlying theme” would not be expressed as the author intended.

Usually D. Adams writing style is well liked by me, but in this case, I didn’t really like it much. Nevertheless this piece of writing is a well expressed piece with good sentence structuring which is easy to comprehend.

The likely hood of me actually picking up this book and reading is not likely, but I suppose this book i still worthy of reading

Thankyou for your time.

I personally agree with the origional comment - the thought of riding any sea animal, let alone one as majestic as the manta ray, is absurd. there are many reasons why this is so ridiculous. For one, you risk damaging their scales, mucus coating, skin etc, secondly, I would like to point out the psychological damage which such abuse could cause - imagine something just decided to put a rope around your neck and make you pull them around, do you really think that that would have no effect on you?

Although absurd, I must admit, it was very well written.  

I can't say I particularly enjoyed this piece of text but whether I enjoy reading it or not I can recognise a good piece of text when I see one. This piece of text was excellently written because it was very descriptive. This meant that while I was reading it I could pitcure all the surroundings as I read about them. It felt like I was there underwater with the characters. A very impressive piece of text. The reason I did not enjoy it was because I hate the ocean

-Cathy Karuga BKM

I think this short story is a beautifully written story. This story is quite difficult because it's such a creative idea that people will ride the manta ray for transportation. "Riding the Rays," in which Adams gets the idea to compare riding a new technological submarine, the "Sub Bug" is a descriptive piece of writing. However I like his style of writing.

I was not entirely sure about this story... I mean, comparing a stingray to an aquasub? Who rides a stingray, anyway? Didn't fully make sense to me... still, I'm guessing if I read the entire thing, it'd seem a bit more sensible.

~ Crimpy ~ the Mountain Goat, BLJ

 I would also have to agree with Finn.

This story has been written with such passion and beauty that you actually feel that you are there swimming with the manta rays. He uses really a really complex style of writing with many great metaphors. But the idea of him trying to ride one is just plain stupid. Manta rays are like most creatures, harmless, unless you aggravate them. As Finn also stated in his article people are referring the manta ray as a sting ray. They are very similar in shape but the manta ray can get up to much bigger sizes and they don't have a barb.

 I would have to say I really didn't enjoy reading it because although he wrote so beautifully it was boring and really had no point but to not ride manta rays!

 Leon Zafry

The story is a little bit harder to understand because it is an extract from a book.  But the story is not written in a way that is hard to understand. The writer, Douglas Adams, may have a different type of writing, but like the other short story, Jonathon Livingston seagull, sometimes it is good to take chances and think in different ways and experiment.  The writing was very creative and expressive. It gave a lot of description that the reader could then use their imagination to create the story in their heads.  This is great in writing because it makes the reader feel as though they are in the story and seeing it all through their own eyes.

This story is a fantastic way of showing that authors do not always have to write in the way in everything they write to be interesting.  Once again, the comment at the topic of the page is to get us fired up and critical of what the author portrays.  I don't know why so many people are complaining about the story saying things like "Overall I did not really enjoy reading this text"  and then turning around and saying "it was very well written ".  

If it was hard to follow, how can you say that it was written well?  I think the story is one of those ones that paints a picture in your mind, with every little detail just in place.  That why I enjoyed the story.  It leaves you hanging at parts thinking you have the complete picture, and then the picture changes dramatically.

Also, its ironic that Peter complains about what, from his perspective, seem like bad comparisons, with the comparison "more bad comparisons like several chimpanzees in a zoo".  And why don't people realise,

this is a stingray                                                                                  and this is a manta ray.  A manta ray is normally about 6 metres wide, but a stingray is normally only 1 metre wide.

Another fantastic work of art from Douglas Adams

G

“Douglass Adams should have continued with his usual writing style. This piece about underwater adventure isn’t funny at all. In fact even thinking about riding a manta ray at all is obscene.”

When I saw the title of this story and its author, I thought this would be more humorous and witty too. But I liked reading another side of Douglas Adams.

“If I were not an atheist, I think I would have to be a Catholic because if it wasn't the forces of natural selection that designed fish, it must have been an Italian.”

Good inspiring joke but…… kinda a bit corny."

One of the things that I really like about this story is that Douglas Adams does this a lot in this story; he uses previous knowledge to provide new information for us and give background information on what we’re reading.

During the conversation topic of choosing between a Sub Bug and a Manta Ray, I think Ian’s lack of participation helps present his view on his idea of using Manta Rays as transport.

 “If you ride a manta ray, you will be inhibiting its movement, slowing it down and causing it to use up much more energy than normally required. You could also scrape off some of its protective mucus, exposing it to marine infection.” – Finn Stokes

In my view, it was a really smart idea to deliver perhaps, Douglas Adams’ opinion through Ian’s actions and the protagonist’s thoughts.

Overall, after I had read this story through I couple of times I came to appreciate it more and I think it’s a good piece of alternative work from Douglas Adams.

I had trouble understanding this book. When they were talking about riding a manta ray, I thought that they were refering to an aquatic vehicle with a fancy name.

The main reason that I found this snippet confusing was because we were chucked into the story with no background information as to what happening. I could be wrong, but from memory, I don't recall reading any information about the main character himself. EG, description, age, ect...

Overall, I didn't really enjoy this story but then, its not really my type of book.

David Whitman.

I personally found "The Salmon of Doubt" as a well written and descriptive short story. Although I haven't read any other pieces from the author Adam Douglas, I think that it is unfair for people to discriminate an author who is trying new styles of writing to add variety to either keep long time readers more interested, or to attract new readers.

How ever, I did find the idea of using a manta ray as a source of transport slightly inappropriate but he weighed out that particular bad part with his descriptive use of metaphors. The adjectives and metaphors that were used throughout this text created a lot imagery for me and I found it easier to imagine the kind of situation and environment Douglas was trying to create for the reader.

Also, I don't understand where the humour is in this particular piece of writing. After re-reading the text I struggled to find the humour, in fact I didn't find any at all.

I thought that Adam Douglas wrote a really interesting piece of writing and I don't see why he is being discriminated by it. 

I think this is a great story because it shows the beauty of the reefs, I think that it would have been stupid if he had used a funny writing style because it would have lost the point of the story. Writing this in a funny style would be like telling a horror story in a funny style it just wouldn't get the point across.

I think it is a great section because it shows the comparisons between what humans have made and what nature has made by its self. With the human thing being much more useful, but the natural thing being beautiful. 

The story asks whether it is better to ride a manta-ray or a sub-bug. I think when they say the manta ray they refer to the animal instead of the electronic transport. He realises which one is a better transport vessel during the climax of the story, when the manta rays soar above him and he realises their majesty and awe of the creatures. It is not a story about him wanting to ride a manta ray because he says very clearly “I said I understood about not riding them”.

I thought that this short story was a beautifully written story about a man and his love for nature and the way he realized that the manta ray is a magnificent creature and not something you use for transportation.

 I must admit like others i did find it a bit hard to follow with the style of writing that the author used. I still thought that it was a good short story and that the author is a talented writer by the way he expressed the way the character thought about the creatures and he used powerful descriptive words to portray what the creatures are like.

This piece of writing was a little confusing yet built up from a lot of some excellent metaphores. The text was made quiet interesting by all the discribing words.

Althought i personally did not enjoy reading this story, and it was a little confusing i thought it was very well writeen with all the disrciptions, making the reader feel like theyre right there. 'It captured the beauty and majesty of the reef.'

"Douglass Adams should have continued with his usual writing style.  This piece about underwater adventure isn't funny at all."

Referring to the above comment, I don't agree with the statement that Douglass Adams should have continued with his usual writing style.  I thought that it was a really great piece; which keeps the reader interested and makes you feel like your actually there.  I believe that it is important for authors to have variety in their writing as there are lots of different people out there with different tastes and variety offers a greater audience range.

I do agree with the statement that the piece was not very funny.  It wasn't my kind of humor but I do think it was similar to some of the other pieces that Douglass Adams has written in the past.  Pieces like 'Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", have the same kind of warped and perhaps silly sense of humor.  I believe this was also found in 'Salmon of Doubt', as the idea of using a Manta Ray as a mode of transport displays the same context of humor.

I'm similar to most of the people commenting on this piece of writing. I found it hard to understand most of the story, I can't say I go scuba diving often and I think i would understand it more if i had read more of it. Although I did enjoy the clever metaphors the author used.

-Veronica Smyth

I personally think that this piece about underwater adventure isn't that funny at all but more awaking towards society not to ride manta ray because of mutliply reasons. It is kind of confusing to understand why he wanted to write about manta rays, but judgng from the previous comment people think the new form of writing isn't as good as his usual writing. However I dont think I can comment on Douglass Adams form of writing because I have never read any of his other books but I can understand how long term fans maay dislike this new form of writing. It is very unlikely that people could be related to this story. Not everyone wants to ride manta rays

I though this piece of writing was really good, it balanced interesting facts, with beautiful scenery.  It had a really good climax (took my breath away) and I liked how he explained the features of the animals (especially the manta ray).

I would of though that a manta ray would be really unsuitable, because as he said in the book, it’s a bit hard get on, let alone ride. But do you recon you could bread them, make a pedigree, and then use them as a pet like creature?

King0285 said: “I found this interesting but really hard to follow, i'm sure an expert diver would understand but i'm not one of them.”

^ I know what you mean, but once it works through the story, he moves away from the diving experience, and really gives you some great visuals.

Heh, I want to do scuba diving if this is the definition:

“It is, almost by definition, the least aerobic sport there is. It won't make you fit.”

“If I were not an atheist, I think I would have to be a Catholic because if it wasn't the forces of natural selection that designed fish, it must have been an Italian.”

Good inspiring joke but…… kinda a bit corny.

Although it was obvious to me that the writer excels and writing creatively, he fails in keeping the reader involved in the story. It is unusually written, to say the least, and this could be due to the fact that this portion is an extract from a book and seems out of place if isolated for examination. When I first read The Salmon of Doubt I was confused regarding actually what the reader was trying to narrate. And although I agree with the comment on how well he describes swimming underwater with the stingrays, Douglass Adams fails to depict the story in the correct manner. The usage of colourful and imaginative writing does not gel with the storyline itself, disregarding the audience’s ability to keep pace with the storyline. “As it moved, shimmering and undulating its giant wings, folding itself through the water, I felt that I was looking at the single most beautiful and unearthly thing I had ever seen in my life.”  It could be said that this novel is a bit like trying to defeat a quad army with raptors. :P

 I agree with Finn (stok0057)...

"This story is well written, capturing the beauty and majesty of the reef. The images painted are so vivid that you almost feel that you are there with them, watching the manta ray glide above the reef."

The story does describe the moment in the reef as if you are sitting in the middle of the book. The author has gone into such immaculate detail, and I was quite impressed that we got to read something so good. Finn's exert from the story above is a great example of the detail that the author goes into.

~Harry Jackson

There seem to be a few misconceptions occurring here, people seem to be referring to manta rays as stingrays, with long, sharp barbs on their tails. Some sources place the Manta genus in its own family, Mobulidae, but others term it part of the Myliobatidae family, the members of which are called stingrays by some people. Manta rays have no barb at the end of their tails, so the accident that killed Steve Irwin is not relevant to this situation. The only risks to the diver that are associated with riding a manta ray are rapid changes in depth, causing the bends; and falling off and getting injured. The main issues surrounding riding manta rays are about cruelty to the animal itself. “No wild animal is benefited by being ridden, and Mantas are no exception” (Manta Ray FAQ, <www.elasmo-research.org>). If you ride a manta ray, you will be inhibiting it’s movement, slowing it down and causing it to use up much more energy than normally required. You could also scrape off some of its protective mucus, exposing it to marine infection.

This story is well written, capturing the beauty and majesty of the reef. The images painted are so vivid that you almost feel that you are there with them, watching the manta ray glide above the reef.

“It banked away in a wide, sweeping turn in the deeper water. It seemed to be moving breathtakingly slowly, and I was desperate to keep up with it. … It banked again, round the contour of the reef, and I began to see its shape more clearly. It was very roughly diamond-shaped. Its tail is not long, like a sting ray’s. The most extraordinary thing is its head. Where you would expect the head to be, it’s almost as if something has taken a bite out of it instead. From the two forward points – the outer edges of the bite, … - descend two horns, folded downward. And on each of these horns is a single large black eye.”

Overall I did not really enjoy reading this text, as at times it was hard to follow. I believe that if it were the whole story it would easier to follow. I did not really find the story interesting as there was not a good point it. However I will say that even though I did not find it interesting it was very well written in that it had a great use of words. Eg. “As it moved, shimmering and undulating through the water, I felt like I was looking at the single most beautiful and unearthly thing I had ever seen in my life”.

I agree with Peter, this story is not done in moderation. I still think that it is a good story but after reading Peter's entry I think he is right. There are too many bad metaphors and even worse comparisions.

By the way Peter, I know that it is hard to tell but the itallics is acctually a quote. So don't blame me for the bad spelling.

In congue dui et est. Aliquam convallis. Ut quis velit id mi euismod sollicitudin. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; In in tortor. Suspendisse viverra nibh eget sapien. Donec at mauris. Mauris nec libero. Fusce vitae risus. Aliquam pede dui, aliquet sed, nonummy eu, condimentum eu, risus. Mauris hendrerit lorem nec turpis. Morbi aliquam felis. Integer lorem. Donec porta, est vitae auctor mattis, massa tortor rutrum dolor, id ullamcorper sapien velit cursus eros. Praesent quis diam eget lacus fringilla pharetra.

"I agree that the story was beautifully written. Some of the metaphors and characterisations used in the story were pure genious." (healey)

I agree with you there, it does sound beautiful and there are some excellent metaphors. Even though I think that it is a well written story, I did not like it.

I have seen stingrays up close on a few occasions, they are amazingly agile creatures and would be difficult to follow. Because the story was about a man who wanted to ride a stingray I did not really like it. I think that anyone who tries to ride a stingray is an idiot because if he grabs it he will either be severely wounded or even be killed by the sharp, seratted barb.

Hang on a second, buddy. Are you trying to say that the short story was good or bad? One minute you are moaning "wah wah wah I didn't like it because it wasn't funny", then the next you are saying "It was beautiful writing".

As for riding a manta ray or any other sea creature, I guess it would not be advisable considering the recent incident involving Steve Irwin.

Finally, I agree that the story was beautifully written. Some of the metaphors and characterisations used in the story were pure genious.