Douglas Adams on the English–American cultural divide over “heroes”

In 2000, a user on Slashdot asked Douglas Adams a question that would become one of the most insightful explanations of cultural difference in modern literature. The user, FascDot Killed My Pr, had read Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy as a teenager and found it hilarious, but later encountered a classmate who described the series as “depressing” and “nihilistic,” particularly noting Arthur Dent’s lack of agency. The user wondered whether Adams had written the books from a place of whimsy or frustration.

Adams’ response, preserved in a Slashdot archive, reveals a deliberate cultural framework. He identified a fundamental divide in how English and American audiences perceive heroes. In England, Adams argued, heroes are characters who either have no control over their lives or come to realize they have none—citing Pilgrim, Gulliver, Hamlet, and characters from Evelyn Waugh’s novels. This tradition celebrates defeats and withdrawals, from the Battle of Hastings to Dunkirk. Adams pointed to Stephen Pile’s The Book of Heroic Failures, a massive bestseller in England that “sank with heroic lack of trace in the U.S.” Pile explained to Adams that failure isn’t funny in America—it’s treated like cancer, a subject without humor. In England, however, failure is beloved.

Arthur Dent embodies this English heroism. To American audiences, he lacks stock options or water-cooler triumphs. To the English, he’s a hero precisely because terrible things happen to him, he articulates his complaints so listeners can feel them, and then he calms down and has a cup of tea. Adams noted that Hollywood executives consistently struggled with this concept. They’d ask, “Yes, but what are his goals?” Adams could only respond that Arthur’s goal was “to have all this stop, really.”

The film adaptation process highlighted this divide. Adams recalled a meeting where Disney executive David Vogel asked whether Arthur’s presence made a difference to the outcome. When Adams said yes, Vogel declared, “Good. Then he’s a hero.” This moment crystallized the challenge of translating Arthur’s non-heroic heroism to a medium that often prioritizes clear objectives and triumphant arcs. Adams was pleased that the final screenplay preserved this quality.

The cultural distinction Adams identified runs deeper than literary taste. It reflects two different relationships with agency and circumstance. Americans tend to view themselves as agents fashioning their own stories and making their own luck. The English tradition, as Adams framed it, acknowledges that people are often victims of chance and external circumstance—and finds heroism in enduring that reality with wit and a cup of tea.

This isn’t merely about comedy versus tragedy. It’s about what different cultures value in their protagonists. The American hero overcomes obstacles through determination and skill. The English hero endures absurdity with resignation and dry humor. Arthur Dent doesn’t defeat the Vogons or save Earth through cleverness. He survives, complains appropriately, and keeps moving forward—because what else is there to do?

Adams’ observation resonates beyond Hitchhiker’s Guide. It helps explain why certain stories find different receptions across cultures. The English celebrate the “stiff upper lip” and the ability to laugh at one’s own misfortune. Americans often prefer narratives where the protagonist shapes their destiny. Neither approach is inherently superior, but they reflect different philosophical traditions about human agency.

The exchange also reveals Adams’ own awareness of these dynamics. He wasn’t writing blindly; he was consciously working within a cultural framework where failure isn’t just acceptable but celebrated. Arthur Dent’s heroism lies in his persistence despite his powerlessness—a quality that may seem passive or depressing to audiences expecting traditional heroic arcs, but feels deeply relatable to those who see life as a series of absurd challenges to be endured with grace and a good cup of tea.

This cultural lens helps explain why Hitchhiker’s Guide achieved such enduring cult status. It offered a different kind of heroism—one that didn’t require saving the galaxy, just surviving it with your sense of humor intact. For readers who felt overwhelmed by life’s absurdities, Arthur Dent wasn’t a failure; he was a mirror, reflecting the reality that sometimes the best we can do is complain articulately and carry on.

The Slashdot exchange stands as a rare glimpse into Adams’ creative philosophy, showing how deeply he understood the cultural currents shaping his work. His explanation transforms Arthur Dent from a “loser” into a distinctly English hero—one who finds victory not in overcoming obstacles, but in enduring them with wit and a well-timed complaint about the lack of tea.