Talk:Mostly Harmless

Earth article reference

Whether or not a reference to this should be made in the Wikipedia's Earth entry is a topic of debate in Talk:Earth.

Transpire

transpire v. intr. To become known; come to light. [1] --Paul A 03:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Relation to Earth

I added a bit about people who try to change the Earth article. Anyone who accuses me of being a vandal is mistaken; my computer was POD'd from Bend, Oregon and I lost control of my computer for a while. I had to reinstall Windows and I removed SuSE (which was causing the problem) so now it's all good.

Only problem is that that addition is self-referencing, which is frowned upon, except here on talk pages. Sorry! --JohnDBuell 21:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Characters Section?

I think that maybe we should add a "characters" section for all the books in the series. But maybe only cover the characters that are featured in that particular book. What do you think?...

Mbatman72 03:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at some articles in the WP:Novels project, it looks like the generally accepted topic headings are: intro (no heading; usual 2-3 paragraph intro rule of thumb applies), plot summary, characters (major ones for the novel/book in question, linking back to characters used throughout a series as necessary), discussion of themes (optionally), critical reviews (positive and negative), awards (if any), allusions/references from other works (if any), discussion of adaptations (including audiobook and audio drama, the latter of which certainly applies to MH). Then the usual References/See also/External links sections. With that in mind, I'd probably move the plot summary up, include the characters section, move the information about the title down, and let the next three sections follow in order as they do now. References: Script Book Vol. 2, by Dirk Maggs, and The Salmon of Doubt should be referenced more explicitly (i.e. with page numbers). --JohnDBuell 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So do you think it would be a good idea just on MH or on the entire series? Maybe there's enough in the summary: if we add a characters section it might be a good idea to cut down on the summary.

71.38.235.214 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's ultimately been a goal of the Hitchhiker's WikiProject to get the articles about the five novels up to acceptable quality levels as defined by the Novels WikiProject (and the same for the film and the tv series), so yes, the ideas expressed here should also work their way eventually into the other four novel articles. --JohnDBuell 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I was looking at the infobox guidlines on wikiproject novels and it looks like they have a lot more info, do we need more or is it long enough already? Mbatman72 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings

There is a "Spoilers end here" at the end of the Plot Summary, and yet, the Adams on Mostly Harmless section tells the entire ending. Since the very next section contains a Spoiler Warning, the warning should just be continued to the end of the article. Millancad 15:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking about spoilers, why aren't there any in this or any of the other Hitchiker's books? Looking around there aren't any on other fictionaly works. I haven't been on wikipedia for a long time, have I missed something??

Mbatman72 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot?

Im not sure I agree with the plot outline.

Specifically;

"The Grebulons took Tricia to Rupert because they wanted her to make a working model of the solar system?"

"They were confused and didnt know what else to do with their guns?"

I completely agree with you and I have gone through it in order to make it more accurate, and understandable to those not familiar with the series. Mbatman72 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is Astrology and horoscopes not mentioned anywhere in this outline? The Grebulon's fascination with earth TV and culture, so much so that they come to effectively use it to fill the void left in their empty minds was one of the main points about them. They took Tricia to Rupert because she had interviewed a prominent astrologer and they were hoping she could calculate how the horoscope would work for those on Rupert instead of Earth. Likewise, they destroyed Earth because it was a spanner in the works of their avid use of astrology (because since all their info comes from Earth broadcasts naturaully Earth isn't taken into account as something in the sky) - you didnt know what to do when "earth was rising" etc. 70.189.213.149 14:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add any of this. --JohnDBuell 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are other major discrepancies and overlookings in the plot summary, but as I'm not sure myself of many of these things, I'll leave them here open for discussion, instead of editing the article. The guide 2.0 needs a lot more emphasis since it's revealed to be the one retro-engineering the timelines of possibiliy to make most of the events of the book happening, starting with saving Ford's life at the Guide building, through manipulating Random until the arguably final purpose of arriving into the earth, pulling the scattered last earthians along. Actually it's most likely that the Guide 2.0 itself was the one that, by means of sacrifice, erased the earth from the time-space-probability continuum. It's never stated in the book that the Grebulons were the ones behind it, it' just suggested they were preparing an attack in the mean time (also it's quite probable it was their former mission before their lost their memories). If it would have been a Grebulon attack, it would only have destroyed that particular earth, but as the Vogon observed, the whole existence of the earth in all possible dimensions was denied. It's therefore suggested that the Guide 2.0 was working (maybe even created) under the orders of the Vogon, who, as it's stated in the book, hates to leave a work unfinished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maokun (talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Erm, I'm just a visitor but I couldn't help noticing that Arthur Dent must go to some planet before he can die; but then at the end of the story most of the Main Characters die, including him. The plot summary does not include him going to that planet; is that wrong or is there a plot hole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.175.113 (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

--Having just completed reading the Hitchhiker's series, I couldn't help noticing that the plot summary section of this article is inaccurate on many occasions. For example:

Random is already living with Arthur on Lamuella, when Ford's package arrives. Ford doesn't appear shortly after Random escapes with the Guide. She actually steals Ford's ship when he comes looking for his package, leaving him stranded on the planet. Also the bit about Arthur, Ford, Random and the two Tricias meeting before the scene at Stavro's doesn't seem accurate.

Oh and about the Grebulons destroying the Earth, there is a motive presented in the book: "Earth was starting to rise into Capricorn, and that, for the Grebulon leader, who showed all the character signs of being a classic Taurus, was very bad indeed. This was all very distressing for him, but he knew that he had to start taking positive action. He ordered the turrets to swivel." How this should result in the obliteration of all possible Earths on the probability axis, I couldn't find a clue, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.134.176 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is in fact a Vogon that destroys every possible Earth, and also no mention of Elvis Presley's appearance?- User:Zedxclon. ^That was me, I just forgot to sign in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedxclon (talk • contribs) 12:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The place Arthur 'has to go before he can die' is the bar he's in at the end, I believe. In the 3rd book Arthur is told someone will try to kill him, miss and kill 'the Bowl of Petunias' (can't be bothered to look for his other name). This happens in the bar. Because of time travel this has already happend for the Petunia in the first and 3rd book, while still being in Arthur's future. Dannman (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Hitchhiker's Guide 2.0"?

Was it ever called this in the book, or has someone just invented it as a "cool" name? 86.174.124.26 (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)