Talk:Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-02-12
42, the Meaning of Life This article is part of WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Note that this page has been moved several times. It was originally at Minor Characters from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, then it was moved to Concepts and Minor Characters from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, then to Concepts and minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and finally to its present location.

Also note that several pages have had their contents merged into them and been redirected here. To check the history of the relevant sections before the mergings, check the histories of the original page.

Contents

[edit] For the Record

For the record... that was me who just edited the page under an IP address. LuckyWizard 00:22, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit -- Tim Starling 12:52, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute Kneebiters

"absolute kneebiter"?? Although it's funnier (IMO) I must point out that my copy -- "Pan original", 1982, printed in Canada, page 8 -- has "total asshole" 142.177.15.49 20:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

There's two different versions of LtUaE, one with fictional swear-words and one with real ones. The difference is rather more obvious in the later scene involving the film-maker who won an award for the most gratuitous use of the word "----". --Paul A 05:41, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SF Expletives

Is there a page of science fiction expletives? It seems there's no programme that wants to broadcast swear words, so substitutes things like frell (Farscape), zark (HHGG) and smeg (Red Dwarf). thefamouseccles

That's a great idea, smeghead! You should create it! - Tεxτurε 00:50, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
It already exists at List of fictional curse words. LuckyWizard 06:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Change to list?

This article consists of a lot of information on characters that is only related in that they're all from the same series. True, they're minor characters, but the page is becoming really quite large. I'm wondering if the model from the The Simpsons characters would fit here. An article describes the The Simpsons, then links to a List of characters from The Simpsons. A list of minor characters (or just all characters) from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would be more useful than the current page, in my opinion. Each character gets its own page with a link back to the list. Any thoughts? --Abqwildcat 22:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, let me don my peril-sensistive sunglasses whilst I argue for not using List of characters from The Simpsons as a model for the Hitcher's Guide minor characters. My reasons are:
  • The number of THHGTTG characters is limited, far more limited than the number of characters in a weekly television series like The Simpsons. The sheer number of characters (growing each week) in the Simpsons necessitates a different approach.
  • The longest entries in this list, such as Agrajag, Gag Halfrunt and Slartibartfast, are only 3-4 paragraphs long, and so their value as separate articles are questionable, in my opinion.
  • The shortest entries in this list, such as Eddie, Prosser and the Telephone Sanitisers are so short, they just don't merit separate articles at all.
  • This page really isn't that long, and because THHGTTG series ended at 5 books -- writer Douglas Adams is dead, after all, and assuming he doesn't reincarnate and start expanding the trilogy to more than 5 books, the list is not likely to grow much longer.
  • The page isn't generating an automatic, "this page is too long!" message. If and when it does, I'll change my opinion. But for now, I think this page is just fine. Now excuse me while I go have a cup of tea. Kevyn 23:38, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You make a series of very good points and have honestly convinced me. Unless this page reaches the "too long" barrier according to Wikipedia, let's leave it as is. Should make sure that the other minor characters don't have article entries separate from this page. I'll check on that. Seriously, good points though. I like the page, and hope more characters continue being added. --Abqwildcat 00:10, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you that the other minor characters should be tracked down and merged into this article. (Example: Eccentrica Gallumbits, mentioned in the article's prologue) For consistency's sake, they should be here, instead of in other articles. And, after they are all merged, if the list looks too long, we'll look at other solutions. Kevyn 04:16, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK, Eccentrica Gallumbits has been merged and redirected into this article. Kevyn 13:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Golgafrinchams

It strikes me as odd to have Telephone sanitiser as a character but not the other Golgafrinchams, like the Captain, Number One, Number Two, Agda and Mella. Telephone sanitiser isn't even one special character, just a profession. Should we create a heading "The Golgafrinchams" and then list all those lesser characters as bullets under it or create a new heading for each of the Golgafrinchams? In any case I think that Telephone sanitiser should be removed. ZeroOne 12:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is a simple reason why Telephone sanitiser is listed, while none of the other Golgafrinchams are: no one has bothered to write anything about the others yet. If you would like to see information about them here, then I encourage you to write about them.
I can support your idea of making a new heading for Golgafrinchams, and then writing about the characters under that heading. Personally, I would move the Telephone sanitiser listing to under the new heading.
However, I disagree that Telephone sanitiser should be removed altogether, even though it is a group of characters, as opposed to a single one. My rationale is simply that, a) someone has taken the time to document them here, and b) they are unique characters, emblematic of the kinds of idiosyncratic characters Douglas Adams created. Kevyn 14:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK, I created a new heading for the Golgafrinchams and added the ones I listed. ZeroOne 19:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm fine with the recent change, but since you asked why a section on a concept was in an article about characters, I'll answer.
This page was once at a different title, Concepts and minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. See my talk page; that title was actually chosen to accommodate the telephone sanitizer stuff after User:Tim Starling suggested that the page title be broadened to allow the telephone sanitizer stuff to go in there instead of being a separate article. Lucky Wizard 05:40, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deep thought == Deep throat?

The article claims that Deep Thought's name is a parody of Deep Throat (movie). Does anyone have some evidence to back this up? --Yath 18:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seems much more likely to me that it's a reference to Deep Blue, IBM's famous supercomputer. Unless I can find some evidence of the Deep Throat link I'm going to take it out. McClade 21:48, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, so much for the Deep Blue theory. Turns out Hitchhikers preceeded Deep Blue, and its more widely accepted that Deep Blue was named in honor of Deep Thought. I still don't accept the Deep Throat idea though. McClade 21:54, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
In Don't Panic, Adams is quoted as saying "the name is an obvious joke". The only obvious reference I can think of is the Deep Throat one, so I've added it back in. sjorford 09:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What if the only joke is that the computer thought deeply? I think that's far more obvious joke than some Deep Throat reference. Why would Adams want to refer to Deep Throat? Was he a huge porn film fan or something? Hardly. And even if the reference was to Deep Throat, why wouldn't it be to Deep Throat (Watergate)? --ZeroOne 16:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Even more obvious than a porn reference, which doesn't follow from the story at all, is that the computer was amazingly stupid and had no clue whatsoever as to how to answer the question. --Yath 10:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The name is a very obvious joke" doesn't get any hits on google apart from wikipedia and one other page that doesn't seem to be about HHGG. Doesn't mean it wasn't in the book, though. Andjam 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, it's in every edition of Don't Panic, and there have been three editions to date. The answer Adams gave has always been a bit ambiguous - I've always thought it was a reference to Watergate, as I didn't figure the movie had the same notoriety in the UK.... --JohnDBuell 04:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The obvious joke is that computers don't, and cannot, 'think' at all. They can only do what you tell them to. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the joke. I cannot see any connection to Deep Throat other than the word Deep, unless you know something we don't?

First can I state that it is very unlikly that you could get a question given only the answer (And do not claim jepardy, that is a parody of question from answer if anything) so please do not claim the AI is idiotic. It is commical, not idiotic. Second, what the hell does watergate have to do with the AI? Exactally, it is far more likely that after watching an alien with a 42inch dick shove it down the through of another alien with 42 breasts 42 times he came up with the number then water gate... wth? Third, since I had to come in the TALK section to figure WTF Deep Throat had in common with Deep Thought (The name is OBVIOUSLY a computer in DEEP THOUGHT...) I am removing the infromation that is unencyclopedia worthy.

[edit] A new list: Alien races from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

I'm still discomfortable with bugblatter beasts and hooloovoos appearing on this list... They don't fit the current title. How about creating a new article, Races from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? --ZeroOne 22:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since no one cares I went ahead and created the article. Feel free to add all other races from the HHGG. --ZeroOne 23:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trillian = minor?

There seems to be some minor disagreement between {{HitchhikerCharacters}} which lists Trillian as a major character, and separately lists minor characters. My understanding of the trilogy of 5 leaves me with the understanding that Trillian was not all that minor (certainly less than Zaphod or Arthur, but much more than Zem). Also, Marvin has his own page. Why not Trillian? There's already a disambig page for Trillian which leads to the section on the minor characters page.

As she's the only "minor" character separately listed on the template, I think we should give her her own page. Trillian_(Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) or some such. --ABQCat 19:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, when I made {{HitchhikerCharacters}}, I figured someone would eventually expand Trillian's entry and give her her own page since she is a relatively major character. Ford Prefect (character) is Ford's page, so maybe Trillian (character) is the best place to put her. Although Tricia McMillan might be good too. Just change the relevent links to her entry (: —siroχo
She was moved here from Trillian (fictional character) a year ago, probably because the description was so short. I think her own article could be recreated there. --ZeroOne 20:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Moved her to Trillian (character). --ZeroOne 19:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jeltz in the third series

It is interesting to note that in the third radio series, when brief clips of Jeltz' voice are played, the clips are from TV and not the earlier radio stories.

This is wrong. In the third radio series, Jeltz says, "This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Intergalactic Hyperspace Planning Council. Your planet is scheduled for demolition." This is not exactly what Jeltz says in the TV show, nor could you arrive at the same sound clip by omitting words (you could get the same wording but it wouldn't have the same stress, pitch, timing, etc. of each syllable). It may, however, be the same voice actor, but the voice is uncredited, both in the radio episode and on the BBC website. Anybody know who it is or where the clips may be from? - Furrykef 21:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's Toby Longworth. All reprises were recorded new (for that lovely 5.1 surround effect). Bill Wallis (original Prosser/Jeltz voice) was unavailable, so Dirk Maggs recast. Toby isn't given a credit for Jeltz until 2005's series #4. All the details are spelled out in the second radio scripts volume. --JohnDBuell | Talk 16:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what does Slartibartfast mean?

it's stated that it's meant to be rude, but me as a non English native speaker can't figure out what exactly is supposed to be rude about it ... slarty but fast? what's slarty? (clem 22:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC))

I think it's more subtle than that - it just sounds vaguely like it "ought to be" rude. The most obvious reference is to the mildly impolite "fart", but the quoted origin as "Phartiphukborlz" also includes the far worse "fuck" and "balls". "Slartibartfast" itself, though, is of necessity meaningless, due to the general prudishness of the BBC and its listeners; it's just meant to produce childish giggles from anyone trying to take him seriously. - IMSoP 15:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Game

Does anyone else think A) characters from the computer game should be on this list, and B) it should be noted of characters on this list if they appeared in the game? Stev0 07:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the latter, but I'm having a hard time thinking of examples of newly created characters just for the game (except maybe Marvin's door). --JohnDBuell 07:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TODO

Missing characters we ought to [write] sections about are

  • Arthur's boss
  • Elvis Presley
  • Gail Andrews
  • Murray Bost Henson
  • Mrs Kapelsen
  • The Lajestic Vantrasheel of Lob
  • Thor
  • God

Where does God fit in here? Except for possibly the running Oolon Colluphid jokes? There's already a section for the cat called "The Lord." Also, I'm not sure about paragraphs for Arthur's BBC Boss (except that he was played by the second Hitchhiker radio producer, Geoffrey Perkins), or the Lajestic Vantrasheel of Lob, these seem to be VERY minor characters to me. --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

God makes a personal appearance for His apology message at the end of the fourth book and is referenced quite a few times. Briantist 10:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Hactar]] is changed to [[Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#Hactar|Hactar]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 5 September 2005, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 23:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slartibartfast's signature

Stev0 removed my addition of

Such a signature was indeed found in a real life glacier in Norway. Writer Øyvind Myhre was suspected for making it.

My source for the claim is the Sidan 42 the newsletter of the Swedish HHGTTG society.[1] It's not available online. I haven't found any online source, but I guess it was reported much in Norwegian fandom, but it was a bit pre-internet. I haven't manage to find much.[2] // Liftarn

I did do a rather thorough Google search before deleting it. Since it still has no verification, I'd keep it out. At most, maybe you can add "Somebody, as a prank, actually put a large sign that said 'Slartibartfast was here' on a glacier." Stev0 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Hactar]] is changed to [[Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#Hactar|Hactar]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 16 June 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UFOs

There's mention of the green UFOs when hitch-hiking is explained, and UFOs that play pranks on humans. Do these have any relation to the green smiley face on the cover?

No, he's the invention of Peter Cross, the artist who did the original covers of the first five Hitchhiker's books in the USA. The 'face' also appears on the US edition of the Radio Scripts book, and the VHS/DVD releases of the TV series. --JohnDBuell 03:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Also it should be noted that Douglas Adams HATED it. [3] Stev0 07:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fenchurch and the Ultimate Question

Perhaps the Earth had been able to calculate the Ultimate Question after all (or whatever skewed perception of it it could have), and Fenchurch's sudden realisation of it was its output; the way that everyone would come to know about it.

A caveat to this theory, however, are that Fenchurch is a Golgafrinchan descendent, and is therefore not part of the Earth's calculation program. However, she still might have been able to recieve the calculation since Arthur may have also calculated something at least resembling the Ultimate Question in "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" with the Scrabble tiles, possibly implying that the Golgafrinchans may had become integrated into the program in some way after living on the earth since prehistoric times. Other theories could be made, such as they could have cross-bred with the humans before they died out, causing some scraps of the program to be in the offspring. The humans and Golgafrinchans may be too biologically dissimilar for this, but given most of the absurd logic in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, anything could be possible.

Every bit of this is Original Research, and should not be included. Sorry. --JohnDBuell 01:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot about the concept of Original Research. That was quite silly of me. I guess a discussion like this is meant to be in a public forum rather than a public information resource. Thanks for correcting me. --UberMan5000 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amoeboid Zingatularians

Should the Amoeboid Zingatularians entry be moved to Races and species in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? There aren't any actual Amoeboid Zingatularian characters in the story. P Ingerson (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. I would have done it myself but I've been quite busy at work. --JohnDBuell 22:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slartibartfast

I believe he should have his own article. He is a rather important character.--Atomic-Suit-n-tieWhat Have I Done?! 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

When the article was merged into this list, there were only four paragraphs, and no photos (and I note that there is still no photo of Richard Vernon). It would be entirely feasible to fork his section back out, but please make notes of everything that links here for Slartibartfast, and move it back to the proper page if it does get forked. Also, if we fork Slarti back off, why not kick the Vogons back out of the "Races and Species" page? Anyone else agree with putting Slartibartfast back on his own page? --JohnDBuell 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I have this--Atomic-Suit-n-tieWhat Have I Done?! 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of this article?

I'm sure User:Briantist means well, but this article has quickly become fancruft of the worst possible kind. We've gone from a list of characters with actual dialogue to a list of any and ALL characters EVER mentioned anywhere in ANY version of Hitchhiker's. This is not a good idea IMO. I'd like to whittle this back down, and I'm thinking about whittling it back down to characters with dialogue, not just those characters mentioned in passing. --JohnDBuell 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that as of right now (before I do a little cutting down), the page gives a warning as it's over 99KB in length. --JohnDBuell 01:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I just thought that this being an encylopedia it would be useful to have a complete list!
You may want to read over Wikipedia:Article length and Wikipedia:Fancruft just so we don't go overboard, and wind up having the list cut WAY down by a non-Hitchhiker's fan or worse, nominated for deletion. --JohnDBuell 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I've read these! It says that lists are excluded from the Wikipedia:Article length rule. Briantist 03:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't, I'm just saying that at 100k, it might be too much for ANYBODY to want to read, and should we come up with some agreement as to which characters are or are not included? --JohnDBuell 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem with having a 'minor characters' page for Hitch Hikers is that when there is clearly over 100 of them isn't really a list you would want to read, but you may wish to refer to. DNA put a lot of effort into every line and trying to unpick the list is going to a very subjective take on what is relevant. For example, Trin Tragular was quoted the other day on The Material World on Radio 4 a few weeks ago[4]. I thought this page could be used as a reference for someone trying to get to grips with the whole HH concept, given its myriad of versions (books, radio shows, re-recording of radio shows, TV, movie, book readings, computer games) it seems better to have a complete list to refer to, rather than deciding (as Adams hated) that there was a 'cannon'. Briantist 03:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Also there are characters WITH dialogue but without names such as the protitute outside the Old Pink Dog bar and the raffle-ticket selling woman, who are not listed because they don't have names. Briantist 02:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor/Ruler of the Universe

What exactly do you have against the entry you keep deleteing, viz:
President of the Imperial Galactic Government
Much to his irritation, many milllenia ago, in his dying moments he was put into a statis field, which means all his heirs are dead, which renders the Imperial title anachronistic. The replacement - and not imperial - presidents job (as filled by Zaphod Beeblebrox and Yooden Vranx) is not to order the levers of democratic power but to to draw attention away from it. This is explained in the first novel, and appears in the Secondary Phase. Not to be confused with the Ruler of the Universe.
? Briantist 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's incorrect! Zaphod, and Yooden before him were Presidents of the Imperial Galactic Government, in the series. They both are listed. The Emperor was the person put into the stasis field. It may not be clear unless you have a copy of the original script book. The story is originally explained in Fit the Ninth. --JohnDBuell 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, I meant Emperor of the Imperial Galactic Government Briantist 03:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's still implied in the radio series AND novels that the Emperor, the Old Man in the Shack, and the Ruler of the Universe are one and the same person. --JohnDBuell 03:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I've NEVER heard that implication before. It is said of the Emperor that he was put in stasis in last moments of his dying coma. This is different from the Old Man in the Shack, who is clearly alive, if only in the moment, and Trillian says "we must have come to the wrong place. You can't rule the Universe from a shack." There is never any suggestion that this character is the Emperor. Briantist 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Why else would Zaphod have planned to break the conspiracy with his great-grandfather, Zarniwoop and Yooden Vranx to get to a man protected by a field that could only be reached using the Infinite Improbability Drive Ship, while the Emperor had been previously described as "locked in a perpetual stasis field" if they weren't meant to be the same person? I don't know of anyone who's ever thought of them as NOT the same person. --JohnDBuell 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I have never come accross anyone who has conflated these characters together. It states quite clearly (radio, book) that the Emperor of THE GALAXY was locked in the "perpetual stasis field" in his dying moments, whereas the guide says before we arrive at the shack of the ruler of the UNIVERSE, "who can possibly rule if no one who wants to can be allowed to?" which would negate someone who is a) almost dead and b) Emperor!!! Briantist 03:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The man in the shack is 'nowhere, that could ever be found, since it is protected by a vast field of unprobability' - this isn't a perpetual stasis field Briantist 03:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you have conflated them! Remeber that the Emperor was in a coma, in his last dying moments. But he must still have been on view to prove to his ofspring and their prodigny that he wasn't yet dead, and also he is still not dead - his is STILL the Emperor. A stasis field is similar to the slow-time envelope used to lock away Kricket, whereas the unprobability field is different, as the Guide Mark 2.0 points out, If you'd like to know, I can tell you that in your universe you move freely in three dimensions that you call space. You move in a straight line in a fourth, which you call time, and stay rooted to one place in a fifth, which is the first fundamental of probability. After that it gets a hit complicated, and there's all sorts of stuff going on in dimensions 13 to 22 that you really wouldn't want to know about.. (the point being that up-down is one dimension, left-right another, in-out a third, TIME is a fourth - being held in it requires STASIS FIELD, and probability is a separate dimension where IMPROABABLE and UNPROBABLE things happen). QED.
Basically you have taken two separate plot points and joined them together. The first is an interesting riff of the principle of heredity (and being a British republican it is a point I don't take lightly) and the second is a point about 'if no-one who want to take power should be allowed to do so' the answer turns out that it has to be someone who is a an extreme form of Existentialism. In effect, he thinks, therefore he is. It's not funny otherwise, surely? Briantist 04:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why the whole big deal about The Imperial President being a rung or two down the ladder of power while the Emperor still lived, and why was it so important that Zarniwoop and Zaphod find who's really ruling things? He's never actually called the "Ruler of the Universe" - Zarniwoop asks him if he does and he says "I try not to." --JohnDBuell 03:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Because is is a simple play on the idea of British Parliamentary democracy! It says that "All his heirs are now long dead, and this means that without any drastic political upheaval, power has simply and effectively moved a rung or two down the ladder," which implies that none of his ofspring could become Emperor so they went for a presidential system instead. The second book says "The ruler of the Universe dozed lightly in his chair" it's in the book!!! I don't get where you think that this person is The Emperor???? Briantist 03:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Because the whole thing sounds like a classic textbook example of literary foreshadowing, instead of being literal. --JohnDBuell 04:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
People only resort to that weak argument when they all the others have fallen. It's used five times in the chapter, and the character provides descriptions of how it happens. Talking unprompted to his cat he says When the men come, or when in my mind the men come in their six black ships, do they come in your mind too? and And when I hear their questions, do you hear questions? What do their voices mean to you? and There's mud on the floor, cigarettes and whisky on the table, fish on a plate for you and a memory of them in my mind. And look what else they've left me Crosswords, dictionaries, and a calculator. I think I must be right in thinking they ask me questions If you cannot belive the narative at this point, when can you? Briantist 05:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Also in fit the twelth the Guide says Who can rule the Universe if no-one who wants to can be allowed to and the next line is the man in the shack. Briantist 05:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. I think it trifles too much with Adams's sense of humor and use of simple narrative devices he was obviously familiar with to read it so literally. Take a poll if you want to - go on to douglasadams.se or hhgttginfo.com. But I know I can NOT be the only one who has thought this way. --JohnDBuell 05:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You can find no evidence for your POV so you want to put it to a vote? Very ironic in the circumstances! Briantist 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say a vote at all - Perhaps someone has interview material somewhere, where the two ideas are compared. But we won't know unless we take this outside of this forum. Seeking outside opinions is the standard way of trying to settle any dispute/edit war between two editors, though it's harder to do with possible interpretations of fiction. At any rate, if you re-create an entry for the character, don't simply copy and paste what you had before, please, it still wasn't entirely accurate (you were still calling Zaphod and Yooden successors to the office of president, when in fact they were not, they were the Imperial Galactic Presidents). And further, it appears that the old man on the asteroid in the whole Trin Tragula sequence has also already been compared to the "Ruler of the Universe", so there is unintended precedent. --JohnDBuell 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You said "Take a poll if you want to", not me. Briantist 21:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'll try again then... What the book says is...

The hereditary Emperor is nearly dead and has been so for many centuries. In the last moments of his dying coma he was locked in a statis field which keeps him in a state of perpetual unchangingness. All his heirs are now long dead, and this means that without any drastic political upheaval, power has simply and effectively moved a rung or two down the ladder, and is now seen to be vested in a body which used to act simply as advisers to the Emperor - an elected Governmental assembly headed by a President elected by that assembly. In fact it vests in no such place.

then

Very very few people realize that the President and the Government have virtually no power at all, and of these very few people only six know whence ultimate political power is wielded.

then

One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they very rarely notice that they're not. And somewhere in the shadows behind them - who? Who can possibly rule if no one who wants to do it can be allowed to?

then

On a small obscure world somewhere in the middle of nowhere in particular - nowhere, that is, that could ever be found, since it is protected by a vast field of unprobability to which only six men in this galaxy have a key - it was raining.

Right, so as power "vests in no such place" as the Imperial government - now or before the Emperor was in stasis - then the real Ruler is not part of the Imperial government. The Emperor is in a coma in stasis somewhere. The Ruler of the Universe is neither in stasis nor in a coma. They're not the same person: the book doesn't say so, and neither does any reliable secondary source. Robin Johnson (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Whale != Agrajag

Given that the Bowl of Petunias Agrajag's only thought was "Oh no not again," it seems likely that the whale was also Agrajag. Not so?

No, the whale has its own, independent thoughts as it falls to Magrathea. Further, there's no indication in the Cathedral of Hate that the whale was another incarnation of Agrajag. --JohnDBuell 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The "Oh no, not again" was probably referring to all his previous deaths at Arthur's hands. Noclevername 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but "It's the petunias that thought that." The whale has a monologue, essentially. --JohnDBuell 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
In actual fact, "Oh no, not again" is a four-word summary of the philosophy of Buddism, another crafty atheist view of a religion. Briantist 10:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The whale is Agrajag: he calls it "my spirit brother". Robin Johnson (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I can call anyone my spirit brother. That's not the same thing as being one and the same being. Nowhere is that implied in the text - there are two missiles: one becomes a sperm whale, the other becomes a bowl of petunias, and later that joke is expanded to become one of the incarnations of Agrajag. --JohnDBuell 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Agrajag is the petunias and the whale (both expansions of the joke). His account of the petunias story ends with: "In, I might add, the fresh wreckage of a whale. My spirit brother." What else does that mean, in this context? Robin Johnson (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
They're twins, of a sort, created at the same time in the same space, by the Infinite Improbability Drive. I'd be certain that if Adams had MEANT them to be two aspects of the same being, he would have very clearly written as much. --JohnDBuell 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that he did clearly write as much when he wrote "My spirit brother". It's the punchline of the story. (It might be worth listening to this episode of radio series 3, in which Adams voices Agrajag. If there is some extra anger or emphasis on these words, that makes them more of a punchline, which would leave me all the more convinced. I'm not sure where my CD is though...) Robin Johnson (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a copy of the same series. And I still disagree. The joke was in finally giving a second explanation of "Oh no, not again," which wasn't present when the first radio series was written, not in saying that the whale AND the petunias were the same being. --JohnDBuell 17:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The explanation of "oh no, not again" is one joke, and the "I might add" addition of the fact that the whale was also an Agrajag is another, a sort of piled-up punchline. I see it's not as absolutely clear as I'd thought, so maybe not article matieral. A google search (on groups as well as the web) shows that this argument has come up a few times before, but not apparently anywhere that would be worth referencing. Robin Johnson (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that my understanding is that the Whale and the Bowl of Petunias are two parallel views of a very short existance. The Whale gets all metaphysical in his fall from the sky, whereas the Bowl of Petunias has a Buddist view of the world ("oh no not again!"). I have to say that I almost cried when I first read the Agrajag's section in the third book, as it's such a shocking suprise, IMHO. The fact that Agrajag had reincarnated so many times continued the Buddist theme, especially the reference to coming to life as a fly and being squatted as a common view of "extreme" Buddists is that they wear masks so they don't have to squat flies. Briantist 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the list of things that Agrajag has been incarnated as are listed, a cow .. a fish .. a rabbit, a fly, a wishbone, a flea ... stamping on ants and "I was at a cricket match! I had a weak heart condition". and " at Stavromula Beta and someone tried to assassinate you " which DOES NOT INCLUDE A WHALE... Briantist 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to believe that that all his incarnations would be explicitly mentioned, though. I accept that there is not consensus to put this in the article. But I'm sure I'm right. Robin Johnson (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Gerrold's HARLIE protype for Deep Thought?

I've just finished the classic 1972 novel When H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One which tells of a super-intelligent computer built to answer anything put to it, which in turn designs an even bigger "G.O.D. computer" to provide the answer to the "ultimate question." Yes -- that language is used, and there's no mention of what the "ultimate question" is. Sound familiar? I wonder if there's any source to show that Gerrold's earlier book was the influence for Adams's Deep Thought? --LeflymanTalk 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's possible, I suppose, but the idea of computers that can create other computers and computers that ponder the greatest questions are a common sci-fi theme. I don't think Adams was ever quoted on the link you make, which is what is required for Wikipedia inclusion. Briantist 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I didn't make a link. I was looking for someone who might have come across a mention of the inspiration for Deep Thought -- since much of H2G2 is clearly a parody of "serious" SF works, and Gerrold's book was fairly well-known. The only earlier version I can think of is in Asimov's 1956 short story The Last Question, in which the "Cosmic AC" becomes the (re)creator of the universe. But the question in Asmov's story is explicit (and, as per Isaac's vocation) scientifically-minded, "How do we reverse the second law of thermodynamics?" Whereas in Gerrold's-- like Adams's-- it is framed as the philosophical "ultimate question". HARLIE hints that the question is something like "Is there a God?" or "What is man's purpose?"--LeflymanTalk 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
There is also the 1966 Doctor Who episode The War Machines which features another such computer (WOTAN, Will Operating Thought ANalogue) in the London Post Office Tower (newly opened then, now the BT Tower). Also, EARNIE, the computer that picks the Premium Bond winners dates back to 1957. Briantist 09:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It has been pointed out that Adams was not "well-versed" in Science Fiction at the time he first wrote Hitchhiker's - this is a point that was brought up by at least two of his biographers. This tends to negate the possibility of such links. --JohnDBuell 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That's true. Adams said he wasn't into computers until he bought one of the first Apple Mac's in the UK (Stephen Fry bought the other, aparently). My comment about EARNIE was to point that there was a well-known "supercomputer" with a similar name to HARLIE that predated the book by fifteen years. Briantist 18:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm definitely not discounting supercomputers in SF as being a staple -- but all the previous incarnations you mention didn't design their "successors" to answer the "ultimate question." The standard cliche was that computers were dangerous when they got too smart or are given the wrong instructions. One need only look to HAL 9000, or the numerous Star Trek computers that went crazy-- i.e. The Ultimate Computer The Changeling (which featured Nomad, the protype for the first Trek movie's V'ger), That Which Survives, A Taste of Armageddon. Gerrold had been a writer on Trek, and a big SF fan, so he was familiar with the "deadly computer" concept. However, even if Adams were not well-versed doesn't necessarily mean he might not have picked up the idea of Deep Thought from Gerrold's HARLIE. The question is, has anyone else ever brought this up? By the way, the name "HARLIE" was an homage to Harlan Ellison.--LeflymanTalk 19:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence for it. Two points: 1) most computers are designed by other computers. Back in the 1970s you used a "cross compiler" on one system to create the compiler for a machine designed on new hardware and microprocessors are designed on CAD systems; 2) Deep Thought does not create a GOD computer, but a software emulation of an evolutionary system. The ultimate question is, in effect, "how do you tell if your life is real or a software emulation". Briantist 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I understand all that. But what you're referring to isn't really evidence of what I'm asking; whether CAD programs were used to design computers is kind of beside the point. I think you might still be missing the basic point: has anyone come across something which specifically tells where Adams got the idea for Deep Thought? As I said, even if Adams weren't knowledgeable about SF, clearly his work is a parody of it, and draws from some of the staple elements. It might help to understand where I'm coming from if you can find Gerrold's book-- which was revised into a 2.0 version in 1988. (I read the earlier version). For example, HARLIE's "G.O.D" (Graphic Omnicient Device) computer was intended to model existence, to answer the ultimate question, just as Deep Thought's "Earth" computer was. See, for example, this exchange from pages 86-88: (Apologies for the all-caps; that's how it's set.)

[Harlie]: "...THEREFORE, I MUST FIND GOD. THAT IS THE TASK I HAVE SET MYSELF. IT IS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE DONE BY HUMAN BEINGS, ELSE THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT BY NOW.

"UM," said Auberson. THAT'S QUITE A TASK.

I HAVE GIVEN IT MUCH THOUGHT.

I'M SURE YOU HAVE. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO IT?

THAT IS WHAT I HAVE THOUGHT THE MOST ABOUT. IT TOOK ME ONLY TWO MINUTES TO DECIDE ON MY GOAL. IT HAS TAKEN ME TWO DAYS TO DECIDE HOW TO GET THERE.

WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?...<snip>

IS SUCH A PROJECT REALLY FEASIBLE?

MY PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS SHOW THAT IT IS. IF SO, IT WILL PROVIDE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

WHICH QUESTION?

ANY OF THEM. ALL OF THEM. BUT SPECIFICALLY, "WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE?" IT WAS MY QUESTION ONCE, BUT YOUR REACTION HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS REALLY YOUR QUESTION....I AM GOING TO SOLVE THE ULTIMATE PROBLEM.

--LeflymanTalk 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
DO YOU HAVE TO SHOUT??? Briantist 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, as I already noted immediately prior: the capitals are how the text is actually set. I'm providing the source material in its original typography. So please, thank you ever so much not to point out netiquette when you haven't bothered to note my caveat prior to the text.--LeflymanTalk 23:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
So it says "Ultimate Problem" which is quite different to:

"O Deep Thought Computer," he said, "the task we have designed you to perform is this. We want you to tell us ..." he paused, "... the Answer!"
"The answer?" said Deep Thought. "The answer to what?"
"Life!" urged Fook.
"The Universe!" said Lunkwill.
"Everything!" they said in chorus.
...
"All I wanted to say," bellowed the computer, "is that my circuits are now irrevocably committed to calculating the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything -" he paused and satisfied himself that he now had everyone's attention, before continuing more quietly, "but the programme will take me a little while to run."

Lunkwill and Fook don't ask for the "Ultimate" anything and Deep Thought only make one mention of the word Ultimate. Can I suggest that you read both text when making comparisons? Briantist 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Your literary insight is profound. Clearly the answer to "Ultimate Questions" is entirely different than the answer to the "Ultimate Problem". How confused I must be to have ever imagined that there was any similarity. I might also have pointed out that HARLIE's "G.O.D. computer" was expected to take so long formulating the "solution" posed to it that mankind would likely no longer be around.--LeflymanTalk 23:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your comments, you have conclusivly provided proof that it's original research, and inadmissible. ••Briantist•• talk 10:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, neither you, nor I have provided "proof" of anything. Nor have I injected any Original research. I posed a question (repeatedly) as to whether there was any source on the origin of Deep Thought-- which had likewise been discussed much earlier above-- and suggested that one might have a basis to see if Gerrold's 1972 book was an influence. The discussion might have been closed much earlier by simply saying, "I've never seen anything of the sort"; or, '"Adams never discussed it." Geeminy, and some say I'm protective and dismissive on articles I edit.--LeflymanTalk 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
'posed a question (repeatedly)' = 'orignal research'. ••Briantist•• talk 11:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the GA nomination

I'm not a reviewer, but are you certain that lists can be Good Article candidates?
And someone should probably write up some fair use rationale for the images used. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has (roughly) 17,500 words. Far too long, and it looks like a list. Lists are not allowed to be GA. Sorry. andreasegde 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 12, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: No. It's comprehensible and organized, lead is ok, but it violates both the Jargon guidelines and How to write about Fiction guidelines.
2. Factually accurate?: Unsure; it's not easily comprehensible to someone not very familiar with the books, and inline citations (preferably) on all radio voicings, all television voicings, all movie portrayals.
3. Broad in coverage?: There's a lot of trivia and info about the book that is unnecessary. Some character listed are too minor even for this list. Reevaluate all the characters in this list; a good number are wasting the Megabytes. There's also a good bit of Original Research in places, particularly in the section on the triple breasted woman.
4. Neutral point of view?: For the most part. However, it's very much written in an in universe perspective, and that needs to be changed.
5. Article stability? Yes. I see no stability problems.
6. Images?: Images are in good places, and are properly tagged.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. -- DoomsDay349 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/n/Talk%7EMinor_characters_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_d6d4.html"