Talk:Arthur Dent

"horrifyingly plausible explanation" ? Uh come on, it's funny but it's not plausible from any rational POV. pomegranate 22:46, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

How about this? Hig Hertenfleurst 21:17, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's quite an involved, specific comment, so I'd think it better if there was some kind of reference. The only real problem is, do "many people" think it's plausible? Like you, I'd assume so, but that's not really apt for an article. Perhaps something neutral like "It might be observed that...something something." Otherwise it's a fair and worthwhile observation. Up to you. pomegranate 01:45, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I propose we apply the Gordion solution, and cut it out entirely, on the grounds that a remark like that really belongs at Golgafrincham rather than here. --Paul A 03:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image

A picture of Arthur from the movie would help, guys.

It would, but I'm not sure that the one included CAN be, without violating copyright. Screen shots would be ok, but the DVD isn't out until September. Usage off of another website, without obvious proof of permission, seems to me very shaky. --JohnDBuell | Talk 01:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's been September 2005 by now, time for a picture from the movie? Tar7arus (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambig page?

Someone has made note of two actual people named Arthur Dent - is it time for a disambig page? --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I mean why have a section in this article about someone belonging (if at all) in another?

"cavemen"

So, in the first "body" section of this page, the word "cavemen" is used to describe the original dwellers of Earth. I myself would point out that the book (I cannot speak for the other bodies of work) stressed the fact that they were, indeed, not cavemen. I'd look it up, but my book is out on loan. I've changed this minor correction once, but it got "fixed" back...so I thought perhaps I'd bring it up here and something would actually get done about it.

TrueRomantic

Talk

But they WERE called cavemen, which I think was part of the joke. Even in the radio and TV series, Arthur and Ford have a conversation about messing up the program "through from the cavemen." --JohnDBuell 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess this is an inconsistency as I've just been listening to RoTeotU on audio. There are a couple of places in the closing chapters where they're referred to as cavemen, only for the speaker (this happens twice with different characters involved) to be rebuked with "they're not cavemen. Do they live in caves? No, well..." or similar. Again, don't have the precise text to hand. IainP (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Dent the puritan should include reference to John Bunyan due to Bunyan's claim that his early life was influenced by two books. One of these two books is The Plain Man's Pathway to Heaven by Arthur Dent. Bunyan's book Pilgrims Progress is one of the most widely read books in the English Language from 1650s till 1900. It is of importance that the reader be able to establish the importance this writer has in the making of our culture. My opinion is that since Bunyans book was so widely read, he undoubtedly influenced the up and coming society, so Arthur Dent being one of only two named worldly resources has indirectly had a tremendous amount of influence on our society's most common beliefs.

Flight

Shouldn't there be a notation of some kind about Arthur's experiences with flying?

I'd say that the summary of plotlines dealing with the character are already sufficient without going into painstaking detail of every event in every book, including flying. --JohnDBuell 04:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This Arthur Dent has huge historical signifigance which needs to be documented

Arthur Dent the puritan should include reference to John Bunyan due to Bunyan's claim that his early life was influenced by two books. One of these two books is The Plain Man's Pathway to Heaven by Arthur Dent. Bunyan's book Pilgrims Progress is one of the most widely read books in the English Language from 1650s till 1900. It is of importance that the reader be able to establish the impact this writer has in the making of our culture. My opinion is that since Bunyans book was so widely read, he undoubtedly influenced the up and coming society, so Arthur Dent being one of only two named worldly resources has indirectly had a tremendous influence on our society's most common beliefs.

I will add content for review soon due to no comment when i posted this last time. Need time to gather resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappy77 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But what does any of that have to do with Arthur Dent the fictional character? faithless (^speak) 08:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The connection between the two Arthur Dents is tenuous at best; Adams himself denied being influenced by the Puritan Dent, and the biographer cited as a source doesn't cite anything more than a gut feeling in support of the idea that Douglas was influenced by the Puritan Dent. Since the content's mirrored at Arthur_Dent_(Puritan), I've deleted it here. Otto Neubauer (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Just happened upon this quote. It reads eerily like the original description of the Guide in Adam's work. Italics in the original.

"Next to the Bible the best sellers of our period were such books as John Norden's Pensive Man's Practice (1584), which had gone beyond forty impressions by 1627; Arthur Dent's Plain Man's Pathway to Heaven (twenty-five editions, 1601-40, and many later ones); John Dod's Plain and Familiar Exposition of the Ten Commendments (nineteen editions, 1603-35; Lewis Bayly's Practice of Piety (1612?), which achieved some fifty reprints during the century (and a sixteenth French edition in 1684), but which did not save the episcopal author from the royal displeasure. The books of Dent and Bayly, by the way, were the meager dowry of Bunyan's first wife, and the former contributed to Mr. Badman."

Bush, Douglas. English Literature in the Earlier Seventeenth Century. London: Oxford University Press, 1945 (reprinted 1952), pp 294-5.

J. W. McLeod (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And another thing....

Should Arthur Dent's adventures in And another thing... be included in this artical. I think so but its not Douglas Adam's plot so that makes things a bit confuesing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intro96 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Jones

Not being British, I would not know if Peter Jones is famous enough in the UK to warrant the parenthetical sentence "no relation to Peter Jones" in the summary. I doubt that it is necessary, but if it is, feel free to correct me.

Tim R (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)