I'm not convinced that blogger does much thinking. Even leaving aside the Observer revelations, he or she doesn't seem to distinguish the book from film episodes which simply don't happen in the book, and apparently accepts the film scenes as just as 'true'.
The section about the 'kindness of strangers' references the waitress who gives them leftover pasties, sure, but also the hippy commune and the Winns taking under their wing a homeless girl and paying for her bus to her grandmother's house, both of which appear to have been invented for the film.
There is something heartwarming about kindness, something elevating. Both the giver and the receiver feel encouraged, lighter, happier. The abiding truth continues to stand the test of time that it is ‘better to give than to receive’. [...]. I suspect that kindness runs more deeply in the nature of things than we comprehend. It is part of the deep architecture of reality.
I simply don't recognise that in the book of TSP (in fact, it's perhaps for that reason that the Winns helping out the homeless teenager and the hippy commune were invented for the screenplay). Most of SW's attitude to other people, as demonstrated in TSP is that, with a few exceptions, other people have it easy, are mean-spirited jobsworths, are annoying, recoil at their homelessness, try to make them pay for things, scold them for wild camping or having big backpacks, exploit and betray them.
It's not a particularly benign view of the world, far less an acknowledgement that kindness is 'part of the deep architecture of reality'.
Is it fair to say that one of the things that the screenplay does is to soften TSP's message that other people are mostly awful, by inventing the homeless girl and the commune? The Winns, as represented in TSP do give away food on two occasions, but far more often they pilfer food, or stay at campsites without paying.