Talk:John Wyndham

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Wyndham article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Untitled

I propose cleanup of this article, all detailed discussion of the individual novels should be shifted to their own pages. We avoid having a spoiler message on this page. PatGallacher 01:00, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

...in the process, secure for themselves a Savile Row wardrobe and a sporty roadster or two. Not really up to Wikipedia's usual high standards of writing, was it?

I quite liked it, actually; admittedly, chapter 5 of Triffids speaks of Bond St., not Savile Row.. I just created Cosy catastrophe – can we link there from here? –Hajor 19:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adaptations

I think this could do with a more detailed section on radio, film and televison adaptations of his work - as there have been many.

I belive we should include the dates of which John Wyndham was enlisted in the service.

Books not widely read

I removed Although many of his creations are famous, particularly the Midwich Cuckoos and the Triffids, the books themselves are not particularly widely read. from the introduction as it seems speculative and unsubstantiated. Should this be reinstated? Colonel Tom 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proletarian resentment of John Wyndham

As of 9.06.2006 this continually reversed "article"

1. shows massive bias against Wyndham: he is said disparagingly to have "lived out his life" (boring!); he is either "quaint" or "stuffy" (code words used traditionally by the UK lower middle class and proletariat against the middle and upper-middle classes; "cosy"; "now-outdated" (how magisterial!) 2. purports to discuss Style and then does nothing of the sort: Style is not an outburst of personal animosity, it is a category of analysis, not to be confused with Tone ie author´s attitude to his subject/the reader. 3.hence appears to be driven not by any understanding of Wyndham but by aspects of his life and writing which the author/s reject. (Phyllis Watson in "The Kraken Wakes" actually seems to know Greek mythology: how elitist! how racist! how non-MTV! vote her out of Big Brother, innit!) In this the author is/are encouraged by 15-20 years of subjectivist, confessional and narcissistic literary criticism at Anglo universities, which have turned analysis into neoliberal consumer choice.

Eno' with the rant. Edit it, man! But nix any edits to 'cosy' - it's in quotes, don't you see. Verne Equinox 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<<Eno' with the rant. Edit it, man!>> Amusing how an argued objection to a mediocre article, which doesn´t start to do justice to Wyndham, gets labelled a "rant", even when I place it in the Talk section. You will have heard of Edit Wars: why should I get into one of those? After all, Wikipedia is a demotic sump, QED.

I'd say Verne Equinox actually agrees with your views, and is suggesting that you act on them rather than grumble. He wouldn't encourage you to edit if he disagreed with your views!

Role of women in Wyndham's writings

I have added a few lines on the way that Wyndham portrays women in his writings.

JohnT 04:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyndham and character development

I agree that Wyndham is more concerned with character development than most SF writers, and suggest the reason is that he's better at it. SF writers have excellent imagination but not many of them are very good at handling people rather than ideas. This does not matter in short stories but can become painfully obvious in longer SF novels. Wyndham's short stories are as good as most but do not stand out, whereas his novels hold the interest by portraying genuine 3-dimensional characters. His characters certainly have something of 1950s England about them, but he was a good enough writer for them also to be representative types, at least of the modern era. One recurring type is the non-conforming sage: Uncle Axel (Chrysalids), Zellaby (Midwich Cuckoos), Dr Bocker (Kraken Wakes) - AG, Stockport.

non-conforming sage: what's-his-name in Triffids--the friend of the main character from the triffid farm that questioned just how clever the triffids really were.

Vivian B. Harris??

I cannot find any material on Wyndham's brother mentioned in this article, and who was also allegedly a "successful writer". Any shining light on thus??

SBerner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.131.85 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Who was Joh Wyndham's father?

We're told he was born in Trinidad, and his father was called Kumer - . What's the source for this? Is this why he was so painfully shy and dislkiked being photographed? Every other source says his dad waqs George, and he was bon in England. I'd love to know the details - migs 121.72.134.139 (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was fairly obvious this was vandalism, now reverted. PatGallacher (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Location and cause? P Cezanne (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15 years pass and still no information about his death. Perhaps he was abducted by aliens? Perhaps he only existed in novels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.219.203 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Is it needed to have the year next to the book title in the bibliography section when the cite book that I have placed already has the year in it? It seems repetitive. I thought that's what "cite book" was for, to reference the information is one area and cut out the clutter in the main article. Eg., "The Day of the Triffids (1951)" compaired to "Wyndham, John (1951). The Day of the Triffids. Michael Joseph. pp. 302. ISBN 071810093X.". I have removed the year for the time being.Zef (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the revert, hadn't thought to check the talk page.

I'm not sure we need to provide page counts and ISBNs; WP:LOW only advises to do this "when doing so seems to be helpful", but these are mostly books with multiple editions. A simple, chronological list of titles and years is standard for bibliographies. If there's a need for ISBNs, we might as well just put these in the article body, rather than effectively replicating the list twice. --McGeddon (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detached reference

What's the reason for detaching the ODNB ref from it's location where it's used, and putting it into reflist? I hadn't realized you could do that, but I don't quite see why one would want to. Leaving the ref at the location it's used makes it easier for someone to find and edit it, surely? Mike Christie (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back to the first use; if someone wants to put it back in the reflist please say why, as that's not a common way to use the tags. Mike Christie (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to talk with John Wyndham or who knows about this (The Day of the Triffids is a film edit by the book he write it ).I dreamed it 14 years ago ,maybe more .

This is not a joke.I'm a chinese guy ,and my English is not well .Maybe i can't explen this well . when i saw the TV from the internet about BBC The Day Of The Triffids,i was scared.Because it happened in my dream several times before i saw the TV. Now i'm 26 .I swear i don't see or know any thing about the writer and his book .It maybe 10 or 15 years ago. In my dream : it seems i was in he world , and i know people blind ,trees could move ,and they catch a lot people . Oh ,i saved several.I'm not blind. I wander to know is it just a coincidence or something else.This is not the only Strange thing happen to me . If who has instrest,please connect me . My email : zcm524663@163.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.237.113.31 (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum T|C 04:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– This article on the sci-fi writer may be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage, but others of this title have longer-term significance, e.g. John Wyndham (1558–1645).
Note that I did this as a WP:BOLD move back in 2007 and promptly self-reverted, but after reviewing the case again I think that disambiguation is appropriate. In the 8 years since that previous move, disambiguation policy has changed to place increased emphasis on long-term significance. This is part of countering Wikipedia's systemic bias towards recentism and popular culture. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, but the writer looks like the clear-cut primary topic to me. His notability is well established, and given that he's been dead for nearly half a century I'm not sure I buy an argument based on recentism. I think the other John Wyndhams will be obscure to most people, and the page view statistics support this. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree that the writer is the clear primary topic by any definition of the term. Not really recentism given he died nearly fifty years ago! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Utterly staggered why anyone would think John Wyndham the writer isn't easily over and above the most notable of the people with the same name. It's also a bit rich invoking recentism to try to claim there should be parity between a world-renowned writer, and a couple of obscure historical figures and a couple of equally obscure modern peers, one of whom isn't actually known as "John Wyndham," anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Triffid Alley…

I think that the suggestion that the naming of “Triffid Alley” was “formal” over-eggs the pudding (it runs behind my flat, and is a gated, noisome, dark space for bins, not a thoroughfare, just out of interest for anyone who might wish to visit the location). As the article cited states, the placing of the memorial plate was done by enthusiasts, and doesn’t seem to have been sanctioned, instigated or adopted by the borough council, or any roads agency which is involved in the naming of roads, paths etc., and carries no official name plate (and has no currency with locals either, I’m afraid, on casual surveying of friends in the area). I think there may be a campaign with the council to have it “ratified” or made official, but it’s an informal designation at best. Jock123 (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Triffid Alley sign was erected by the South End Green Association with the permission of the owner of the private property that the alley stands on. The local council were not involved in the naming as the alley is not a public thoroughfare. --NGP42 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Wyndham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810155228/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/l.j.hurst/weredead.htm to http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/l.j.hurst/weredead.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wyndhamweb.com/.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filming information incorrect?

John_Wyndham#Critical_reception contains the following (why under this heading, by the way?):

He also wrote several short stories, ranging from hard science fiction to whimsical fantasy. A few have been filmed: Consider Her Ways, Random Quest, Dumb Martian, Jizzle (filmed as Maria) and Time to Rest (filmed as No Place Like Earth). [11] There is also a radio version of Survival.

[11] is a link to the IMDB page for Wyndham, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0943909/ and there, no mention of either "Maria", "No Place Like Earth", "Jizzle" or "Time to Rest" can be found. Actually, "No Place Like Earth" is the name of one of the story collections listed under John_Wyndham#Posthumously_published_collections here. About others, I don't know anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.172.129.119 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked this link a minute ago, and I do see Maria, No Place Like Earth, Consider Her Ways, Dumb Martian, and The Long Spoon. PatGallacher (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why no images of Wyndham's actual, popular novels?

Other than the image of the magazine that published his first story, it's weird to only see pictures of old pulp magazine covers that aren't representative of his major works. 174.21.69.179 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The covers would fall under a non-free usage license, and although we could get away with a single use (probably Triffids, as it's his best known work) we wouldn't be able to use any others. All the pulp covers have lapsed into PD, hence their use without fear of reprisal. FWIW, I personally think the mid-nineties Penguin cover of Kraken is one of the best ever made:[1] Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short Stories

Is the 2003 story really called 'Blackmoil'? Could this be a typo for 'Blackmail'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.84.70 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cosy catastrophe

As is stands, the section reads as if Aldiss had something nasty to say about Wyndham's work, and was effectively rebutted by the argument that lots of people perish in his novels. This is as may be, but an opportunity is lost for some more incisive literary criticism. Aldiss evokes a particular genre, of which W was perhaps the most notable or successful exponent of the time (along with Hoyle, Ballard, and in a somewhat diluted sense Aldiss himself). What is cozy is not the death count (or lack thereof), but the choice of a very private, often domestic, perspective on the planetary catastrophe; often coupled with an emphasis on the events that lead up to it. The earliest author I know of in the genre is HG Wells. The Wyndham work that parallels Wells's War of the Worlds most obviously might be The Kraken Wakes (which could be uncharitably characterised as The War of the Worlds meets The Good Life). The emotional centre in Triffids is the homestead where the narrator succeeds in re-establishing the domestic sphere. But the cosiest catastrophe is no doubt Chocky, which focusses on troubled youth Matthew and the affable concern shown by his parents, the narrator and his wife. Chocky turns out to be a scout of an alien civilisation that is not only in desperate need of a new planet, but also capable of taking ours without any resistance whatsoever: they are by far the most dangerous of all aliens or mutants in W's oeuvre. Chocky and his/her superiors think better of it and catastrophe is averted; it remains a vague threat behind the curtains of domesticity. (On a side note, it is perhaps notable that some foreign translators chose to bring this out more clearly in the title, which translated back into English reads Chocky: Space Scout on Earth.) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F872:7767:8A74:4B6F (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]