Talk:Roadside Picnic: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:58, 30 January 2011

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Novels B‑class Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Soviet Union Start‑class Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

is this an explanation for that book and movie sphere?

No, that would be at Sphere (novel) and Sphere (film). Staecker 04:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what he's saying (yellow ball that grants wishes), but the focus in the novel is about the zone, the anomalies/artifacts, and the politics around the zone. I'd like to see an interview where that link is stated before making any changes.

Another similar media is Darker than Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.138.255 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the "flying boot" mentioned in the book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.187.219 (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boot, a built-in compartment on a horse-drawn coach, used originally as a seat for the coachman and later for storage. "Flying" strikes me as a Russian anachronism or perhaps slang for "motorized". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.33.50 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "flying boot" is hovercraft used to travel in The Zone. I feel like translation is far from perfect, to be honest. Original russian name was "galosh" which means rubber boot used to protect your shoes from snow or water (were often used with Valenki). This term is mainly used as pejorative name for the vehicle implying it is old/uncomfortable/has bad handling. 84.17.11.18 (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its slang. Just like some people refer to their house as a 'crib' or refer to girls as 'chicks'. The characters in the book refer to their hovercraft as a galosh or a rubber shoe which is worn over normal shoes to protect them against sleet, water or snow. Same way the hovercraft protects its occupants against the environment of the Zone. Meishern (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl

Perhaps a reference could be found supporting the analogy with respect to the book? As it stands it looks like original research. Both book and movie predate the disaster. --81.156.177.239 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just logged in wanting to say "Why the hell is there a Chernobyl paragraph here??????" As you correctly say, both book and movie obviously predate the disaster! I wouldn't even call it "original research" -- original research about what? The use of the word "Zone"? This is a legitimate word legitimately used to describe, oh, zones. If no more discussion is held, I plan to remove it in a few days, I believe it decreases the value of the article as a whole.

Reality3chick (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There also needs to be a reference for it being "deemed a classic". I'm not disputing that it's regarded as a classic, but all of the awards it's listed as recieving came within less than 10 years of its release. Who deemed it "classic"? What evidence is there of it being considered a "classic". If it really is held in such high regard I'm sure it's on some credible list top 50 or 100 sci-fi novels or something similar. 69.3.159.116 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the standard for other articles to refer to a work as "classic"? I don't know, but I guess in this case a list or something of influential eastern-block scifi authors or works might help.

Reality3chick (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the phrase "deemed a classic" to "has won several awards". --90.214.206.203 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl was in the article because of a computer game STALKER which 'borrowed' the phenomenon from this book. Anything related to the game will be purged instantly from this article. Meishern (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Rewrite

I rewrote most of the article. I am still working on the Plot Summary. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! One thing; in the plot summary, Monkey is referred to as a 'normal, healthy' girl. She is covered in fur, has solid black eyes and may or may not be telekinetic - I don't know if that counts as normal! --90.211.132.97 (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary is the only thing that is left from the previous version. i really hate it, and it needs to be rewritten as well. Monkey has even more problems besides those u mentioned, like screaming all night and preferring the company of the copy of Rederick's dead father. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artifacts/Anomalies

Should the Mosquito Manges, Witches Jellies, spiders' webs, batteries, heat-effect, Meat Grinder, and thunder-making lights from the book also be included in the list? While not beneficial to humans, they're still just as much artifacts as the rest of the items. Kudos to whoever added the info on the artifacts already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.182.50 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I am going to add all that stuff when I re-read the book sometime next month. The batteries are already added to the list of artifacts. I will make new section called 'Zone Phenomenon' or something like that, since Mosquito Manges can not be taken out of the Zone (yet) and thus are not an artifact. Thanks for the compliment on my rewrite. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just Funny

I find it funny that the Wikipedia article i wrote (this one), is referenced by (SFFWorld.com) which uses my own words (with my name there). I am being referenced by my own words! hahahaha. I didn't even include that reference, and wrote the Wikipedia article months before the reference. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering who copied who... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.134.156 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary - ending

I decided to take a look at the ending and it is MONSTROUSLY WRONG! In fact it's SO wrong that I wonder whether I've made it up! It's one of the most grandiose, spectacular and bitter endings in any work of narrative art, and I'm saddened to tears to see that the person who wrote the summary couldn't understand even the simplest plots even when they hit him/her in the face! I read the book from a printed file so I have a tiny tiny reservation that smth went wrong and I'd like to see some discussion on it. But as I said my reservation is tiny tiny. In any case I hope I drove my point home: THE ENDING IN THE PLOT SUMMARY IS MONSTROUSLY WRONG AT THE MOMENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.141.99 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptation

I removed the descriptor "black and white" in reference to the film adaption "Stalker". Only scenes that occur outside the Zone are monochrome in the film. As an analogy, calling "Stalker" a black and white film would be similar to calling "The Wizard of Oz" a black and white film.

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 I read the book from a printed file so I have a tiny tiny reservation that smth went wrong and I'd like to see some discussion on it. But as I said my reservation is tiny tiny.
 In any case I hope I drove my point home: THE ENDING IN THE PLOT SUMMARY IS MONSTROUSLY WRONG AT THE MOMENT.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/94.65.141.99|94.65.141.99]] ([[User talk:94.65.141.99|talk]]) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Adaptation ==
+I removed the descriptor "black and white" in reference to the film adaption "Stalker".  Only scenes that occur outside the Zone are monochrome in the film. As an analogy, calling "Stalker" a black and white film would be similar to calling "The Wizard of Oz" a black and white film.