Talk:John Wyndham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.


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) 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)


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[edit]

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)

Proletarian resentment of John Wyndham[edit]

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traditionally by the UK lower middle class and proletariat against the middle and upper-middle classes; "cosy"; "now-outdated" (how magisterial!) 2.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)

<<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[edit]

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

JohnT 04:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wyndham and character development[edit]

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??[edit]

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 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Who was Joh Wyndham's father?[edit]

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 (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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)

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)

Detached reference[edit]

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)

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)

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 .[edit]

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 : — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2015[edit]

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)

– 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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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…[edit]

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)

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)