Talk:Under the Dome (novel)

Plot summary

A plot summary has been added twice to this article. I removed it both times. There has been no word at all about the plot of this novel. The only clues we have are what King read himself last year (linked in the article), and a one-sentence tagline at [http://www.amazon.com/dp/1439148503/ Amazon]]: "In Stephen King's mesmerizing new novel, a Maine town is subject to the imposition of an impenetrable dome that isolates its citizens from the world." That's all. There has been no official synopsis released by Stephen King or his publisher. Jmj713 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's been now posted at StephenKing.com, although it was not there when these summaries were added here with no sourcing. Still, the entire copy should not be posted, especially since it doesn't really tell us anything about the plot. A sentence or two should suffice. Jmj713 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Various people have been adding the plot synopsis posted at StephenKing.com verbatim. Do not do that. If you want to rewrite that in your own words, so it fits into a sentence or two (because there is no real information as to the plot), feel free to add that to the article, but don't just copy and paste copyrighted material verbatim. Jmj713 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't just copy and paste it, it's copyrighted material. As said above if you want to summarize it that's fine, but we can't plagurize. blackngold29 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What if we quote it and cite the source? 69.80.182.30 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

yes, that is acceptable. --68.51.72.144 (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Viral Marketing?

There's some cool viral marketing for this book. Sweet Briar Rose Diner and Big Jim's Used Cars have websites. I am going to go ahead and add a reference. If it is out of line, feel free to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlambert890 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to address, or have the full data, on the encrypted info on the viral school pages? It looks like there was a competition (based on them being Scarecrow Joe's messages), that concluded in December. Might be worth adding info on.

Kweston (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Survivors

Okay, so I read this book around the time of its release and I counted far less than 25 survivors. I think that was an estimate but since it's all over the page it would be nice if we knew a more exact number. I'm reading the book again and I'm going to put a better count up after I finish.

- 1. Alice Appleton 2. Dale Barbara 3. Harriet Bigalow 4. Gina Buffalino 5. Romeo Burpee 6. Little Walter Bushey 7. Joanie Calvert 8. Norrie Calvert 9. Ollie Dinsmore 10. Alva Drake 11. Janelle Everett 12. Judy Everett 13. Linda Everett 14. Rusty Everett 15. Pete Freeman 16. Tony Guay 17. Lissa Jamieson 18. Piper Libby 19. Claire McLatchley 20. Joe McLatchley 21. Julia Shumway 22. Ginny Tomlinson 23. Dougie Twitchell 24. Rose Twitchell 25. Jackie Wettington

Twenty-five in total, not counting Horace.

Date

I think that we could put an estimated date on the timesetting of this novel. We know that it's well after 2012 (the "OBAMA '12 YES WE STILL CAN" sticker on the back of one of the town's trucks is well-worn, and at one point Carter Thibodeau reads about the 2012 BMW), but Barack is still in office (the President "signed all three of his names, including the terrorist one in the middle" on the petition to put Barbie in charge). Therefore, the latest date this book could be set in is 2016. --71.28.208.75 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

On the 3rd episode from the second season, Force Majoure, Joe is looking for the last owners of the locker which emitted the internet signal. We can see on the screenshot that the most recent date is 2013. Since the school is active until the dome appears, the current date is 2013.

The Obama sticker is actually a reference to a current sticker. Many want to see him re-elected in 2012, and bought similair ones upon his election. The novel is meant to take place at the present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.81.197 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The above reasoning is pretty solid, but there's a problem with regards to the information explicitly listed in the novel. First off, the date of "Dome Day" is very specifically given as October the 21st (in the section talking about Clayton Brassey). Later on Dome Day, when Barbie and Rose are talking about how Rose ought to do some shopping the next day, they specifically mention tomorrow as being Sunday; that would make Dome Day Saturday, October 21st, which limits the possible years it could occur in. The only "nearby" years that are a possibility are 2006 and 2017. 2006 seems a bit early (unless "Walker" is a "terrorist" name) and 2017 would be after Obama left office. Unless there's supposed to be some other president in 2017 with a "terrorist" middle name I think the intent was for it to take place in 2012, but due to the leap year the day the 21st falls on shifted forward two days from the previous year (October 21st of 2011 will be a Friday) instead of the single day you might expect. Well, that, or Mr. King is having a good laugh at making our heads explode trying to put together pieces of a puzzle that aren't even from the same box.

Unfortunately, most of the last part of that is blatant original research and can't really go in the article. Not unless someone asks King about the date and gets a verifiable (referenceable and linkable) answer. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious this takes place during Obama's hypothetical second term, thus 2012–2016. That's not original research. I don't think you can get a more precise date without original research. I say, if you want to have a date, just say something like: "Since President Obama is indirectly referred to (the letter from the White House, the Obama '12 bumper sticker, other mentions characters make), the novel takes place during 2012–2016, Obama's hypothetical second term, most likely the latter half". Jmj713 (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I just added citations that confirm Obama being president in the novel and the faded bumper sticker saying Obama '12. So really the timeframe of the novel would be after 2013, not 2012, because presidential elections take place in November, and if Obama was re-elected in 2012, Under the Dome would take place the next October, in 2013. Jmj713 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as the source says, it would be some time after 2012. Yeah, technically after late January 2013, assuming there is no change to the inaugural date. Whatever. The source says "after 2012". It's "after 2012". ("After 2013" would be 2014 or later.) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Something you all seem to have overlooked: Obama can lose the election in 2012, then win back the office in 2016. This makes the bumper sticker worthy of mention, and also explains the presence of wifi throughout a small town - as well as the battery life on everyone's cellphones, which King mentions ("possible advances in cell phone technology") in the Author's Note at the end of the book. Imagine, if you will, a future in which social networking has fallen out of fashion and flip phones have returned with a vengeance. Sounds pretty good to me! Final answer: 2017. ...einexile (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

...or it's someone else named Obama (Michelle?), or someone else with a "terrorist one in the middle", or there was a Constitutional amendment passed, or it's a gag bumper sticker ("My other car is a BMW" doesn't mean the owner has a BMW), or, or, or... Whatever. Basically, we're trying to torture the few facts we have and make them talk. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so you're not going to put all this in the article? Really? ...einexile (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Really. It's several details mentioned in passing in the book. Your interpretation of what it means makes it "important". If this were a significant point, there would be reliable sources discussing it. What other details can we mine from such a long text and interpret as being significant? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Spolier warnings

Many people have been adding spoiler warnings all over this article. Please note that as per Wikipedia policy, there should be no spoiler warnings on any pages dealing with fiction. Jmj713 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never contributed to the "talk" section before, so just revert if needed. OK, I now understand that by Wikipedia policy there are no spoiler warnings on book entries. I didn't know that before. But couldn't we be more careful, then, about divulging the ending of a book? I was about 2/3 of the way through Under the Dome when I looked its Wikipedia page to remind myself about some of the lesser characters. There I found the comment "One of the 26 survivors of the Dome" more than once. This gives away an awful lot of information. Most people don't know the official Wikipedia spoiler policy, and if you're going to be so strict about enforcing it, then I think we should be a little less cavalier about divulging the ending of a book (or what have you). My $0.02 worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidih (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." WP:SPOILER. As this guideline applies to all of Wikipedia, discussing it here would be fairly pointless. To make a meaningful change in this direction, you will need to discuss the issue at either Wikipedia talk:Spoiler or Wikipedia:Village pump. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't remove all occurrences of "One of the 26 survivors of the Dome". Can't we just be sensible and not spoil the book for people who haven't finished it yet? If we're not going to allow spoiler alerts, can't we at least be a little considerate to make sure we don't give away the ending in a place where one isn't expecting to see the ending? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidih (talk • contribs) 17:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

We cannot remove the information or hide it because we as a community have decided we are not going to remove or hide that Rosebud is a sled, Vader is Luke's father, she's a dude, Verbal is Keyser Söze, Malcolm died at the beginning, etc. If you would like to change this, you will need to build a solid consensus for the whole of Wikipedia, not just this page. For the sake of reasonable consistency, we have policies and guidelines that apply to the whole of the project. As I said before: To make a meaningful change in this direction, you will need to discuss the issue at either Wikipedia talk:Spoiler or Wikipedia:Village pump. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Connections

• Took out some of the dumber "connections to other novels". They were so bad it was making me cringe.

Major Characters

I made minor grammatical and wording changes throughout this section.

Added a few things to Dale Barbara's file, trying to clarify his relationship with Big Jim and Junior.

Under Big Jim's file I changed the word "meth" to "crystal meth" for clarity. I also removed the section stating "He goes insane while hiding out in the town's fallout shelter, and he dies from inhaling the poisonous air within the dome after attempting to escape from the "ghosts" of those he's killed." because it was inconsistent with the format for the other characters. Big Jim was the only major character to have his fate revealed in this section. I added a few words and rearranged a few others to clean up the flow and grammar.

I made some grammatical changes to Junior's file. I added info for Junior earlier in the novel, i.e. the recruitment of police by Junior. I also attempted to expand on the relationship between Junior and Dale.

I disagree that Julia is unaware of the dangers regarding exposing and confronting people, especially people in power. She has maintained the paper for years and has wanted to expose Big Jim. I believe the book illustrates her toughness when facing the consequences, not her ignorance of what the consequences are. Therefore, I removed the statement "unaware of the dangers that usually result from this". I find the political affiliation of Julia to be basically irrelevant to her character description. I have removed the reference to this: "Julia is described at the beginning of the book as a Republican despite the name of her newspaper, however Dale Barbara notes that she sounds like less and less of one as the novel continues." I chose to include what I thought were more important facts about Julia. I tried to fully depict Dale and Julia's relationship.

In Joe McClatchey's file I removed the nickname "Scarecrow Joe" and replaced it with "Joe" because the character is rarely named "Scarecrow Joe" but commonly named as "Joe". Added the info that Joe and his friends were skateboarding pals, which I think is an indicator of their personalities.

I am a newbie and have tried my best to make positive improvements to this section!

Timmy419 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)timmy419--Timmy419 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

Minor Characters

I made minor grammatical and wording changes throughout this section.

Edited Brenda's file adding more detail regarding the files on Big Jim.

Added info to Frank's file detailing his crime and death.

I changed "Rennie" to "Big Jim" since Rennie could mean father or son. Added a small amount of info to file.

Made very minor changes to Melvin's file.

Added a few words to Georgia's file, also listed the reason she was shot by Sammy.

I changed several things around trying to improve the flow of Andy's file. I beefed up the info on Andy and The Chef's relationship.

Added some words emphasizing the importance of Pete being controlled by Big Jim.

Added some detail to Ollie's file.

Added some detail to Romeo's file and rearranged a few words for grammar. Timmy419 (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)timmy419

Wikipedia is not Lit 101

There are extensive, and growing, lists under "References to other material" and "References to other King works". None of them are cited, making all of them original research and trivial. Barring citations to independent sources or a clear consensous to the contrary, I'll yank them all soon. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of fancrufty stuff on King's articles like this. It can get out of hand.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What was the food situation?

I think that "in real life" situation with food supply would have played a major role on people's reactions to such an event. Does the novel discuss where the townspeople planned to get food if the dome were not removed? I think that this is especially relevant given that the behavior of the police bigshot suggests that he did not expect quick restoration of contact with the rest of the world. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The time period wasn't that long. Stores had enough food, but were low on perishables, especially meat. The were still a few viable farms in the community (long term?). Water wasn't an issue considering streams were able to trickle in and out of the dome. No one really thought of the long term situation.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.155.102 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:The Cannibals.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The Cannibals.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Similarity to Blish's The Box

Extended content

I wonder if anyone else has noticed the plot similarity to James Blish's 1949 short story The Box. Similarities include: the impenetrable dome, strange device, breathable air running out, and the rush to find the source. There are differences, such as the cause of the dome (human agency), and the location (New York City). I'm not sure where to put this, the article is so tight.--Auric (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles. Unless you have reliable sources discussing this, there is nothing to discuss here. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC) That is what I was discussing. Please don't attack me. I wrote this here to see if anybody else had written about this, rather than just putting it in the article. Since then I found the idea that King had borrowed the dome idea from The Box on the Stephen King forum, [http://www.amazon.com/About-original-idea-similarities-James/forum/FxKPIOZ9J8D7Z2/Tx1CAXI7FLED99L/1?asin=0340992565 this discussion on Amazon.com], and others. Basically, I'm wondering if I should start an article on the story and mention it there. Advice?--Auric (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Reminding you of a guideline is not an attack. A forum threads are not reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry, your tersely worded reply seemed personal. Sorry if I read too much into it. As for the links, I was not planning to use them as sources. I was using them to tell you that I was not the only person to have had this thought. (per WP:ONEDAY) Besides, as I read it, that applies only to BLP pages, not to personal opinions (i.e. mine own).--Auric (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with @SummerPhD. The talk page is the appropriate place to raise questions about content. @Auric was right to feel slighted. @SummerPhD used a rather "you're an idiot for even asking" tone. But my point remains, if the talk page is inappropriate to ask about content, then where? A person should be able to say "I've heard such-n-such. Is it valid?" Then people can NICELY respond with "Can you find any reliable sources?" or "I've found reliable sources", instead of "How DARE you even suggest any content until you've found multiple reliable sources, you ignorant twit!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.179 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

IP: Please limit your discussion here to ways to improve the article. If you have problems with me or my conduct, I'd suggest you discuss the issue on my talk page. My response to your comment here is on your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Simpsons movie

Hello,

This story seems to be a rip off of the Simpsons movie, should there not be any mention of elements that were taken from the Simpsons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.175.227.17 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"...a partial rewrite of a novel King attempted to write twice in the late 1970s and early 1980s..." - SummerPhD (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie is address by King in The Cannibals section of this article. Jmj713 (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Even ignoring that King was working on it earlier, this idea has been done before The Simpsons.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is a clear boundary (both content wise and stylistic, e.g. page/chapter ratio, word usage pattern, etc.) between the portion written in the 1970's and that written some time around the Simpson's movie, located in the vicinity of page 125 where it appeared also that the dome went from a small scale event and shield to something much larger with more entanglements by the government and military in such a way that the details follow the Simpson's movie. Yes, the dome idea per se has been entertained, but the key point about the comparison to the Simpson's movie is that the details about the events, their sequencing, the outcome (particularly the catastrophic fire) are matching up too.

In addition, the portion written in the 1970's seems to be taking its key elements from the outer limits "Bellero Shield" episode. This would not be new for Steven King. Outer Limits was his favorite sci. fi. series, he was actually involved in the production of one of the new series episodes, and one also sees correspondences of the details (again emphasis: not just general idea, but details) between other stories (e.g. Langoliers vs. Premonition; Carrie vs. The Man with the Power). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.235.10 (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reason for the Dome

Lacking from the introduction is WHY the dome is there. That was my reason for looking into the story in the first place. I don't know if it's addressed in the spoiler/summary; I know better than to read summaries because they are almost always spoilers. If the reason isn't given in the book, that should be part of the introduction. Otherwise, the reason should be given. If the reason would be a spoiler, something like "for a mysterious reason not reveled until much later" and people would know to look in the summary if they want the ending spoiled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.179 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why/how the dome is there (the "leatherheads") is fully explained in the summary, as it should be. There is no subtle "spoiler warning" hidden in the introduction because Wikipedia does not include spoiler warnings. Please see Talk:Under_the_Dome#Spolier_warnings. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

TV Series Premiere

Top rating for pilot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.28.215 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Dr Who - village covered by dome in The Daemons.

The 1971 Dr Who series 'The Daemons' has a village covered by an invisible dome shaped heat shield, 10 miles in diameter and 1 mile high. Was this a source for Stephen King's dome idea? 86.133.54.255 (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No. And even that is predated by The Bubble (1966 film). It's just an idea that multiple people have used.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Both were based on John Wyndham's 1957 book "The Midwich Cuckoos ".Royalcourtier (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Everybody has to get over the idea that everything is somehow "based on" (i.e. derived from) something else on the basis of a vaguely similar plot point somewhere in the story. I am removing the reference to A Day Without a Mexican as a "similar" story--they have nothing to do with each other. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Too much plot detail

Wow! I didn't need to read the book, the plot "summary" in this article has covered it all. Seriously though, the plot summary is way too long and goes into all manner of trivial details about character motivations and so on. Can some trimming be done to reduce it so it complies with WP:PLOT. The guideline at WP:WAF#Contextual presentation should provide some help. Astronaut (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Source of Dome

The article refers to residents tracking the source of the Dome, and then refers to "the device". What device? Shouldn't it be written that the "residents track the source of the Dome to a device hidden on a farm", and then refer to it being extraterrestrial?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Novel multiverse

Many of King's novels are connected in the same world through things sometimes obvious or not obvious. Allusions to same town or characters or concepts.

Does anyone know if the UTD novel or TV have such connections?

Like for example could this be connected to the Haven TV series also based on a King novel? 64.228.89.160 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Under the Dome (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091024234634/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/CA6696162.html? to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6696162.html?&rid=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Under the Dome (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604072945/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_en_re/us_book_review_under_the_dome_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_en_re/us_book_review_under_the_dome_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)