Talk:Fail-Safe (novel)

Relation to Red Alert
This plot shares quite a lot in common with both the book Red Alert and the movie Dr. Strangelove. Does anyone know what, if any, relation there are? I noticed that Red Alert was published 4 years before this one was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.247.247.240 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * George threatened to sue the publishers of Fail Safe on the grounds of plagiarism, resulting in an out-of-court settlement. (you're correct, Red Alert came out some time before Fail Safe). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.94 (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * wich book is better btw? Anonimous is up to reading but idk what to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.169.128.128 (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Identical to Movie Page
this page is virtually identical to the movie page (or vice versa). Surely there must be some difference? If not that the movie is incredibly faithful, and it almost makes the movie page redundant (in that we could just add on a paragraph to the end of this page).Oreo man 18:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the book or watched the movie yet, but I would be hesitant to merge the two. ~ Rollo44 22:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction
In the explanation of the title (the first section) this article seems to claim that the "fail-safe" in the book refers to an aircraft continuing it's last command (specifically attack) if there is a failure due to an enemy's strike. In the plot summery, however, it seems to indicate that the 'fail-safe' was of a more conventional nature (no pun intended)- that aircraft would not go beyond a certain point without specific instructions. The two ideas don't really mesh. Either the 'fail-safe' was meant to continue a nuclear war, or it was meant to prevent one.

Now, I see the irony if it was supposed to prevent one and actually caused one, but I think it could use a little work to get the two sections to work. Epthorn 12:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This was also the ironic main point of Dr. Strangelove - all the complicated and well-thought-out military 'safety measures' what were meant to ensure 'Peace', actually conspired to cause the End of the World.


 * It could also be seen as an illustration that there's no such thing as 'foolproof', as, one way or another, Mother Nature just keeps coming up with better fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.94 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FailSafeNovel.jpg
Image:FailSafeNovel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of one term
The somewhat redundant description used for the films included an inaccuracy which I have removed. It originally stated that all 3 works were future history but that is not true as the 2000 production is explicitly set (established via on-screen text) in 1964, making it more an alternative history piece. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Abraham '59
Saw a reference that Harvey Wheeler had said he'd written the original version of the story in 1956, eventually published as Abraham '59. Found this article where he does so. Also relates to the lawsuit section. Relevant section; "My original Dissent “Christmas fantasy” was based on the biblical Abraham. God made Abraham’s salvation depend on his willingness to sacrifice his own son. “Abraham ‘58” I titled the story when the mailings started in 1957. It appeared as “Abraham ’59” by F. B. Aiken. In real life I study the work of the 17th century philosopher who signed himself “F. Bacon.” F.B. Aiken made me a good pen name. It got the lead cover listing of the Winter 1959 Dissent : “Abraham ’59 – a Nuclear Fantasy,” by F.B. Aiken. Bud Burdick was given a copy but he had forgotten. ''The late Martin Gang (Gang, Tyre, Rudin & Brown) was our lawyer. He had assigned to us a very bright and personable young attorney, Frank Wells – later to become President of Disney. When the law suit struck, and without telling any of the others, I called Frank for an appointment - “got something to show you.” The upscale Hollywood law offices of Gang, Tyre, Rudin & Brown were quietly sedate. After being seated across from Frank’s desk I handed him the Dissent issue. He was puzzled. I pointed out the Aiken article. Still puzzlement. “Aiken is my pen name,” I explained. “Oh,....so..?” “Yes, this is the first version of Fail-Safe, but I actually wrote the story in 1956 and tried for two years to publish it everywhere.” Frank scanned “Abraham” quickly. A big grin spread across his face. He picked up the magazine and ran through the offices waving it and yelling “We won!... we won!” And we did, handsomely.'' ''A noisy five-way conference phone call was held: Burdick in Japan, our film agent, Ziggie Zigler in Pasadena, Martin Gang in Hollywood, Max Youngstein in New York, and me in Santa Barbara. I argued we should press a counter-suit against Columbia, Kubrick and Peter George, author of Red Alert - he’d been fiction editor at more than one of the U.S. magazines I’d sent “Abraham ‘58"! But the bad phone connections made argument impossible. A suit would tie up our film, and Youngstein’s account was hemorrhaging. I agreed to a settlement. Columbia Pictures took over the film contract and made the picture just like Youngstein wanted. F.B. Aiken and “Abraham ‘59” figure prominently in our settlement contract with Columbia.''"219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Skyscrapper" is correct
There are repeated attempts to edit this to "fix" the "typo" referring to the fighter planes, ordered by the President to make a futile attempt to stop the bombers, as "Skyscrapper" fighters. In fact this spelling is correct. This is the name used in the book, punning on "skyscraper" (which doesn't have much to do with aircraft) and "scrappy" fighting. Please refrain from "fixing" this and causing another undo. Thanks. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright and plagiarism claims history
Red Alert (novel) seems to indicate that the copyright lawsuit was a ploy to change movie publication dates, rather than an actual issue of the novel being plagiarized. Daask (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)