Talk:Prey (novel)

Mistakes
Ok after having my mistakes section deleted (thanks to UriBudnik) from the main article I have decided to mention it here. "a sci-fi novel does not need to be scientifically accurate in every respect", I’m sorry but Michael Crichton is a very good author, I just wanted to point out what I think was an important and easily detectable flaw. What I pointed out was proven and accepted fact, that it would be impossible for anything close enough to see in detail to create colour simply by dispersion of light by reflection. I do agree that a sci-fi novel does not have to be scientifically accurate, but at least it should be accurate in something as simple as dispersion of light and how it is affected by POV. More so since it is a Crichton book. I'm not a nitpicker, I have only read the book twice, this mistake should have been discovered by Crichton - but he is still a great author! Here is my mistakes section:

''In the book, the swarm of nanorobots (or nanites) eventually develops a 'prey-mimicking' predatory behaviour. This leads to the nanite swarm actually forming the physical shape, colour, and weight of their prey (the humans). The method of colour production is attributed by Crichton to the nanites’ ability to reflect, refract and disperse light by tilting their metallic ‘bodies’ at precise angles. The major flaw with this concept is that Point Of View (POV) would make it impossible for more than one person to see the correct colours created by the nanites. A person standing only a few centimetres beside another would see completely different colours (due to the effects of refraction) or none at all. Another inconsistency is that the characters can see the nanites in colour even during night-time, since the basis of colour production is reflection and refraction of light, this should be impossible.--Mohamo July 4, 2005 06:51 (UTC) (This section should also be checked for mistakes and inconsistencies)''--Mohamo July 7, 2005 07:27 (UTC)


 * i agree that a section like this belongs in the talk page and not as part of the article. my reasoning for deleting it from the article itself is that this item (the color/POV "mistake") is but one out of the several practical impossibilities in the book give the current state of technology or what may be developed in the short or short-medium term. why pick this one to say that it cannot be achieved? we are talking about a story line that posits that nanites penetrate the human body and take control of the higher brain functions! when julia joins jack in the room with the MRI (or whatever the machine was there that generated the magnetic field) and jack throws the switch causing the nanites to leave julia's body, she then indicates to jack that she is under their control and acting against her will. why is this not more difficult to belive than that the nanites figure out how to refract light to give many observers the same image. i'm not brushing it away as a solvable problem (scientifically speaking that is), i am saying this is but one area where crichton takes artistic (or scientific) license. it may be interesting to make a list of items that may seem scientifically far fetched given current technology, but IMHO its not useful to just pick one item and say that its a technical error. imagine what a contemporaty of jules verne could have said about his 20,000 leages under the sea! (by the way, i don't mean to sound angry, it just comes out that way in writing; i try to phrase it in a friendlier way but i don't know how to fix the tone in my comments) uri budnik 8 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)


 * i am reversing my previous position. since there is now a criticism section in the article i think the paragraph above belongs in there. i looked at the addition of the criticism section and even tough at first i thought it was unnecessary to list scientific inconsistencies or implausibilities in articles about sci-fi novels i now realize that it is useful to mention items or concepts that are considered to be much more far fetched or otherwise less reasonable predictions about future technological developments. i have also seen that sections either named criticism or with similar goals are sometimes included in articles about other sci-fi novels. i will wait for some feedback and will move the paragraph above back into the article if there are no objections.uri budnik 05:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the criticisms section really necessary?
This is a science fiction novel, not some textbook. It is a work of FICTION, and would you please note that FACT and FICTION are two seperate things? I'll wait for someone to give me a valid reason for the section, but if no one does, I'll remove it. Whampir 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep it because Crichton usually bases his books off fact (or hypotheses) - and he tries to keep them realistic and plausible. He gives a good amount of citation in the book too, which means he's not just writing a story, he's trying to get a point across, and if certain hypotheses/facts in his book are flawed, they could/should be pointed out in a criticisms section. Maybe the section is mislabeled - but the content is OK. DrIdiot 22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

i agree this is only a sci-fi novel but given the way Crichton presents some of the 'facts', it is useful to mention those things which aren't true/possible so that readers don't start believing in the ficion as fact. Perhaps calling such a segment criticisms or mistakes is too strong, as Crichton undoubtably realised what was fact and fiction, but something like 'scientific inconsistencies' would be better.--220.235.227.61 06:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is necessary or not, this section is not based on citable evidence and does not comply with Wikipedia's NPOV standards. The section needs to be introduced objectively, and written more clearly. As of now it looks like a poorly written review. I would refer everyone to State of Fear's literary criticism section, which is a better example of how the section should be written --Alcarcalimo2364 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis errors?
I was reading the synopsis and found numerous typos, grammatical errors, and awkward wordings. I tried my best to fix these. However, I'm still in doubt with respect to parts of the synopsis which I don't remember occurring in the book (or perhaps ocurring in a different order or slightly different version of events). I've read the book numerous times. I am going to re-read it again and check the synopsis to make sure it is accurate.

DrIdiot 02:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
What is the reference for the statements in this section: Prey→original entry. It is entirely unreferenced and appears to be POV/OR. --ElectricEye 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Film Adaption
I notice the page mentions a film adaption, yet a search of the IMDB does not seem to show it as stated in the article. The first result is in fact not an adaption of this book. I'll remove all of the movie references if evidence of it cannot be found.

What a shame, this would make a FANTASTIC film :( 86.137.50.88 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And what seems to have happened to the citations in the trivia section?-Accurrent 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

plot summary
the new plot is not very good, its personal and filled with questions... this is hardly an encyclopediac summary. i think someone should revert back to the old summary (some of it i wrote myself =P). but personals aside, the much-edited version of my summary is really a better one than the current one on the page. --Mclover08 (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the new one only covers the introduction. I don't see anything wrong with the old one (assuming the plot summary is accurate), so I'll simply revert directly back to it.   (It could probably skip some of the details, but at least it conveys the facts of the plot.) --74.131.50.152 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence: He knows he had no choice other than to give himself, the children, and his sister the phage to kill off any possible swarms they may be harboring in their bodies. First of, it's supposed to be "..swarms that may be..." isn't it? And secondly, what does this say? Why is his family throwing up? Were Ricky and Julia doing the same? Or did they throw up after having given the phage, so it's a reaction to the bots dying? And what about the "he gets dizzy"-part? Does the book they whether Jack dies in the end? -- JanCK (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And regarding the plot summary, what do you think about an additional one-paragraph summary in order to give a faster overview? -- JanCK (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1-para summary, agree (haven't read the book or would write it; also cognizant that this is not Wiki's standard). Re: {Plot-summary-too-long} tag, disagree. It gives an apparently complete overview with sufficient detail to make it make sense without obviously unnecessary material, thus conforming to my reading of Wiki:PlotSummary#Length. Suggest removal of said tag but don't feel sufficiently expert to do so myself. -- 223fms (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Prey1.jpg
Image:Prey1.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 ensure 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) 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

THermite
under plot, i added that thermite fueled the explosion, just as a detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.194.151 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding The Day the Earth Stood Still reference...
Is there a reference that can be used to back up the bit in the beginning that says something about Prey being loosely adapted in the movie The Day the Earth Stood Still? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.24.202 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Solar Powered
In the current revision of the article, it says: "While searching for them, they discover that one of the swarms, now so evolved that it can operate without solar energy". As far as I can recall, this was possible because they sent out new swarms as the old ones deactivated when they ran out of power. This issue also comes up later: when the main character is in the Xymos building after destroying the main swarm production in the desert, with Julia and company, Mae notes at some point that the "infected" people slept with the lights on. Also, if they discovered the swarms can operate without solar energy, then it would make no sense for them to decide, upon finding Charley Davenport's body, to turn off all the lights and light sources to the room he is in to deactivate the swarm in the same airtight room as him. I didn't make any changes to the article, because this is all just based on what seem to be contradictions, but it could be a seperately "evolved" version of the swarm that works without solar energy, but I don't, at any point, recall hearing this explanation. (And a minor other note: The article says "He tricks Mae into alerting Julia and the infected team.", but Mae wasn't 'tricked' into this.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.236.202 (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How can the film wrights have been purchased 5 years befor the novel came out?
How can the film wrights have been purchased 5 years befor the novel came out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.254.25 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * RIGHTS is what you meant to discuss, I believe. And there may have been discussions on the idea of the book by Crichton with some film production company long before it was written, or finished. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you shouldn't just go and delete other people's contributions when you think something is wrong (especially if you don't have proof to back it up); IT'S RUDE! You should instead help improve them.--Cmaven555 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)