Talk:The Chrysalids

Radio adaptation date
There is a conflict between the dates given for the radio adaptation. At the start of the article it says "1982", in the adaptations section it says "April 1981". Which is correct?(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.33.31 (talk)

Chocky
Could any of the knowledgeable writers who have created a fine article here turn their attention to the article on John Wyndham's "Chocky"? That article is truly pathetic and in great need of the scholarship that is displayed in the "Chrysalids" article.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Attempted rewrite
After reading the novel again recently and taking into account your various comments I've extensively edited parts of the article. I agree that the one paperback cover is an illustration of the attack of a Fringes beast on Petra's pony and that at any case it would not belong in literary criticism. Haven't removed that yet. I agree that the nuclear nature of the Tribulation should be worked in early but haven't yet discovered a good way to include it. Does anybody agree that the ISBN number and US title can be safely relegated to the info box and removed from the initial description? I would also like to get rid of "The story" from the initial two paragraphs. -- Rydra Wong 05:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Chrysalids is the proper name, not Rebirth. Rebirth was the US title if I'm not wrong. If there are no objections in a week Ill change the title to Chrysalids. Mandel 11:58, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

what are the differences between the way joseph and axel use their minds ? what are some similarities / differences ? (using transitions between ideas)

Format:

topic sentence - point/specific example - proof - comment - explanation

transition - point/specific example - proof - comment/explanation - concluding statement
 * Do your own damn homework!

Section expansion: change
This theme is visited prominently in the end section of the book. I will draw up some stuff to put in, eventually, but anyone else's ideas would be great (keep non-1st person though!) Jdcooper 17:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
If we are going to have a section on "criticism", we need to link to critical sources that contain those criticisms, otherwise that section is original research/POV. Jdcooper 11:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary
I have just re-worked the plot summary for this quite a bit. If anyone has any objections please let me know. I tried to emphasize the overall structure of the story rather than individual names and events. I hope it makes sense.DianaW 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also worked a bit on the "Change" and "Criticism" section, but these are both inadequate.DianaW 14:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A minor issue, but who are Katherine and Sally? Their only mention is currently dangling.--173.252.134.86 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * They're relatively minor characters - part of the telepath group - and don't really contribute to the story in any plot-important way.
 * I've added a comment that they're part of the telepath group. Don't think they warrant much more.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sealand vs Zealand and other edits
Re: "Sealand" vs. "Zealand" -- At least in the edition I have, the telepaths are very skeptical when Petra initially produces "Zealand" (not too many words in English start with "Z", and "Zealand" doesn't have an obvious English meaning), but after Petra's further consultations, and explanations about the buzzing of bees they accept it.

Also, the recent edits have cut-back and postponed the nuclear explanations so that the background of the novel rather will be a little obscure until people read down to the section which includes it... AnonMoos 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it is sometimes referred to as Zealand and is clearly meant to be New Zealand, the narrator normally refers to it as Sealand even after Petra's explanation.


 * I am not in principle opposed to the explanation of why Tribulation was a nuclear holocaust being moved further up the article. What I was against was the situation we had earlier where examination of this point was scattered at various points throughout the article, and we should give an explanation of how Tribulation appeared to the Labrador people before dealing with the nuclear holocaust issues. PatGallacher 11:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the "narrator" (David Strorm) does not normally refer to it as "Sealand" after the initial confusion. Maybe you should re-read the book, before making major edits... AnonMoos 13:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there are different editions. I've just checked mine and it appears Pat G is correct; "Sealand" is used consistently. I do agree the fact that the "postnuclear" context needs to be stated early.DianaW 14:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to my previous version, but made a few changes, in particular I have followed people's advice and moved the examination of nuclear holocaust issues to a much earlier point in the article. PatGallacher 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that Sealand is actually one of the Caribbean Islands. It would have been impossible for them to escape from Labrador to New Zealand.

A close reading of the text suggests that Wyndham did indeed intend to portray a future New Zealand. The following quote from the novel not only describes "Sealand" as "two parts" with "lots of sea all round" but places it in a different hemisphere; in sunlight during Labrador's nighttime.


 * 'Well, the others are proper letters,' Michael admitted.' Sea-land - it must be -'


 * 'Not "S"; it's "Z,"' repeated Petra, obstinately.


 * 'But, darling, "Z" doesn't mean anything. Now, Sealand obviously means a land in the sea.'


 * 'If that helps,' I said doubtfully. 'According to my Uncle Axel there's a lot more sea than anyone would think possible.'


 * At that point everything was blotted out by Petra conversing indignantly with the unknown. She finished to announce triumphantly: 'It is "Z". She says it's different from "S": like the noise a bee makes.'


 * 'All right,' Michael told her, pacifically, 'but ask her if there is a lot of sea.'


 * Petra came back shortly with:


 * 'Yes. There are two parts of it, with lots of sea all round. From where she is you can see the sun shining on it for miles and miles and it's all blue -'


 * 'In the middle of the night?' said Michael. 'She's crazy.'


 * 'But it isn't night where she is. She showed me.' Petra said. 'It's a place with lots and lots of houses, different from Waknuk houses, and much, much bigger. And there are funny carts without horses running along the roads. And things in the air, with whizzing things on top of them -'

-- Rydra Wong 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My version, in a compendium of "Great Science Fiction" published a few years after Re-Birth was published, uses "Zealand" throughout. I don't see why the main article text says "Sealand "; this may have been from before the above argument which points out the hemisphere difference etc. I'm changing it to Zealand for clarity, and removing the HTML comment which I think unfairly lends authority to an edit. -- 65.216.75.240 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * May I first of all say that, when it was not too difficult to see from the article that this issue had proved contentious in the past, it was bad practice to change the article without discussing the issue beforehand. It is possible that this has appeared differently in different editions.  However when we had this discussion before most people's editions said "Sealand".  It is likely that British editions have been closer to Wyndham's original text, it is possible that a compendium of science fiction published in the US (where they changed the title for a start) underwent some tampering.  I will check this soon. PatGallacher (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While it's entirely possible that editions exist where the narrator's use of Sealand has been changed to Zealand by an overzealous editor, I have yet to find one. In particular, the US published paperback copy of Rebirth also has Sealand throughout. All editions that I've found to date use Sealand exclusively with the exception of a single instance where the place name is actually spoken by the Sealand woman:


 * "Later on, they started to discover thought-shape makers in other places, too. That was when they began to understand how fortunate they had been; they found that even in places where physical deviations don't count for much people who have think-together are usually persecuted. For a long time nothing could be done to help the same kind of people in other places - though some tried to sail to Zealand in canoes, and sometimes they got there - but later, when we had machines again, we were able to fetch some of them to safety."


 * Both before and after this single instance the use of Sealand remains consistent throughout, even when the Sealand woman is speaking:


 * "'Let him be,' came the severe, clear pattern from the Sealand woman. 'Your work is to survive. Neither his kind, nor his kind of thinking will survive long. They are the crown of creation, they are ambition fulfilled - they have nowhere more to go. But life is change, that is how it differs from the rocks, change is its very nature.'"


 * In addition, in my copy of the unabridged audio book version of The Chrysalids, reader Robert Powell uses Sealand throughout with the single exception noted above. I hope this clarifies the situation. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, you do realise that the story is narrated in the first person from a character who doesn't believe the letter 'Z' even exists, and that that's possibly a factor? I think it's safe to say that 'the Sealand woman' knows what her own country is named. 210.1.205.102 (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just listened to this novel on audiobook, and it contains the above discussion concerning the existence of the letter "Z", "like the sound bees make". Further, once established, the narrator consistently refers to the location as Zealand, except in perhaps one incident where Micheal mindshapes "Sealand" and is corrected by Petra.  Is this a case of their being differences in different editions of the novel?  I was strongly tempted to change the text of the article to Zealand, despite the "warnings", because it is so very, very clear in the version I listened to.  I've tried looking online for this information, but have failed.  Is there an online source that catalogs the differences between editions of novels? LordQwert (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've dug around a bit more, and it seems pretty universal that the characters have the above discussion in all editions of the novel, but proceed to refer to it as "Sealand" themselves regardless. However, the characters being incorrect (and expressly so) is not a reason for the wiki to be incorrect.  Articles are not written from a position of internal ignorance.  Unless someone finds something to contradict this, I will make an edit to change the spelling to "Zealand", while making a note along the lines of "(which the telepaths mistakenly take as "Sealand" due to the loss of the zed phoneme in Waknuk)".  I'll come up with something better.  LordQwert (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is everyone assuming that Zealand is actually New Zealand (off the coast of Australia) and not old Zealand the island between Denmark and Sweden. It makes much more sense for Zealand to be closer and still in the northern hemisphere. --67.249.89.141 (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * However, Petra points to the southwest, and it seems to be more than 5 timezones removed (day there when its the middle of the night in Labrador)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know if other versions of the book exist, but in all the U.S. paperbacks that I've seen (with title "Re-Birth", ISBN 0-345-27450-4 etc), "Sealand" appears only twice, while "Zealand" appears many many times... AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

New edits
I just reverted a couple of things; but this whole paragraph is problematic. I took out "actually" which someone added; it's almost never helpful to add "actually" as it doesn't (actually) mean anything. I believe I took it out once before. "Actually" often signals that somebody's opinion is coming up, trying to pretend it's objective. The whole paragraph is unsourced and unencyclopedic. Who is it who says the title is misleading? That needs a reference. The title isn't unclear to me, for instance, and even if it were, having a title with several possible meanings is hardly an undesirable thing, particularly in a work of fiction. There is no reason that the title can't refer to a stage of development of a butterfly, unusual or alien creatures, or the metamorphosis of David and his friends. If there are scholars or critics who have stated that the title is misleading, we could source that.

I don't really think describing the cover of one edition of the book is appropriate in the literary criticism section, either. But perhaps I'll leave that alone for now and wait to see if anyone disagrees. Not infrequently cover illustrations are commissioned and created by people who haven't even read the book, so I don't think you can read a lot into the author's intended meaning of "chrysalids" from that (especially considering he was dead before the 1970s). It's equally likely somebody at the publisher had no idea what a "chrysalid" was and told an illustrator, this is science fiction so draw some space aliens or something. The edition I have has some children's faces on the cover, eyes closed, floating disembodied against the background of a futuristic-appearing cityscape; I think it's meant to evoke the children's telepathic communications with the faraway advanced civilization in "Sealand."DianaW 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Alien" cover
"This title may evoke unusual creatures such as aliens (as inexplicitly depicted on the cover of one paperback release of the book in the 1970s)."

By any chance would this be the cover that is actually depicting a wildcat attacking a horse (a scene which appears in the novel)? Battle Ape 13:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

While I recognise that we should explain that Tribulation is a nuclear holocaust fairly early in the article, I don't think we should dive into this immediately, since this could give a misleading impression of the novel, we should explain how this appears to the Labradorians first. PatGallacher 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Only following this rather loosely, but in general I agree with Pat G's edits. It's important to put the story in the post-nuclear holocaust context but to lead into the plot summary with this gives a different impression of the novel. It is not *primarily* a post-nuclear holocaust story.DianaW 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Did a few very minor edits, I think it's greatly improved by others' recent edits. I think this sentence is unclear: "David, Rosalind and Petra elude their would-be captors and are rescued by the Sealand mission to discover the source of Petra's telepathic transmissions." Anyone? And I still object to the notion that the title is "misleading." It is not a bad thing or a criticism for a title to have several referents or a complex symbolism. If no one raises an objection I'm going to rewrite that part soon.DianaW 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If nothing else it's got to be referenced who said it's "misleading," and it's unnecessary to explain that "chrysalids" is plural of "chrysalid." If there's no source for this other than just people like us free-associating as to what "chrysalids" might mean, we ought to just take this stuff out.DianaW 14:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with DianaW with respect to the entirely unnecessary explanation of "Chrysalids" and the unsourced concern that the title is somehow misleading. I have removed the offending paragraph. -- Rydra Wong 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When I read this book at school in 1987 the Penguin edition we used had a cover which depicted a green insect-like being holding a mace-like weapon with sharp spikes covered in blood. I also remember that my English teacher said that the blurb on the back was the worst he'd ever read. I think that the most likely explanation for the cover was that it was commissioned and illustrated by people who hadn't read the novel. No doubt some people bought the novel thinking that it would be about aliens called "Chrysalids" (not a verifiable fact, I know). I'm sure that edition would not be too hard to find in British second-hand bookshops.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Time period: Several hundred vs several thousand years
The novel suggests that "A thousand years? - two thousand years? Even more perhaps?" is generally thought to be the time between Tribulation and the beginning of recorded history. Only Nicholson's Repentances was said to have "come out of the wilderness of barbarism, and that only because it had lain for, perhaps, several centuries sealed in a stone coffer before it was discovered. And only the Bible had survived from the time of the Old People them­selves." and "Except for what these two books told, the past, further back than three recorded centuries, was a long oblivion." These passages strongly suggest several thousand years passed before the three centuries of recorded history with which the Labradoreans are familiar. Hope this clarifies the edit. -- Rydra Wong 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the passages quoted, by themselves, suggest several hundred to a couple of thousand years. I disagree with stating "several thousand"; that is possible but not well justified.  I'm inclined to think several hundred can't be long enough for the development of the society and landscape depicted; a great many many hundreds would be necessary.  On the other hand, the existence of an oral tradition suggests very few thousands.  And don't forget that the books were still readable; that constrains the time lapse very severely, since an illiterate society is most unlikely to preserve its language so well for a thousand years.  Can we find a more indefinite formulation, suggesting one to several thousand years, that is consequently better justified by the limited evidence?  Zaslav (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The book is not specific, and from a purely scientific standpoint "thousands of years" is a ridiculous amount of time for fallout effects to stick around and for a tiny culture to maintain a recognizable language. Regardless, we're not going to have a "citation needed" right next to a "do not change" marker.  So unless someone's going to actually cite something, I'm changing it to some variety of "non-specific". LordQwert (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External Link to Summary
I have re-added the link to the WikiSummaries summary of The Chrysalids (here). This link provides a useful resource to people interested a more in-depth summary. WikiSummaries is compatible with Wikipedia in that its works are under the GNU FDL. Geneffects 15:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Was Waknuk modeled after Wabush?
Did Wyndham model Waknuk after Wabush?

A careful reading of the text suggests that this is likely.

1. The names Waknuk and Wabush are strikingly similar: the same initial letter, same vowels, same number of syllables and the potential for similar vowel pronunciation.

"Except for what these two books told, the past, further back than three recorded centuries, was a long oblivion. Out of that blankness stretched a few strands of legend, badly frayed in their passage through successive minds. It was this long line of tongues that had given us the name Labrador,"

This passage suggests the evolution of place names over time. Note also from the wiki article: Rigo for Rigolet, Lark for Lark Harbour and Newf for Newfoundland.

2. "Our district, and, consequently, our house as the first there, was called Waknuk because of a tradition that there had been a place of that name there, or thereabouts, long, long ago, in the time of the Old People. The tradition was, as usual, vague, but certainly there had been some buildings of some kind, for the remnants and foundations had remained until they were taken for new buildings. There was also the long bank, running away until it reached the hills and the huge scar that must have been made by the Old People when, in their superhuman fashion, they had cut away half a mountain in order to find something or other that interested them."

Note that the ruins of a similarly named place from the time of the Old People and reuse of preexisting building materials are mentioned and open pit mining is implied.

3. Early in the novel the narrator David describes a high bank near his house:

"I had made my way down the cart-track to the south, along the borders of several fields until I came to the high bank, and then along the top of the bank for quite a way. The bank was no puzzle to me then: it was far too big for me to think of as a thing that men could have built, nor had it ever occurred to me to connect it with the wondrous doings of the Old People whom I sometimes heard about. It was simply the bank, coming round in a wide curve, and then running straight as an arrow towards the distant hills"

This passage is highly descriptive of a raised rail bed. David would have had knowledge of roads of the type made by horse drawn vehicles - note his mention of a cart-track. The bank's arrow straightness, height above terrain and the lack of similarly built roadways in Labrador strongly suggest a rail right of way rather than a vehicular road. Note that Wabush has the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway and the short connector Wabush Lake Railway in its immediate vicinity. Also note that no rail of any sort exists in eastern or northern Labrador.

4. "Their existence had become a danger­ous nuisance and their depredations the cause of many repre­sentations to the Government in Rigo."

The Labradorean government is established as being in Rigo; a community on the East coast of Labrador.

5. "What the Government did do, from its comfortable situation far, far to the east, was to express sympathy in encouraging phrases, and suggest the formation of a local militia "

Waknuk is therefor situated far to the West of Rigo. Note that Wabush and nearby Labrador City are about 350 miles West of Rigolet.  Both Wabush and Labrador City are mining towns; see Iron Ore Company of Canada.

6. " - of which Waknuk was only a small district - was called Labrador. This was thought to be the Old People's name for it, though that was not very certain. Round most of Labrador there was a great deal of water called the sea, which was im­portant on account of fish. Nobody that I knew, except Uncle Axel, had actually seen this sea because it was a long way off, but if you were to go three hundred miles or so east, north, or north-west you would come to it sooner or later. But south-west or south, you wouldn't; you'd get to the Fringes and then the Badlands, which would kill you."

This passage further establishes Waknuk in the same general location as Wabush; in extreme western Labrador, approximately 300 miles west of the the coast and Rigo and of similar distance to the Labrador's northern and north western coasts. 7. "It was said, too, though nobody was sure, that in the time of the Old People Labrador had been a cold land, so cold that no one could live there for long, so they had used it then only for growing trees and doing their mysterious mining in."

The preceding passage explicitly mentions mining in the Waknuk area during the time of the Old People. 8. "Like all the houses of the district, it was constructed on a frame of solid, roughly-dressed timbers, but, since it was the oldest house there, most of the spaces in the outer walls had been filled in with bricks and stones from the ruins of some of the Old People's buildings,"

Waknuk was built on or near the ruins of an "Old People" Labradorean community.

9. During a tirade Old Jacob states:

"Government regulations made by a lot of snivelling, weak-hearted, weak-witted babblers in the East. That's what the trouble is. A lot of namby-pamby politicians, and churchmen who ought to know better, too; men who've never lived in unstable country,"

"How do they think the south-west was made safe and civil­ized for God's people? How do they think the mutants were kept under, and the Purity standards set up? It wasn't by fiddling little fines that a man could pay once a week and not notice. It was by honouring the law, and punishing anybody who transgressed it so that they knew they were punished."

This passage further places Waknuk as not only in western but southwestern Labrador. This is again very similar to the placement of Wabush in Labrador.

Based on the preceding I am reinstating the link to Wabush.

-- Rydra Wong 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You've convinced me :-) Tirailleur 13:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wabush mines began production in 1964 and it was only an exploration camp before 1960. It probaby was not an occupied site, even for geologists, before 1953. I find it unlikely that Wabush was the model of a novel published in 1955.

KC Armstrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.229.163 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts following a recent re-read
I reread the book last night (took a couple of hours; I'm a fast reader) and a few points came up.

There seemed to me to be a distinctly pessimistic theme running through the book. Or perhaps that's not the right word; a resigned acceptance of human awfulness, perhaps. Leaving aside the underlying premise of a nuclear holocust, there's the fact that the pitiless harshness of the anti-mutant mentality does actually work. It is conceded by Uncle Axel that the religious nutters are onto something, in practical terms, and that the intolerance for deviation is what has enabled the progressive rehabilitation of the world, from Badlands to Wild country to Fringes to, eventually, stabilised territory.

It also struck me that there are quite marked similarities in the mindset of the religious zealots of Waknuk and that of the Zealanders. The latter are quite prepared to slaughter the former and they come to collect the child with the other telepaths an entirely secondary concern; in fact two are quite clearly abandoned and the Zealand woman simply wished them well in finding another way there from Labrador, which we know cannot happen. The Zealanders haven't rejected the Old People / Tribulation othodoxy either. They've embellished it but they still think god did it, so one wonders how much further on they are morally as opposed to technologically.

This would be OR in the article itself so I shall forbear from editing.

I have added one thing though. It is noted in the text - it is actually said by David's father - that the government cynically relaxes the rules on deviations where the deviations in question are patently useful. This is in the context of the neighbour's acquisition of a pair of "great-horses". These are said to be 26 hands high at the shoulders. I didn't know how big that was so I looked it up and apparently this would make them just under 9 feet tall at the shoulder. For comparison, that is about the size of an Asian elephant. Tirailleur 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pessimism is close to it, or at least, I think at least Wyndham had a pessimistic streak. I think it's one of the strengths of the book (though I hated it at first, when I was 13) that the Sealand People are as morally ambiguous as the Labridorians. It wouldn't be a realistic ending if the Sealanders were saints. One of the things I love about this book it that all three groups (including religious nutters) includes both good and bad. One thing I thought was interesting in comparing the two groups, which I think the great horses illustrate, it that the Sealanders are pro-advancement, while the Labridorians are against it--or at least leery of it and traditionally against it. The neighbor with the great horses claimed that he had produced them normally by just breeding for size. If we're to believe wiki, the tallest horse on record was a Shire that was 21 hands, so selectively breeding up a horse of 26 hands isn't all that unlikely, given time, and this book is thousand+ years in the future. I think Wyndham is basically making a pessimistic comment on both traditionalists and people who think that technology will make at all better: both groups are equally unlikable.

Fair use rationale for Image:The-chrysalids.jpg
Image:The-chrysalids.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 19:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Major characters
Most longer or better articles on novels probably do have a section on major characters. There could be some duplication with the plot summary, but this is grounds for further editing not deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Care for another... redundancy?
Thank you, PatGallacher, for catching my mal-edit —inserting a link in the 'See also' box when the same (link) is already in the body of the article. (I should have remembered the WP layout guide —which says no, mostly, to such 'See also's.) Actually, I was 'gone astray' from my orginal task: adding category tags to articles, at the footer. Here, ie, "Chrysalids", your revert also took away the catagory tag, which I have restored; >>and, 'I shall return', to each of the articles I edited and remove any other redundant 'See also's.--Jbeans (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Telepathic ability as hereditary
The implication is clear, in a Chekhov's gun style. Out of the seven (eight?) main telepaths four of them are known to be related, including the "unknown" Walter Brent killed at the beginning of the book. a_man_alone (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. They are known to be related, but that in itself does not imply that heredity is the cause. They could just as easily be random mutations among a small population subject to the same external factors. All of this, however, is speculation and original research and does not belong in the article. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringes described as "forbidden"?
This is an excellent article and summary of the salient points of the book. However, one thing puzzled me: the use of the word "forbidden" in "…sterilized and banished to the Fringes, a forbidden area still rife with animal and plant mutations…". I searched the book in vain to find the Fringes described as forbidden. Yes they are unstable, lawless, dangerous, and inhabited by mutant people living in abject poverty. But if they were actually forbidden, one would hardly expect an expedition of a hundred men (including some of the most zealous and legalistic) to enter deliberately and knowingly. Please correct me if I'm wrong. — Hebrides (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC, it's because they're "some of the most zealous and legalistic" - your quote, but accurate, that they enter the fringes to bring back David and the gang. Don't have the book to hand, and indeed it's been a while since I read it, but I'm pretty certain that the main reason they want to recapture David & co is because their mutation is invisible to the eye, and they feel that capture & torture is necessary to find out if there are any more of them - which of course there are: Michael in the pursuing group is one of the telepaths as well.   a_man_alone (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. You are totally correct, but didn't answer my question. I'm taking issue with the use of the word forbidden in the WP article and propose removing it. Before I delete the word, I wanted to invite the other editors of the article to put a case for its continued retention in the sentence quoted. — Hebrides (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair comment. I was stressing that to the posse the fringes status as forbidden was irrelevent to them at that point.  Anyway, prompted by this discussion, I'm rereading the book - not much so far, we've just met the wise old Uncle Axel.  Should the term "forbidden" crop up, I'll provide a cite to the chapter or quote.   a_man_alone (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW the word forbidden occurs three times in the book. Firstly on the first page of chapter 11 when Petra “did two things she knew to be forbidden. First, although she was alone, she rode her pony off our own land; and, secondly, she was not content to keep to the open country, but went exploring in the woods.” This, however, is referring to the prohibitions applying to a young girl venturing out on her own and is not relevant to the current question.


 * The other two instances of the word are very near the end in the Sealand woman's speech, “…to pretend that one can live without doing so is self-deception. There has to be meat in the dish, there have to be vegetables forbidden to flower, seeds forbidden to germinate…” This, too, has absolutely nothing to do with the current question.


 * As far as I can see, the only hint of discouragement from entering seems to come from the Fringes people themselves: in chapter 14 we get, “I decided to shift the conversation on to a more practical plane by inquiring why we had been taken prisoner. He did not seem very sure about that, except to assure me that it was always done when any stranger was found entering Fringes territory.” So it seems to me that the Fringes are not forbidden as such, but simply dangerous.


 * I'm glad you're taking this opportunity to re-read the book, and hope you enjoy it as much as I always do when I re-read it. Looking forward to reading what you've found. — Hebrides (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Finished the book. Although there's a whole boatload of stuff I could add as original research there isn't any mention of The Fringes as being forbidden.  In fact, they don't really seem to be "officially" off limits at all - the only thing that keeps the Waknukians from venturing in is the threat of violence from the Fringe people, and the Waknukian God-given fear of abomination, and all that it entails.   a_man_alone (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and changed the word "forbidden" to "dangerous tracts of land" as that seems more appropriate.  a_man_alone (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A most satisfactory conclusion to the question. I fully support your boldness – and your edit. — Hebrides (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your points regarding "forbidden" are well made. However "tracts of land" implies organization where none exists. I have changed it to read "a lawless and untamed area" which is in keeping with the way the the Fringes are perceived by those living in the reclaimed and genetically stable areas including Waknuk. Note that Waknuk is only one village in a larger reclaimed and civilized area stretching from the interior to coastal areas surrounding Rigo and Lark. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I like this – it’s accurate and reads well. Thank you. — Hebrides (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael - minor character, or worthy of main character?
Whilst I agree that Michael isn't in the forefront of the story in the same way as David or Rosalind, the whole telepathy aspect makes that superfluous. I think that his distance, and schooling - which he passes onto the other characters, and especially his joining the posse at the end of the story so he can pass on info to the rest of the group makes him worthy of addition to the main character section.

I see that I'm not the only person who thinks this, as it was actually added a while ago before being removed.

Rydra & I obviously disagree here, but I'd like other opinions as well. a_man_alone (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, here's my opinion. To me, Michael is definitely one of the main characters in this book. After the occasion in chapter 8 when they all find out each other's names, Michael then makes significant appearances in the narrative of every chapter right through to the book's end (chapters 8-17). He features frequently in the text; FWIW here are some wordcounts: Petra (208), Rosalind (196), Michael (126), Sophie (119), Axel (53), Anne (36), Rachel (32), Sealand (29), Sally (27), Katherine (27). This doesn't in itself guarantee importance, but it's an interesting comparison.


 * For me, it's his pivotal role that makes him so significant. Though not the eldest (the WP article is wrong in this respect, since Anne is the eldest according to chapter 8), he is the most objective, perceptive and decisive of the telepaths, the best educated, and in many ways he takes the lead in the group.


 * He was the first to tell Anne that her proposed marriage was unworkable (chap 10). After Alan's death he told Rachel what she should do. At the end of chapter 11 he told David that he should kill Petra if ever capture became inevitable. At the start of chapter 12 he told David and Rosalind to flee. He joined the search, tried to send it in the wrong direction, and kept the fugitives informed. He was the strong figure who reassured Rosalind after she killed a man, calmed Petra's worries about the fringes, and told Rosalind to kill Gordon if he tried to force himself on her. Towards the end he met the Sealand woman, and in one of the most moving passages in the book, sacrificed his opportunity to fly to freedom in Sealand out of love for Rachel. I honestly think that we get more insight into Michael's character than into Rosalind's or Petra's.


 * I'm giving you my personal view since you asked. A book like this strikes different people in different ways, and there is no correct answer, but it would be nice to come to a consensus if we can. Sincerely -- Hebrides (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Moreover (and easy to overlook) it is immediately after Michael painstaking explains to Petra the nature of the fringes and their inhabitants that Petra is first prompted to think in an intellectually mature way and contact from Zealand is then established. If that coincidence is interpreted as causal, then it both increased Michael's role and defangs the criticism of the Zealand intervention as a deus ex machina.2A00:23C6:5F89:6901:C08D:6138:9B44:ED09 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Zealand and Sealand - again
The text from the book is here: (and also further above in the talk page!)

At that point everything was blotted out by Petra con-versing indignantly with the unknown. She finished to an-nounce triumphantly: 'It is "Z". She says it's different from "S": like the noise a bee makes.'
 * Presently we got the first one. It was 'Z.' We were dis-appointed.
 * 'What on earth's that?'everyone inquired at once.
 * 'She's got it back to front. It must be "S,"' Michael decided.
 * 'It's not "S," it's "Z,"' Petra insisted tearfully.
 * 'Never mind them. Just go on,' Rosalind told her.
 * The rest of the word built up.
 * 'Well, the others are proper letters,' Michael admitted.'Sea-land—it must be—'
 * 'Not"S"; it's "Z,"' repeated Petra, obstinately.
 * 'But, darling, "Z" doesn't mean anything. Now, Sealand obviously means a land in the sea.'
 * 'If that helps,' I said doubtfully. 'According to my Uncle Axel there's a lot more sea than anyone would think possible.'

I'm of the opinion that the listed sources are just wrong. They are making the same assumption that the editor is - that the below indicates a lack of knowledge of the letter "Z" rather than a lack of knowledge of the word that starts with "Z" For me, the key argument lies in two areas:  Petra states '' 'Not"S"; it's "Z,"' repeated Petra, obstinately. '' - she specifically knows what "Z" is, in order to contradict the "S". The Zealand woman is clarifying the letter not because they don't know what it is, but in order to eliminate confusion over whether it's an "S" or not.

Another indication that they are aware of the letter "Z" comes from wise old Uncle Axel - he was married to a woman specifically stated as Elizabeth - not Elisabeth or any other spelling. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe they are incorrect. Please cite contradicting sources if you wish to enforce that perspective. LordQwert (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As the novel itself overwhelmingly uses the spelling "Sealand" that is what we should use. PatGallacher (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because the characters in the novel don't understand the use of the letter "Z" doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't understand it either. The characters can call her the "Sealand" woman, but it's clear from the book that she's really the "Zealand" woman.  The text of the article makes this clear - that there are two differing viewpoints on what her origin is, and how it's pronounced or spelled.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the compromise reached with Chaheel's most recent edits. LordQwert (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should be "correcting" what the novel usually calls it. PatGallacher (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not correcting what the novel usually calls it. We're making it clear that the Zealand woman calls it one thing, yet for reasons that I think are bollocks - but are unfortunately reliably sourced - the characters within it seem to be unaware of the letter "Z", so they insist on calling it "Sealand" instead of "Zealand" - and this is what it is referred to for the rest of the book.  I have stated that I think this is a mis-intepretation of the extract I quote above, but cannot find sources to contradict them.
 * The changes I made are reasonable attempts to clarify this - the statement "The woman calls her country "Zealand", but the telepaths insist on calling it "Sealand" instead" is substantiated throughout the rest of the book, and the article itself states "Later, the existence of geographic areas far less affected by the nuclear exchange and fallout are established, particularly Sealand (New Zealand), which is home to a socially and technologically advanced society where telepathy is not only the norm, but is encouraged and developed as a survival advantage."
 * I would dearly like to remove the claim that they have no idea what the letter "Z" means, (as can be seen above when I started this thread,) but as I cannot find any sources to refute that, instead I'm looking for a compromise - the woman calls herself "Zealand", but the characters call her "Sealand". Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As the third person who apparently cares about this topic far too much, I'd like to state that I'm mostly swayed by the assertion that they DO actually have a 'z' sound in their language and that the "meaningless" comment was about the word "Zea" and not the sound "z". That said, it's vague enough to warrant the ambiguity and clarifications that Chaheel has incorporated.  The novel unambiguously declares the use of "Sealand" to be incorrect, yet the country is referred to as "Sealand" over 80% of the time by the characters.  The ambiguity and clarification of this point in the wiki article is both warranted and welcome. LordQwert (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Surely a massive hole in the theory that the people of Labrador have no knowledge of the letter "Z" is that they clearly use words with it in them, e.g. when Petra describes Zealand as having, "things in the air, with whizzing things on top of them." The book is also written from David's point of view, and he uses words like "gazed," "puzzled," "dozen," and "mizzen." We also know that one of the few books to have survived is the Bible, which is chock-full of names with "Z" in them. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There could be a few loose ends in this relatively short novel, this could be one of them, attempting to resolve this could be original research. I suggest we go with Sealand as this is the term the book normally uses. PatGallacher (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly 'one of those words where different forms are used according to context' - as we say 'I reed this/I red this' depending upon whether 'read' is present or past tense: or 'the novel's equivalent of  was empty and Zealand was seen as a historical anomaly'. (And possibly 'the author wished to include this differentiation' will have to suffice.) 89.197.114.132 (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Genetics question
Making allowance for the knowledge of genetics and radiation when the book was written: given the rate of random mutations (with presumably a rate of unmentioned non-viable mutations significantly higher) - would the human race be actually viable? 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes! Additionally, although it's been a while since I read the books, ISTR there is a mention that the badlands are retreating (albeit slowly), and it could be assumed that Blasphemies are also on the wane as the radiation gets lower and lower.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

'Suspension of disbelief and good story writing' and 'is the scientific basis sound (given when the book was written) are two different things (there came a point when Venusian colonies became non-viable; we now know that 'the Eloi and Morlocks' would be rather further in the future than HG Wells knew etc). We can accept that 'the human species as it now is' may evolve into two or several distinct species (and there will be a point where the Time Traveller and what homo sapiens has evolved into are no longer capable of producing offspring 'but that is a whole other story') - but what is the maximum level of overt variation that will allow a species to continue as such? 89.197.114.132 (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)