Talk:The Day of the Triffids

Untitled
Originally this article stated that the triffid was a genetically modified organism. There is nothing in the novel to suggest this at all, and, in fact, the real thrust of the novel is to firmly imply that the coincidence between the emergence of triffids and the galactic fireworks display which blinded 99.9% of the human race was no such thing. sjc

-- IIRC, the book starts off with an attempt to steal seed of the triffids from a research institute: the plane carrying a case of seed gets shot down, the case being disrupted and the thistledown-like seeds scattered on the jet stream to all corners of the earth. The triffid farms are decades old by the time of the meteor shower. My memory could be faulty, I read the book 35 years ago, but I do remember that the plot of the film, when I saw it some years later, was significantly different from the book, with the triffid seeds arriving in the meteor shower. Malcolm Farmer

-- Yes, that rings a bell, Malcolm. sjc

I'm curious about the film's "symplistic" solution? What is it? --Commander Keane 13:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the answer to the article. --Commander Keane 06:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are far too many asides regarding the writers "characteristic style", makes the article sound pedestrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.1.20 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Night of the Triffids
I'm not sure The Night of the Triffids, good though I thought it was, is really a notable enough book to have a page of its own. Surely the info we have here is more than sufficient, or could be if fleshed out a bit more? I'm considering putting Night up for deletion, but since I think more people would be looking here than there, I'd thought I'd mention it here first. Anyone have any thoughts? -- Guybrush 12:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Clark's book, but if you're going to delete the night of the Triffids article, there should be some information about it here. BillMasen 20:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's notable enough to stay. The sequel expands quite a bit on the original novel, and when reading it I noticed that it's also longer then the original. I say keep it. --Planetary 09:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Should "The Night" be really listed as "Followed by" in the info box? Its not a book condoned by, hinted at or written by the original author... You wouldn't say "Pride and Prejudice" was "followed by" any of the number of unofficial sequels that have been written... EAi 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I added "unofficial" in brackets. That should suffice.--Planetary 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it post-apocalyptic?
I've always undertood post-apocalyptic novels to be those set entirely after some catastophic event. In the case of Triffids, the whole lead-up to the apocalypse is described, as well as the event itself and its aftermath. Or am I just splitting hairs? Bluewave 14:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the action happens after the event. By that definition it's definently post-apocalyptic.--Planetary 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

POV
"elegant detail" please tidy this up and correct such PoV non encyclopedic style points, thanks--68.226.22.197 05:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's very point of view. You can do it yourself if you belive it's necessary.--Planetary 07:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is POV, unless you can provide a critical source. I replaced it. Clarityfiend 04:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Critical superlatives would be unsuitable in the opening paragraph, even if sourced. I've gone through and removed some other bits of POV and general unencyclopaedic tone from the article. --McGeddon 05:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice job. The page looks much better. --Planetary 04:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tentacles
Day of the Tentacle is, I'm assuming, inspired -- at least in title (I have played the game but not read this book) -- by The Day of the Triffid. Should this be added as an allusion/reference from other works, or is it not relevant enough/am I mistake in assuming the connection? VZG 03:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems dubious to me. Many works have "The Day of" or "Day of" in their titles. Keep it out.--Planetary 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tri-feet ~ Tripod ~ War of the Worlds (1953 movie version) ~ octopus ~ optimized intelligence ( head ~ manipulators, no superfluous body ), it´s a science fiction writers´ running gag, who wants to spoil it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.60.148 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A little copy editing
I've just done some minor things to this article involving grammar and punctuation, and rephrased a few things that seemed awkward (planes don't defect, people do). I lowercased "triffids" rather than "Triffids." If anyone disagrees or is offended by any of the changes, please do let me know. I'm puzzled by the reference to Lysenko; I can't seem to find this mentioned specifically in the book, though I don't have time right now to hunt carefully.DianaW 14:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also added the phrase "cosy catastrophe" novel to the intro, as the page on John Wyndham describes him and this novel as the foremost example of such. If anyone objects let me know.DianaW 14:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you have done a good job. There are a few references on the web to Lysenko in relation to this book. Most point to this article or a copy of it, but one or two don't. It's time I read the book again anyway... I hadn't heard the term 'cosy catastrophe' but I think it's a good one for this type of fiction. SilentC 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, thanks! regarding Lysenko - fascinating! This is the big issue with Wikipedia! I re-read that chapter and it does NOT mention Lysenko. You're right, however, that many online sources do. I suspect they got it from the wikipedia article! We need to get to the bottom of this.DianaW 15:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edits: I don't think it's supposed to be mentioned in an encyclopedia every time something is re-run on television, and if it's included, it can't say "currently running" obviously because that'll be dated by next week.

I don't know why this has been added: " . . . although for whatever reason does not explain how he came by this knowledge" as it is actually clearly explained. I'm guessing you're watching the movie and haven't read the book? Then, your last edit took a grammatical sentence and turned it into a sentence fragment: "While many households keep them as a curiosity, almost a garden pet, making sure to have the sting docked at regular intervals."

Do you want to take another look at these edits? If not I'll revert them.DianaW 14:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I took out the thing about Lysenko. It's not in the book, and no one seems to know where the idea even came from.DianaW 14:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Haven't had a chance to read the book again yet, it's still in a box somewhere after moving house, glad you took the time. The way the Lysenko bit read, I think it was original research. Regarding "currently running", people often add things like that to Wikipedia. Personally I find them jarring, especially if they haven't come back to change the tense. I agree with your change but there seems to be a bit of a precedent for statements like that unfortunately. SilentC 21:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The phrase is something like "under a man called Lysenko, biology took a strange turn in the Soviet Union. It was impossible to say whether very queer, or very great, or very silly things were happening, or a combination of the three." I don't have the novel in front of me now, but I assure you it is there. I can't remember which chapter. I have read the book more than once, I assure you :). As for Umberto Palanquez and his spreading of the triffid spores, to my recollection the narrator explains how it happens. He does not explain how he knows that it happened. 137.44.1.200 14:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have scoured that chapter for this information. It is really puzzling me. It isn't there, that I can find, but maybe I am having an Alzheimer's moment, or two or three or four. I don't have time to type in right now what this chapter says - I am wondering if it is somewhere later in the book? I've carefully re-read chapter 2, where he explains the possible development of the triffids. There is no mention of Lysenko. It is certainly implied that Russian scientists may have been involved; it is said that Russia "hid behind a curtain of suspicion and secrecy." And Umberto told the people he was trying to sell the triffid oil to that it came from Russia. But Umberto is not portrayed as a necessarily reliable purveyor of facts about the triffids. And it seems to me that "where the narrator got this information" as to spreading of the spores is not necessarily the important point. Perhaps we mean to say simply that the origin and spread of the triffid spores were mysterious. The narrator, who is a biologist, actually says he heard the rumors about Umberto P. years later in his work, and as to what exactly happened, the direct quote is "What happened to Umberto himself will never be definitely known. It is my guess that over the Pacific Ocean, somewhere high up in the stratosphere, he found himself attacked by Russian planes. It may be that the first he knew of it was when cannon shells from Russian fighters started to break up his craft. Perhaps Umberto's plane exploded, perhaps it just fell to pieces." If anyone else can shed light on this confusion - please do!
 * What was wrong grammatically is that ""While many households keep them as a curiosity, almost a garden pet, making sure to have the sting docked at regular intervals" is a sentence fragment. Without the "while" which you inserted, it was a grammatical sentence.DianaW 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "The seeds reach the West after a jet carrying a stolen box of seeds is shot down whilst the pilot is attempting to defect," Wait a minute - it doesn't say that, either. It says that Umberto vanished -the part about his plane being shot down is purely the narrator's speculation, and there is no mention of his defecting. Perhaps we have here confusions between the book and the movie (which I've never seen). Perhaps the movie dramatizes this and does not make clear that it was speculation?DianaW 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to lay my hands on the book this weekend. If you are right, then of course the Lysenko information is wrong and ought to be deleted. I think it is notable (though not crucial) that the narrator gives only a vague source for the Umberto story: Wyndham wanted to leave that detail open, obviously. 137.44.1.200 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Chapter 2, page 23 of Penguin edition, 1972: '[...] [A] cleavage of methods and views had caused biology there, under a man called Lysenko, to take a different course. [...] The lines it had taken were unknown, and thought to be unsound -- but it was anybody's guess whether very successful, very silly, or very queer things were happening there -- if not all three at once.'

The emphasis is mine. It may be that there is more than one edition of the book, and this passage does not appear in yours? BillMasen.

I have the Modern Library 2003 edition - and unless I am still missing it - which is not impossible - it's not there. Could you give me some text that comes right before or after these lines, so I can be sure? I'm not disputing you; if it's really been removed in later editions, it's worth getting to the bottom of *why* and discussing it in the article. I just want to be sure I'm not actually blindly not seeing this in the chapter. I'll post this on the article talk page too. There are also several web sites on Wyndham and I'm going to see if I can find anything about this there. Thanks!DianaW 19:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure :). Incidentally it is on Page 32, not 23 as I stated before. Apologies.
 * In the middle of the conversation between Umberto and the manager of the Fish Oil company, ::the narrator digresses and talks about the Soviet Union. To quote a bit more:

'The other way would be simpler,' remarked the managing director. 'If it were possible at all,' Umberto agreed. 'But unfortunately your competitors are not approachable -- or suppressible.' He made the statement with a confidence which caused the managing director to study him thoughtfully for some moments. 'I see,' he said at last. 'I wonder -- er -- you don't happen to be a Soviet citizen, Mr Palanquez?' 'No,' said Umberto. 'On the whole my life has been lucky -- but I have very varied connexions....' That brings us to considering the other sixth of the world -- that part which one could not visit with such facility as the rest. Indeed, permits to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were almost unobtainale, and the movements of those who did achieve them were strictly circumscribed. It had deliberately organised itself into a land of mystery. Little of what went on behind the veiling secrecy which was almost pathological in the region was known to the rest of the world. What was, was usually suspect. Yet, behind the curious propaganda which distributed the laughable while concealing all likely to be of the least importance, achievements undoubtedly went on in many fields. One was biology. Russia, who shared with the rest of the world the problem of increasing food supplies, was known to have been intensively concerned with attempts to reclaim desert, steppe, and the northern tundra. In the days when information was still exchanged she had reported some successes. Later, however, a cleavage of methods and views had caused biology there, under a man called Lysenko, to take a different course. It, too, then succumbed to the endemic secrecy. The lines it had taken were unknown, and thought to be unsound -- but it was anybody's guess whether very successful, very silly, or very queer things were happening there -- if not all three at once. 'Sunflowers,' said the managing director, speaking absent-mindedly out of his own reflections. 'I happen to know they were having another shot at improving the yield of sunflower-seed oil. But it isn't that.'
 * And the Umberto conversation continues (empahasis mine).
 * If this passage isn't in your edition, I can't imagine why.
 * BillMasen 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm working hard to try to figure out why not! Short of re-reading the entire book start to finish, I've done my best to locate this material and it does not appear to be there. (We're talking about chapter 2, right? Though I've looked elsewhere, too.) My son has also read the book and says he doesn't think this was there. This is quite a lengthy omission - in my edition, there appears to be no discussion at all between Umberto and anyone at the Fish Oil company. Umberto's selling the oil to a company is dealt with in a paragraph, with no dialogue. I'm concluding it has been removed in the later edition, and I'm very interested to learn why or whose decision this was. I wonder if anything else was removed. The 2003 edition has an introduction by Edmund Morris, with no mention of later revisions to the text. Fascinating. Will post to the article discussion page too.DianaW 14:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: Does the paragraph beginning "That brings us to considering the other sixth of the world -- that part which one could not visit with such facility as the rest" follow immediately after a paragraph ending, "Nevertheless, it was so over five sixths of the globe - though the remaining sixth was something different again." If not - could you tell me where the sentence "That brings us to . . ." appears, i.e., what is the text immediately preceding it??DianaW 14:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The bit immediately preceding "that brings us to" is, as the dialogue above it just there. Unfortunately, I (once again) do not have the book in front of me.

Yes, this text does appear in chapter 2. I don't think it is referred to anywhere else in the book, except in a general way towards the USSR. You might try emailing the Wyndham Archive? BillMasen 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi - yes, I think I will. This may take a little while with holidays coming up. I think that the discovery of Wyndham's personal papers, I think it was in 1998, was probably the impetus for the new edition. I'm wondering - just interesting to speculate - that possibly something in those papers led editors to make various changes. Such as finding notes indicating he preferred an earlier draft himself? It will just be interesting to try to find out. I see no reason otherwise that the Cold War emphasis should have been deliberately downplayed if it's how he wrote it.DianaW 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My copy of the book is a Fawcett Crest paperback, 1970, (6th printing). It has no trace of the dialogue with Umberto, any of the Lysenko background, etc. So: Fawcett Crest 1970 edition doesn't have it, Penguin edition 1972 does have it, Modern Library 2003 doesn't have it. It's obviously not a simple later revision. My guess is that we're dealing with the sadly common phenomenon of dumbing things down for the American version. The publishers probably thought that the background was boring, and no one would know who Lysenko was, anyway. (Also, the mention of Lysenko 'dates' the book.) I'd love to know for sure, and I'd certainly like to know what else was changed/left out.Marieblasdell 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given the page a major overhaul, trying to make the synopsis more chronological. Also moved some comments about themes off into a new section. And adding a data-point to the above discussion, my copy of DotT is a Crest paperback edition published sometime the mid 1960s, and it also doesn't include any of the Umberto conversation/Lysenko information. (The copyright reads simply 1951, but the books listed in the back-page ad are all Kennedy-era stuff.) --Geoduck 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lysenko reference is in my copy on page 23. (Penguin Books Modern Classics 2000 edition) "Later, however, a cleavage of methods and views had caused biology there, under a man names Lysenko, to take a different course." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.60.42 (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

August 2023. Greetings everyone. This is my first post on Wiki, so apologies if I am doing something wrong. This week I got a physical triffids book, published by Penguin, 1954, and I also searched online (at openlibrary.org, etc) for ePub versions. My physical book has much, much more content than the digital one. I came here, to Wikipedia, to see if there was any mention of this, and although there is some mention of condensed versions in Publication history, the inference one makes is that that is no longer the case. There are indeed two versions of the novel, an American one, and a British one. Some 12% is missing from the American one (according to this site: https://triffids.guidesite.co.uk/versions). I spent a full day trying to understand why my physical version had more content, and confirmed that there are indeed many, many cases of digital versions out there with the shorter version that do not say that they are so (one version even said that is was the "complete text... with British and mistakes by publisher... left in", but was the American version). I therefore strongly suggest that a new section be created on this page that clearly explains this, plus a few simple ways to be able to identify which version one might have. Please consult this link: https://triffids.guidesite.co.uk/versions --Umbracinis (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

- Influences -
I notice there's been no mention of 'The Puffball Menace' in any of the information relating to Day of the Triffids, which is almost a 'trial-run' of what's in DOTT. 193.243.227.1 11:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a line about the Finguses from Etherlords, which I'm sure must be Triffid-inspired. Custardslice7 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Scienctific
Anyone ever wonder how a plant, dependent on sunlight, is able to produce the energy needed to walk? There is a reason why plants never learned to do this. In the book, Wyndham doesn't explain this particular problem. Scott Adler (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Day of the Triffids article. It's not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject - unless someone's written about the science of walking plants in direct relation to triffids, it would be original research to include anything about it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * plants can move. The Venus Fly Trap, Honeydew and Mimosa Pudica (the sensitive plant) come to mind. So walking is not out of the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.255 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Spoilers?
Should there be a spoiler warning at the start of the summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvarbullet1 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A reasonable question that deserves an answer. The English Wikipedia has a written style guideline against spoilers. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As WP:SPOILER suggests, the section title of "Plot summary" is a sufficient warning to the reader that the text they are about to read will contain a full summary of the plot. There's no need for an explicit spoiler message on top of it. --McGeddon (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up
Triffids and Wikipedia mentioned specifically on Colbert just now. 207.38.173.173 (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia: Stephen Colbert mentions looking up "triffids" on Wikipedia
On June 18, 2008, after a reference to "triffids" on his show The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert suggested that people would be rushing to Wikipedia to look up the reference. (sorry - thought it was cool) -Exucmember (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I had to look him up in Wikipedia... SilentC (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Colbert report reference adding a date and links to Díaz and the show would be nice. Oh and give the guy a tilde on his i. Curtbash (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Triffids credit for the Stephen Colbert reference actually has to go to his guest, Junot Diaz, who commented that growing up in the Dominican Republic, he remembers the sounds of the sugar cane fields were scary, like Triffids. Stephen Colbert marveled at the obscure reference and praised him a super geek. (02:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Ahorseshoe (talk)ahorseshoe)
 * As interesting as all this probably is to fans of this Colbert Report show, I really don't think we need to note every reference made in the media to the book. There must be literally thousands of them, I don't see that any special importance should be attached to this one, despite whatever popularity the show has in the US. As the heading above says, this is trivia. In fact, even that title glorifies it beyond its merit. SilentC (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

TV Adaptations
Does anybody have ANY information about the second (2001) TV adaptation of DotT that is mentioned on here?

I get the feeling that it was in fact a radio broadcast, if it was for the World Service. I also have the sneaking suspicion that someone may have misread the BBC press release regarding the new series, (along with several national news papers who are stating that there have been between 2 and 5 previous TV adaptations!) I have spoken to someone at the BFI and they (and Imdb) only have records of one. Anybody know what's going on? Manicmarcus21 (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Manicmarcus21

Could someone please write what happened next in Day of the Triffids - how they got to Isle of Wight and then what? (Cuddyduck) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.95.138 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the sequel, by Simon Clark. Planetary (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Meteor Shower
I was reading through and noticed that nobody mentioned that the main character didn't think that it was a meteor shower that caused the blinding. I'm not sure if this is worth noting or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.99.88 (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge rasio show page here
Just not enough information for it to be stand-alone. Rich Farmbrough, 04:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 11 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joereadel. Peer reviewers: Deepfinessed, Glebbos. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) ExtorcDev (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

– There are four entries listed upon The Day of the Triffids (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the novel's notability exceeds the combined renown of the remaining three entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * The Day of the Triffids → The Day of the Triffids (novel)
 * The Day of the Triffids (disambiguation) → The Day of the Triffids
 * Oppose. This article is the |The_Day_of_the_Triffids_(film)|The_Day_of_the_Triffids_(2009_TV_series)|The_Day_of_the_Triffids_(1981_TV_series) most-viewed here by a fair amount, covers every one of the adaptations, and the book is regarded as a sci-fi classic (the adaptations don't have such renown). No compelling reason to move the page. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comment. The novel is the WP:primary topic. - Station1 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per traffic, per significance, and per the article which itself acts as a pointer to other articles for the adaptations. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nohomersryan, the novel has 46,846 views, the film has 17,810, the 2009 TV series has 8,704 and the 1981 TV series has 5,329 and the novel is the original meaning so its probably reasonable to say its primary.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  18:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)