Talk:This Perfect Day

Changes
Changed this sentence:

"People are continually drugged by means of regular injections so that they can never realize their potential as free agents.

Removed the links around "free agent" as that article is about professional sports.

On a different note, I am sorry to see that the novel is out of print. Given the popularity of Levin's other works, I am surprised that no one has tried to adapt this one, despite the obvious technical and narrative obstacles. It seems well suited to perhaps a cable mini-series. User:Ellsworth 22:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellsworth (talk • contribs) 17:36, June 25, 2004

Too pedantic
I don't want to appear too pedantic, but I believe this way of referring to a work of art is only used if the first word is an article (but not a demonstrative pronoun).  23:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

KF, yes my bad. Fixed. Cburnett 23:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heir ideology
"heir ideology seems to be basically communist," That seems limited to me, rather I would say the ideology totalitarian. Criteria as uniformity, equality, oppression etc are as much reminding of fascism as they are of communism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.112.138 (talk • contribs) 14:30, April 18, 2005

Brother-fighter!
'''Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei '''Led us to this perfect day.  '''Marx, Wood, Wei and Christ '''All but Wei were sacrificed. '''Wood, Wei, Christ and Marx  '''Gave us lovely schools and parks. '''Wei, Christ, Marx and Wood '''Made us humble, made us good.

&mdash; child's rhyme for bouncing a ball

I wrote that from memory. I believe I have read this book at least 6 times in its entirety. I'm shocked to see this classic technocratic novel so poorly treated. Compare such unbalanced yet still popular efforts as Logan's Run and THX 1138. This Perfect Day deserves better, and I shall provide. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 07:10, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
 * Go for it, dude!. I tried to do what I could but I haven't cracked the book in about 20 years. Ellsworth 20:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

A quote from the article: "...This Perfect Day is more finely crafted and subtle". Isn't "finely crafted" non-neutral? Don't get me wrong, I'm very fond of this novel (I usually hate dystopic fiction, in part because so depressingly little of it qualifies as science fiction, but I like this one a lot), but such direct praise bothers me. It belongs in reviews, not in (more or less) encyclopedic articles. Wouldn't it be better to change it to: "...This Perfect Day is subtler"?--Peter Knutsen 16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hereby implemented. --Peter Knutsen 11:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Harrison Bergeron has practically nothing to do with This Perfect Day, therefore I am removing that link from the See Also section (yeah, I know they're both dystopic science fictions, but that's insufficient common ground). I'd have reverted the change, except I don't know how to do that. --Peter Knutsen 11:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On a slightly related note, I saw that the Harrison Bergeron page is tagged as 'Category:Dystopian fiction' while this page is not, meaning that it's hard to find one story from the other. I thought this was a problem, so I added Dystopian fiction to This Perfect Day. Now it's listed both under Dystopian novels and under Dystopian fiction, since it fits in both. --Kadin2048 06:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert Wood
I'd hate to have to defend this without the benefit of the text open before me -- but:

I agree that the back-character of Wood is not well-developed. Wei is shown clearly as the pioneer of "chemotherapy" -- that is, mass drugging of the people. Christ and Marx are, of course, historical figures. The former contributes the value of meekness while the latter justifies the extreme socialism of Levin's dystopia.

I do believe that Wood is the force behind UniComp -- he is the archetypical technocrat who maintains that men are unable to govern themelves. Therefore, a machine must be built to govern them. John Reid 11:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Beverages
The article states that "Everyone... drinks coke". That is not correct. There are two drinks to chose from. Children and teenagers are depicted as drinking "coke", whereas adults are depicted as drinking tea. It is not clear whether this is legally enforced (in the sense that Uni would refuse an adult's request for a coke, or a young person's request for a container of tea) or merely a deeply ingrained custom.--Peter Knutsen 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

UTOPIA NOT DYSTOPIA

"The world is ruled by a central computer called UniComp which has been programmed to keep every single human on the surface of the earth in check. People are continually drugged by means of regular injections so that they can never realize their potential as humans."

No, no, no. Oh dear. What a dreadful misunderstanding. It is not a dystopia, it is a utopia. Wei does say there is a joy in power but so would any politician. The comparison with Stalin is ludicrous - he murdered millions. The comparison with communism is not altogether inappropriate but members are happy. Everybody. They like each other; "fight" is an embarassing swear-word and is never done. That's not communism. Uni does not keep people "in check". POV!!! Uni looks after people; members show their bracelet to a bracelet machine so Uni knows at all times where they are. Everyone is well fed, clothed and cared for - everyone even has a personal counselor. Uni FREES members to develop their full potential. Are you seriously claiming that that miserable, grubbing, quarrelsome, remnant outlaw society on Majorca lets people realize their potential?

You think I have put a POV in that last paragraph? It is a less distorting POV than the sentences from the article that I quoted. Like everyone else, I don't have it in front of me but I rather think my para is what the book portrays. Right? Not an interpretation so much as a paraphrase of the book's content.

Understand, this is not a wealthy society. For example, it would (and easily) have the technology for facial recognition or other means of detection so the bracelet business could be obviated. Why is it there? Is it something Levin didn't quite think through? Not at all - there is no need; the bracelets are fine because members are happy to use them and it's cheap. I recall pondering the book for days (and re-reading) and concluding that every little thing had been thought through and was reasonable with one single exception: that Uni would be physically in one place (which he required for the plot). Other than that, it seems to be perfectly constructed - and gripping to boot.

Of course, if you are a paranoid individualist, you think that people are being controlled but that's not how members see it. Odd-balls like Chip and Karl, of course, are just a little too difficult even for Uni's highly advanced medical knowledge. So if not very carefully monitored they become unhappy and then they are disruptive and, of course, not content till they have made everyone else as unhappy as they are.

Talk about the pursuit of happiness - you don't know it when you see it! (Don't thank me, thank Uni.) _ Pepper 150.203.227.130 09:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreflected Suggestions
I see a number of requested changes stated on this Talk page that have not been reflected to the actual article. I would be happy to incorporate them as well as a some of my own suggestions to make the article of this work of art "more complete". Any objections, questions, comments? --Knssilm 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Knssilm, hop into it and take out the individualist bias. Levin cleverly made the book ambivalent and saying things like "Uni keeps people in check" is quite one-sided. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 11:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture
This book is shown in the TV show "Travelers", Season 1 Episode 8 ("Donner") in the nineteenth minute when guidance counselor Grace gives Trevor (Traveler 0115) a copy to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pellegrina8 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add the "The Giver" to the see also list and want to know if too many others would object?
The Giver is a lot like this book. So much so that it parallels many features of the plot. As soon as I started reading this book, the first thing I associated with was The Giver (novel and movie). Minus a few key points, there's a lot the two have in common and I believe it belongs in the "See Also" section of the page. Sabriel (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)