Talk:Flowers for Algernon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Novels WikiProject.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 GA Review and suggestions 2 Possible sources 3 Contradiction 4 IQ?

[edit] GA Review and suggestions

It appears a second opinion was requested on this article, and I'm offering mine. I think the article needs to be expanded, and the best way to do this is by doing some more research. Specifically, the Themes and Style sections should be expanded and perhaps a Characters section added to discuss the changes the characters exhibit throughout the story. You seem to have print references, which are good, but I would like to see Bookrags replaced with more scholarly journal articles. I wouldn't consider Bookrags a sufficient source for literary analysis. Try a public library and see what you can get there. If you can't find much, visit a college or university library - you may not need to be a student or staff to read there and make photocopies. Ask the librarian for the MLA database of literary critique - that will give you a list of articles relating to the story and novel. You'll have to hunt those down and you may not be able to find them all, but if you find a few, they will be helpful.

So from a GA standpoint, what I'm asking you to do is add more content - a significant amount, so this would make the article inherently unstable. I would de-nominate it and work on it for a while. If you would like my opinion while you're adding, I'll be happy to assist where I can. Good luck. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest in this. Someone else has made similar comments and I simply don't understand why this is being asked for as part of a GA nom. What it appears you are asking for is enough content to make it comprehensive and therefore FA status. To do this, I agree the themes and reception sections in particular need expanding. I've already done the reasearch and there isn't much more to say about style. I just don't currently have the time to collate that research into the themes and reception sections at the moment.

So, I'm happy to admit the article is not "finished". My difficulty is in understanding how the article as it currently stands is not broad in scope within the meaning of the GA criteria. The themes section, for example, mentions the three major themes that come up in the different texts I've read (bookrags not being my primary source, I hasten to add, it's just useful for confirming pot details). The article doesn't go into those themes in detail, but that only means it's not comprehensive. In summary, the article is broad, just not refined, and is therefore GA level (in my view), just not FA level. GDallimore (Talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the joy of Wikipedia peer and project reviews. Many editors have different ideas about what qualifies as a GA, despite the criteria being spelled out (we would think) pretty clearly. Novels are particularly difficult to do because each one is so different. I would look at other GA novels such as Crime and Punishment, Watership Down (that was just passed as GA), Fight Club, and I, the Supreme. If you think I'm wonky - that's ok because I am. But I would ask the particular opinions of User:Scartol, User:WillowW, User:jbmurray, and User:Awadewit. Their specialties are novels - I just wrote one really, reaallly long article about a single novel. If you haven't asked WP:NOVELS and WP:LIT, ask them as well. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another bit of info that might be useful in fleshing out the article: is there any more information on what particular aspects of the novel have led to its being challenged in schools? You mention that it was called "filthy and immoral" but there is not much in the description that seems like it would draw that criticism. Dozenthey (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot in the Hill reference, which is fortunately an online ref. Makes for an interesting read and covers a lot of ground that will be useful for the reception section as a whole as well as some historic background on the themes, particularly the whole treatment of the disabled thing. GDallimore (Talk) 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The last comment here was made a week ago; is the GAC review still happening? The initial review was never actually made, so I'm confused. Is it on hold? On a side note, I'd like to agree with Moni in that the BookRags refs have got to go; it's not a verifiable source and therefore goes against policy (WP:V) much in the same way that Sparknotes does. If simple plot details need to be cited, then use the novel/short story instead. María (habla conmigo) 18:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a good question, and I'm not sure how to answer it. It is my opinion that the book is not ready for GA. I advised GDallimore to contact some editors (of which Maria should have been included), and a few edits have been made to the article but not on the scale that I would like to see. However, another editor found it sufficient, so it seems the article is in limbo at this point. --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aw, I forgive you. :) Technically, a "first" review was never done, so I would consider you the reviewer, Moni. A passing "I think it's excellent" doesn't necessarily constitute a quality review, so grain of salt, etc. If you don't think it's ready for GA (and, for what it's worth, I agree), perhaps it shouldn't be promoted at this time. I notice it's still up for Peer Review at WikiProject Novels; perhaps we can ask some of the illustrious reviewers you mentioned above to make some comments there? I would certainly contribute a thorough review, as well. For now, the article is simply not ready and so would require significant time, which GDallimore has already stated they don't have, and energy. So, to sum up: I suggest withdrawing the nom and getting a group of trustworthy folk to help. María (habla conmigo) 19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still yet to receive what I view to be a sensible answer as to why it's not GA ready. The reviewer said bits of it are too short, I explained why they are sufficient for GA and the reviewer essesntially said: you don't understand GA, which isn't very polite or helpful.

The themes section is a case in point: GA requires the article to be broad in coverage. That's exactly what the section is: broad - mentioning the major themes although not going into them in detail. FA requires it to be comprehensive, which it is not, so it's not FA ready.

The suggestion that Sparknotes is not a reliable source is laughable I'm afraid - it's a published book on the topic. It may be straightforward because it's aimed at schoolkids but that doesn't make it unreliable. Bookrags is verifiably accurate for the things it's being used for (confirming details in the book, as well as backing up statements from other sources) and is a necessary (nay, vital) source because it's online and because of the endless edit warring that there has been over Charlie's age and job caused by the fact that the novel and short story are not identical. Lots of school kids come and edit this article having only read the short story, it seems.

GDallimore (Talk) 09:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why you are so combative, GDallimore. In my opinion, the article does not cover all bases yet. It is neither comprehensive or broad. Honestly, asserting that one sentence makes for a high quality, encyclopedic account of thematic elements in a novel is just absurd. Nothing in that one sentence is qualified or explained, and I see this issue throughout the article. The Sparknotes or Bookrags websites (as well as the so-called "books" that stem from them) are not reliable sources as they have not been written by reliable third-party publications -- see WP:RS. Any wacko can publish a book; that you can buy it on Amazon.com does not make it notable. Additional scholarship from reliable publications is what is needed. Internet sources are not "vital"; I have no idea where you got that from, because it's certainly not guideline or policy. Plot details can be cited from the book itself, as I stated before, and "other sources" can be cited once they are found. In short, this article requires more work and I would not condone it being promoted to GA-class at this time. I've offered my help and Moni has supplied some great ideas, so what do you say to our suggestions? María (habla conmigo) 12:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think your article is GA class and perhaps ready to go on to FAC, you might want to check out the article on The Hobbit and its Featured Article Candidacy. That article is not ready for FA at all, though it has been passed as A class. I understand your initial resistance. I worked like a dog (so I thought) to get To Kill a Mockingbird to GA, to find my work had only begun when I tried to nominate it for FA. I was very resistent to the suggestion that I needed to expand it - the way the article appears now, is twice as long as it was when it passed GA. However, the way the article is now is quite possibly the most comprehensive collection of information on the book, and around 140,000 people read it a month. If you enjoy Flowers for Algernon - and I quite understand if you do because I think it's quite a stirring piece of writing - honor it by devoting as much time and effort to the story that you can. Your respect for this piece of literature should not parallel Sparknotes and Bookrags, it should put those sources to shame. We're here to help you do it.

You have two editors' suggestions about what to do. There is no shame in de-nominating it for GA and working on it some more to bring it back later. If you insist that this is as complete as it needs to be, I am inclined to fail the article for lack of comprehensiveness. Let me know what you think. --Moni3 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not being combative to tell you I don't agree with your opinion, Maria, particularly when you seem to be missing the point entirely. Spark is an established study guide. Your suggestion they are not reliable is simply ridiculous. Utlimately, it's a book that is seen to appeal primarily to children and the only sources that discuss it in depth are study guides. To Kill a Mockingbird is therefore a completely false comparison because Algernon simply has not received the same level of literary analysis. Merely because there is no detailed academic study of this book does not mean a good article cannot be made from the sources that are available. If that's your requirement, then you're judging the article by the quality of the third party studies that have been done on it, not the quality of the article itself in using the sources that are available.

The Rag web references is vital to prevent edit warring but not to the content of the article, as I explained. Please actually read what I'm saying. Looks like you also need to read GAN. Nowhere is there a requirement for comprehensiveness. You also don't seem to understand that broad, which is the GA requirement, is different from deep.

The only suggestions I've had are to expand the article, to which I have repeatedly agreed. That's not the point. The point is, such expanstion is not required for GA status in view of the wording of the GA guidelines. If you really want to fail it, fine. Fail it. But your reasons for failing it have not been explained beyond "this article could be better" which is not a valid or helpful reason. GDallimore (Talk) 13:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting us nowhere. I won't debate the reliability of two highly disparaged cliff notes websites, but WP:RS and WP:V makes it clear where true scholarly sources can be found. This article should be better. According to MLA there are untapped resources that could potentially be used to improve it, so what's the problem? Why not begin expanding and updating as per prior suggestions instead of merely arguing? María (habla conmigo) 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping the nominator would think again about improving the article. I'm removing the GA nomination instead of failing the article. I hope to see this article at GA again in the future. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sources

• Clareson, Thomas D. Understanding Contemporary American Science Fiction: The Formative Period (1926-1970). Columbia, S.C. University of South Carolina, 1992.
  • Found via NetLibrary, pages 231-233 have interesting connections between Flowers and Frankenstein, its place in Science Fiction, etc.
• Foerstel, Herbert N. Banned in the U.S.A.: A Reference Guide to Book Censorship in Schools and Public Libraries. Westport, Conn. Praeger, 2002.
  • NetLibrary, page 231 on goes into great detail about controversy surrounding the book as well as "selected challenges" it faced.
• Kelleghan, Fiona. Classics of Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature. Pasadena, Calif. Salem Press, 2002.
  • NetLibrary, pages 216-218 have summary and history of publication.

Searching for more... María (habla conmigo) 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Monomyth in Daniel Keyes's Flowers for Algernon: Keyes, Campbell, and Plato By: Palumbo, Donald; Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 2004 Winter; 14 (4 [56]): 427-46. (journal article)
• Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes By: Small, Robert, Jr.. pp. 249-55 IN: Karolides, Nicholas J. (ed.); Burress, Lee (ed.); Kean, John M. (ed.); Censored Books: Critical Viewpoints. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow; 1993. xxvi, 498 pp. (book article)
• More Flowers for Algernon By: Williams, Paul; New York Review of Science Fiction, 1989 Apr; 8: 5-6. (journal article)
• Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon (1966) By: Heuermann, Hartmut. pp. 275-94 IN: Heuermann, Hartmut (ed. & pref.); Der Science-Fiction-Roman in der Angloamerikanischen Literatur: Interpretationen. Düsseldorf: Bagel; 1986. 399 pp. (book article)
• Hibiki to Ikari to Algernon ni Hanataba o: Giho to Monogatarisei By: Yamakawa, Etsuki. pp. 311-324 IN: Phoenix o Motomete: Eibei Shosetsu no Yukue. Tokyo: Nan'undo; 1982. 460 pp. (book article) (I'll be ok if you forego that one.)

Searching... --Moni3 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks guys/ladies. I see my problem - doubt I'll be able to get hold of any of those without heading to the British Library... Guess I'll just have to give up. GDallimore (Talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The synopsis of the short story contradicts itself and is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.36.242 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this encyclopedia, so do correct errors like this when you see them. I see the edit I assume you are referring to has since been reverted. So all is now fine! GDallimore (Talk) 11:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IQ?

Was Charlie's IQ 68 or 70 in the beginning of the novel? In an earlier entry it is 68, though 70 is used later on. OrangeAipom (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference to 70 later on is just an off-hand remark, whereas the value of 68 early on is the result from an actual test, so I think it's correct to say 68. From the perspective of mental retardation, I think it's important that his IQ is below 70, since that was a boundary for officially being classified "mildly retarded" according to some work just before the short story was published. GDallimore (Talk) 11:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On page 7 of my edition (a Bantam paperback, but numbering is possibly the same in any edition) Charlie says he has an "eye-Q of 68". On page 88 he mentions having an IQ of 185, which was, I think, the peak. --JayHenry (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)