Talk:On the Beach (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Odd how the characters all seem to miss the incredibly important fact that they have access to a *NUCLEAR SUBMARINE*, which can remain underwater for years and wait out the effects of the fallout. --StarKruzr 02:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good except that they don't have either food or air for the years needed for the fallout to either drop in radioactivity or fall out of the atmosphere and do so in such a manner that allows them to safely come ashore, grow food, and survive. Even then, assuming they brought enough women, there's the risk of dying out from loss of people or through genetic faults either induced by radiation or innate already (read up on Founder Effect.). Deathbunny 05:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case why don't they spend the last couple of months building large underground bunkers, or convert coal mines in which they could shelter from the radiation, rather than mucking about as they do? Anybody in a well built bunker with enough food should be able to survive for quite a time.


THE POINT OF THE STORY ISN'T "THE END OF THE WORLD", IT'S HOW PEOPLE DEAL WITH THE END OF THE WORLD

First off, to comment on the previous comment, the novel says the bombing was done with hydrogen-cobalt weapons, which would leave deadly fallout for a long, long time. Underground shelters would be about as useful as those drills in elementary school when you practiced hiding under your desk.

The problem with this article is that it mentions only in passing what is the most important issue in the book, namely the fact that Commander Towers maintains his strength and his ability to function by believing in an alternate reality, i.e. the reality that his home and family are still there in Connecticut, where he's sure he's going to return "when all this blows over". As Towers boards his ship for the last time, he and Moira promise to meet in Connecticut, and they're not pretending, even though he knows he's going down with his ship and he's certainly not in denial about what's going on. At the dock, Moira asks how much time it will take him to actually sink the ship. He answers her question, and she follows on her wristwatch because she knows that's when he'll be heading back to Connecticut. Her last words are "Dwight, if you're on your way already, wait for me."

This triumph of the human will - remaining in one's right mind in an impossible situation - is the whole point of the story. Indeed, in many ways, the real climax of the novel is the fishing trip, in which Towers makes sure that he and Moira register in separate rooms. He keeps trying to make sure she "won't be hurt", but poor Moira! This is the first man she's really loved in her whole life of lushing and casual sex, and yet she has to keep herself stoic -- Towers feels that any consummation of the relationship would be a smutty little episode of "cheating", and by golly, he's been faithful to his wife up til now and isn't about to blow it at a time like this! (Film director Kramer, of course, changed that because "the film needs some sex" and because "nobody would believe it" if Towers remained a straight arrow. To their credit, Ava Gardner and Gregory Peck told Kramer he was wrong, for all the good it did them.)

And taking the sub out to sink her isn't "pointless", despite what the article says, because if Towers stopped following his code, allowing his ship go to pot and his crew to wander off, he'd be like the dying patient at the hospice who knows he'll be dead in a week so he stops shaving, bathing and changing clothes - just goes silly instead, not even remaining alive until he's dead. That's not for Towers. He doesn't end his life with a whimper, even if the "world" does.

[edit] Infobox placement

In case anyone's wondering (and I'll bet you aren't, but oh well), I placed the "Novels Infobox" over the "Films Infobox" simply because the novel appeared first. Given the apparent differences between the novel and the film(s), they should get seperate articles, IMHO. I'd consider splitting them myself, except I've neither read the novel nor seen the film. The book is on my to-read list, at least... -- Antepenultimate 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OnTheBeach(1stEd).jpg

Image:OnTheBeach(1stEd).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 Wikipedia: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 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)