Talk:Flowers for Algernon/Archive 1

Archive 1

TV/Film References and Allusions

Before removing anything, would like some response: i don't think phenomenon, with john travolta, should be included in the film adaptation section because A- while i see the similarities there are some fundamental story and even genre differences: algernon is arguably a sci-fi novel, while phenomenon is arguably a science fantasy film (i.e., the psychic/telekinetic powers); and the overall story line is different, the only similarities being a man increases his intelligence/mental powers and then dies (and it's even unclear in the novel that charly actual does die). the john travolta character doesn't even actually ever loose his new abilities in the film, he just dies. and finally B- how can we call it a adaptation when keyes is never mentioned by name, given a credit, or referenced in any way to the movie (this argument, 'B,' also applies to the adaptation reference Molly, with elizabeth shue, as keyes is never offically credited in the film, however, it is pretty obvious that this movie is based on algernon; though i would still put it in the 'allusions' section as it is not a straight adaptation)?

now, about allusions: in the implicit (i'm not even sure why there is an implicit/explicit section) section is a reference to a 1971 theatrical production. now, a theatrical production of flowers for algernon is not only NOT an implicit allusion, not an explicit allusion, its a straight up adaptation. suggestion the whole allusions area be retooled into something like cultural influences and such, including adaptations and 'allusions.'

--65.113.35.130 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I removed a redundant Ghost in the Shell reference. 128.194.34.104 05:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A pepper of quotes from the story might liven up an otherwise excellent article. Is it OK to put a small amount of copywrite material in as a quote ? Theresa knott 10:13 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Many moons later: I'm pretty sure a short quote or two would count as fair use. Lee M 02:45, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The page says Algernon was a rat. I can't check it now, but wasn't it a mouse actually? (anon)

Fixed, though not by me. The article now says "mouse". HereToHelp 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone got a problem with adding the kissing scene?

I added in the scene where he kisses his teacher on the mouth. I do not even remember if it is only in the movie. Can someone help me here? I imagine that this was one of the reasons the story/movie had such problems being accepted in schools. Andysocky 05:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

He never kissed his teacher in the book or play so I assume it was only in the film. It had such trouble being accepted (i'd say) because of charlie's mental disorder.

As a general suggestion, it is best to use the original work in the summary. for instance, The Phantom of the Opera has been made into myriad adaptations, but the plot summary is of the book. So try to refrain to the novel. HereToHelp 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember any kissing part, but in the original book (book's right in front of me) Charlie has a 'relationship' with Fan and Alice. The original copy contains Charlie's sexual life and very personal feelings, and I think that was why it had such trouble being accepted in schools.

Yes he does kiss her in the playMelbrooksfan101 talk 06:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Two reasons how YOU know that Charlie Gordon changed

What are two reasons that support the fact that Charlie Gordon changed, other than by his progress reports?

Is it just me, or does this sound like a last ditch attempt to get information on the fly? Well, it certainly is unencyclopediadic (sp? feel free to correct) and I think it should be deleted. However, let's get a second opinion. If someone sees this and agrees, get rid of this. HereToHelp 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It sounds exactly like someone had homework due the next morning. Max22 02:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, funny. Right now my sophomore english class is reading this book, and that was one of the questions on a quiz we took a few days ago. I wonder if this has anything to do with that... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.32.114.91 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

God, why do they ask such stupid questions in school? It's bloody obvious why he changed, the REAL questions are about the significance of this or that.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The stub

I just want to say that I added the stub solely for the trivia section. Please do not remove it, but if you decide to do, remove the whole trivia section.

That's not how it works - stub warnings apply to the whole article, not to a section.

←Hob 19:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you very much. Jchillerup 19:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

32 or 37 years old

Google doesn't know (937 hits for 32)(682 hits for 37) which is weired. Was the age amended for different versions? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Depending on how you did your Google search, I think a more likely explanation is that lots of people on the Internet are just relaying third/fourth/20th-hand info from other Internet sources (such as us), and at some point an incorrect age got into one of those (such as us). I'll try to remember to look up the story next time I'm in the library. ←Hob 04:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

He is 32 year sold. I made the change. I have the book in front of me, and sparknotes.com agrees.

Another proof that he is indeed 32 years old is the excerpt from the book, available from amazon.com [1] (click on "more" in the first paragraph, just below the title of the book; you need a free Amazon account to browse the book). The age is in the first page of the book: "I am 32 yeres old and next munth is my birthday". Razvan Socol 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's odd -- I have a copy of the short story in front of me, and the line verbatim is: "My name is Charlie Gordon. I am 37 years old. I have nuthing more to rite now so I will close for today." Kodius Champion 01:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this sheds some light onto the problem... I've modified the page to contain both ages. Razvan Socol 05:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a compy of the short story and the line from the book says: "Im 37 years old and two weeks ago was my birthday". Odd... Jesusfreak 22:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The copy I have right here says: "My name is Charlie Gordon. I am 37 years ols and 2 weeks ago was my birthday. I have nuthing more to rite now so I will close for today." It is the short story version (the original.) 70.113.85.225 22:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is now correct. He is 32 in the novel and 37 in the short story. Don't know why he was made younger - perhaps to make the fact that so many young women are attracted to him more believable. GDallimore (Talk) 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Coining new words

In the course of my editing, I replaced "sexuemotional" and "pubertic" - imaginative, but not exactly kosher. Clarityfiend 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you think the other words you used came into being? Someone was bold and put them into an encyclopedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Charlie was a janitor?

In the book, he worked in a bakery. I think it should be mentioned to avoid confusion.172.128.36.197 00:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)HelenBach

No, he was a janitor in a bakery. --ASDFGHJKL 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

He he he —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.196.115.179 (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

no, no, no, no. In the MOVIE he worked as a janitor in the bakery, but in the book he was a janitor at Donnegan's Plastic Box Company. 70.113.85.225 22:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup required

I had just finished reading Flowers for Algernon in English class today as a "short story". I wanted to know more about it, and I thought the place for information would be Wikipedia. Unfortunately, when I came, I was disgusted at the article. There were so many things that just weren't like Wikipedia in this article. Seeing as it is not something I could do alone due to my unrefined editor skills, I decided to mark this as something inappropriate so someone else could do the job. For those who are listening and would like to help, start reading:

Here are some uses of bias I found:

"This story is extremely effective because..."

"...that most people take for granted."

Title of one section: Surprising Controversy

Notice how almost none of the statements in these articles are cited. There is only one citation in the article, which is not done in Wikipedia style from what I know, anyway.

You can also see a note in a wrong section (in the Cultural References and Similar Works section) giving a link to a site listing the adaptions of Flowers for Algernon. This is in the wrong section and is improper.

Another point that I want to make is that there are multiple grammatical errors that I have noticed, but there are many of them and it's very spread out across the article, so I would recommend a good copy editor to help out in this matter, or any editor that can fix up an article well.

I thank you if you have the time to fix this up. --Xathis 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup tag today. I think the issues Xathis addresses here have been taken care of. Doctormatt 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Split

We already have an article for Charly. We should have these also:

• Flowers for Algernon (2000 film)
• Flowers for Algernon (radio play)
• Flowers for Algernon (musical)
• and one for the Japanese series under its Japanese title.
  

Anyone? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since they're all permutations of the same story under the same title (perhaps barring the Japanese series), I think it's probably appropriate to cover them under one article, with the film separate because of the title change and very different nature of a motion picture. A disambiguation page might be a better option if an article is written about the punk band of the same name. OneVeryBadMan 11:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Like all media adaptations, they can be covered under the source work until someone wants to split them off. But there's not really anything here about them to split. -- Beardo 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference to Oz character

I have removed the following from the "Allusions/references" section:

"*The Glass Cat of Lyman Frank Baum's Oz series initially possesses pink brains, of which she is insufferably proud. Although the Wizard of Oz, now a modest magician, makes her brains transparent in the effort to stimulate humility, this attempt wears off seemingly of its own accord."

Not only is this supposed allusion/reference not even remotely similar to Flowers for Algernon, it can't be an reference to this book. The series of Oz books written by Baum himself, including The Patchwork Girl of Oz, where the Glass Cat appeared, ended in 1920 with Glinda of Oz, released after Baum's death--and almost forty years before the original novelette version of Flowers for Algernon saw publication. -- Pennyforth 02:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia Section?

It seems to me most of the things in the trivia section have to do with someone who isn't smart get smarter, then realises about the negitives of him now being smart, and makes himself go back to his old self. Should this just be added to that just to point out in pop culture, this is what the book is mainly known for? --ASDFGHJKL 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be pointed out. I believe you are referring to the Allusions section, not the Trivia section? I don't think your comment added anything: people can read the descriptions of each of the items in the Allusions section themselves. Note that there is no similar comment on the Hamlet page, for example. Doctormatt 04:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the allusions section has some unrelated things. Maybe we should remove all of the things that don't mention it explicitly, (e.g. Algernon or Flowers for ___) VashiDonsk 01:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. It seems that a lot of the "allusions" refer to a placebo or Scarecrow situation, wherein a character simply believes they have normal or superior intelligence, and as a result is able to function above their normal level. In FFA, Charly's intelligence is actually improved, so these "allusions" really don't apply. I'll have the list soon if nobody else gets to it first. Doctormatt 02:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What I was trying to show in the Allusions section that for most, not all of the things in the section had a base on what I had said, which was,

It should be noted that most of these have to do with an artifical gain in intelligence, losing friends, then the person/thing taking away his new intelligence. --ASDFGHJKL 13:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Allusions section

I have removed the following, on the basis they are not necessarily linked, but just similar stories (several of these seem more likely based on the Laurel and Hardy film):

• The 1974 Doctor Who story Planet of the Spiders features a minor character named Tommy, initially mildly mentally retarded, whose intelligence is improved to normal and beyond by contact with an alien crystal.
• An episode of SpongeBob SquarePants, Patrick SmartPants, revolved around Patrick's being hit on his head after falling off a cliff and his head's replacement with brain coral, resulting in his becoming extremely intelligent, but deliberately going back to normal because of losing his relationship with SpongeBob.
• A similar storyline can be found in the film At First Sight, based on a story by Oliver Sacks, about a blind man who regains his sight but learns that he will eventually lose it again.
• Another similar film, "Awakenings (1990)," which stars Robin Williams as Dr. Malcolm Sayer, who tries to cure a patient Robert DeNiro, suffering from a form of comatose state (induced by brain damage caused by an encephalitis epidemic many years earlier). At first, the patient, under the doctor's drug cure, "awakens" from his statue-like state. But after a while, he develops seizures and mood disorders, and slowly reverts to his former state. Based on the non-fiction book Awakenings, by Dr. Oliver Saks.
• Pre-dating this story considerably is the Laurel & Hardy feature A Chump at Oxford in which Laurel receives a knock on the head and realizes that he is actually the brilliant academic and sportsman Lord Paddington. This inevitably causes a rift between the two friends, until a further knock on the head transforms Stan back to his normal stupidity.
• In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode The Nth Degree, Lieutenant Barclay's intelligence is elevated by aliens, enabling him to do incredible mental feats, but later these gifts are lost, leaving him unable to explain how he accomplished them.
• In The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, one episode, Sheen's Brain involves Jimmy using a brain-gain helmet on Sheen to make him smart for a test. The helmet goes out of control, and Sheen becomes super-smart- and manaiacal. He even develops telekinesis, and begins to call himself "Sheen, the god!" (which would be much more intimidating if it was not delivered in Sheen's usual nasal, whiny voice). However, he thus loses his friendship with Jimmy and Carl, and drains his brain to get it back.
• In the Transformers episode Grimlock's New Brain, the normally unintelligent character Grimlock becomes super-intelligent when hit by function-inverting anti-electrons. He later builds a new group of robots called the Technobots and transfers his newfound intelligence to them, causing him to revert back to his normal self.

-- Beardo 05:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• To try to help the long allusions section, I have split the references in, and those out, and split the latter between explicit references, and implicit.

In now strikes me the most of the implicit references comprise original research - someone thinking they see a similarity. As OR is not permitted, I have moved them here, until someone can find a verifiable reference to cite.

• The 1986 Stephen King short story "The End of the Whole Mess" is written in a similar first-person narrative style. In the story, the narrator also regresses to a mentally retarded state due to Alzheimers and cannot understand his previous writings.
• The 1992 film The Lawnmower Man features a plot seemingly inspired by Flowers for Algernon. In it, a scientist experimenting with a virtual reality program designed to make its subjects more intelligent uses a mentally challenged man as a test subject. The man acquires incredible abilities, including telekinetic powers, and the treatments begin to affect his mental stability and he takes brutal revenge on those who abused him when he was retarded. He believes the final stage of his evolution will be to become "pure energy" in cyberspace, and he plans to enter computer networks that reach into all the systems of the world. He eventually reverts to his former mentally retarded state in the sequel, Lawnmower Man 2.
• An episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force involved Meatwad getting a brain implant to become smarter. The brain was in fact a toy that Frylock had put into his head to make him feel smarter than he really was. When Meatwad's new "brain" caused him to become arrogant and overly obsessed with his own intellect, Frylock removed his new brain and revealed it to be fake. Meatwad lost confidence in his intellect and it was drained and he became stupid again.
• In 2004, an episode of the television series Century City had a plot line in which a formerly retarded man sues to keep the implant which had given him superior intelligence. It was discovered that the implants were causing their recipients to die.

• In the PC game World of Warcraft, in The Undercity there is a non-player character named Algernon holding a bouquet of Peaceblooms in front of the Alchemy trainer. The NPC in question is missing his left arm and is holding a dandelion in his right hand.
• In the 1999, 26-episode anime "Betterman," there is a sympton caused by an unknown factor, perhaps a virus or a mutation, named Algernon, which causes people to become barbaric, similar to Charlie's regression but more emotionally and on a much larger scale. Betterman also has so-called "Animus Flowers" that play significant role in the series.
• An episode of Rugrats involved Chuckie being used for an experiment involving a cure for the common cold. A lab rat was also used for the experiment. At the end of the episode, it was revealed that the experiment was a failure and Chuckie and the lab rat's colds returned.

• In Marvel Comics' Mutant X #24-25, the story behind how Hank McCoy, commonly known as the intelligent scientist, The Beast, (In Earth 616) ended up as The Brute on the Mutant X world. The theme was largely similar to the book when a psychic blot from the evil Prof. X resulted in Hank's intellect to be briefly restored, long enough for him to devise a way to send Havok back to his home world, i.e. 616. Towards the end of Episode 25, Hank came to the realisation that he would return back to the Brute and displayed a similar frustration as expressed by Charlie in his devolution state.

• I think there is a futurama episode which refers to this. It's the episode in which Professor Farnsworth creates a hat which boosts a monkey's intelligence. After an inner fight between his instincts and his super-intellegence, he decides not to wear the hat. By the end of the episode the hat is damaged, and ends up being not too smart and not too dumb. If someone can confirm this episode refers to this story, please modify it.

• The show Pinky and the Brain refers to "Flowers for Algernon" in the sense that it's about a laboratory mouse whose intellect has been artificially boosted. Though many other aspects of the cartoon are unrelated to "Flowers...", solely the fact that they decided to make the show obout mice and not some other species, is a direct reference to Algernon.

someone edit this i just want to help but theres a episode of the simpsons where homer has surgery to remove a crayon stuck in his brain out and becomes smart but loses his friends so he sticks it back in it's on season 12. just thought i'd help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.80.202 (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Algernon?

Can anyone back up my belief that Flowers for Algernon is the source of the name Algernon? Or does that name come from somewhere else prior to FFA? I ask because if FFA is the source of the name Algernon, then every mere use of the name Algernon is a reference/allusion to FFA, and hence needs no further referencing. Or maybe not. What do others think? Cheers, Doctormatt 04:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No - Algernon has been around a long time. -- Beardo 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See - for example - Biggles. One of his companions going back to the 1930s was called Algernon - Algy for short. -- Beardo 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Great - thanks for the info. So the name Algernon by itself is not a reference to FFA. Good to know. Cheers, Doctormatt 07:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Algernon Blackwood - born 1869. Algernon Sydney - born 1623. It's now a name most likely to be found in the British upper classes. -- Beardo 07:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And deceased guiney mice, off course -- 83.161.54.29 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But they're dead. -- Beardo 05:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Apropos of the above topic, the word "Algernon" redirects here--seeing as there are lots of people named Algernon, shouldn't there be a disambig link at the top of the page, at least? 216.52.69.217 17:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems the solution is to create a page for Algernon the given name. Anyone want to make one? Doctormatt 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

DOO DO HEAD- SOUJA BOY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.136.2 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Epistolary?

Is the novel epistolary? I've never read it, but I thought I heard that it was. —  MusicMaker5376 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)