Talk:Flowers for Algernon

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I don't think 185 was the peak.  An IQ of 185 is very high, but there are plenty of "exceptional" people who exceed it.  (E.g. Stephen Hawking's IQ is reputed to be in the 190s.)  An IQ score is a measure of where a person fits within the normal human range -- it would have been meaningless for Charlie.  I assumed that 185 was the score he achieved in the last test he took before the lab stopped trying to measure his IQ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.142.124 (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, Charlie's IQ peak was in the 200's. After the operation, his IQ was supposed to have been tripled, which means it should be somewhere around 204.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.14.110 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IQ? 

message: Did anybody know anything about Alzheimer's disease when the book was written? 68.32.48.59 (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Alzheimer's disease article makes it clear that although research on the disease began in the start of the 20th century, it was not until the 70s that it was realized that dementia in the elderly was not essentially different than dementia in younger folk. So that was discovered after the book was written. --Rpresser 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alzheimer's 

message: I did not put this in the article, but it is strongly implied that Charley is aware of his own death and is telling everyone in his final entry not to worry. The book's title also makes sense in his final line, which is also his last wish: "If anywun is reeding this pleeze put some flowers on Algernon's grave in the bak yard". This means that Charley knows whatever happens to Algernon is going to happen to him. USN1977 (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a slight implication in the short story, but it's certainly not a strong implication in the novel where Charlie specifically decides to move back to the home - which would be silly if he thought he was about to die. Ultimately, if there are any sources that discuss this apparent implication then they could be used to expand the themes section: theme of fear of death, perhaps, or how the novel has been interpreted? GDallimore (Talk) 10:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi. The point is that any and all such interpretation requires a reliable source. The plot summary is just that - a summary of the plot as set out in the book, with no personal interpretation. Adding stuff about an implicit death wish would be WP:Original research unless a reliable source can be found which discusses this intepretation. GDallimore (Talk) 09:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The key word there is "implication". It's not explicit and therefore discussion of this point needs to be based on reliable sources dissecting the themes of the book: something I have had a hard time finding. GDallimore (Talk) 20:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charley's Death? 

message: Tina Fey reference Flowers during her interview by Terry Gross on the November 3, 2008 edition of Fresh Air.  It is made quickly, at approximately 6:45 minutes in the interview.  I had not heard of this short or novel before, and did not quite understand the reference.==:'(==
This story has a really sad, and depressing ending.--Jumpman Jordan (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference by Tina Fey during November 3, 2008 interview on Fresh Air 

message: One of the acts of Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest is entitled "Flowers for Algernon".  Is this a coincidence?  If not, perhaps the article should mention it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably is since the character in the book was named after Algernon Swinburne. GDallimore (Talk) 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Oscar Wilde? 

message: I'm throwing this idea out there for anyone who wants to run with it and see if there is indeed any published research/criticism that meets Wikipedia's citation standards: is there any research on whether the point in the book about Charley at the end, that "despite regressing to his former self, he still remembers that he was once a genius" actually occurs in real life in brain injury patients (or Alzheimer's)?  Currently this would be in the "reverse" direction of Charley (regression, without any "memory of improvement) - as there are very few workable treatments for brain injury or Alzheimer's that can produce major improvements, with the possible (some would say probable) exception of HBOT - although major improvements is undeniable in a few anecdotes - which implies that something may be going on biologically in many if not all patients treated, but of course proves nothing.  Rockswold 2010 ("A prospective, randomized clinical trial to compare the effect of hyperbaric to normobaric hyperoxia on cerebral metabolism, intracranial pressure, and oxygen toxicity in severe traumatic brain injury." J Neurosurg. 2010 ) suggests that significant biological changes occur, at least if HBO treatment is applied early enough.
A very few anecdotes of late improvement (Neubauer 2005, case studies, not in peer reviewed journal) raise the possibility of increased awareness of the state of brain injury and mental disability itself, as do other anecdotes.  This question may come up in reference to the field of nootropics as well, and in the (possibly questionable) field of biological/metabolic treatment and "recovery" from autism.  Until someone runs a very very large case series on all parents pursuing this treatment - indeed until someone figures out *how* to run such a series on a protocol that by its nature cannot be controlled as it depends on changes in the protocol based on results - whether such recovery happens remains an open question as far as mainstream literature.  However, there are several claimed anecdotes of children who have recovered, and have given their own impressions of their own recovery.
If stem-cell or other biologic/cellular therapy for brain injury become available in the future, this may further will become a "real question" (primary soure] Ning Zhang, Honghai Yanb and Xuejun Wen. “Tissue-engineering approaches for axonal guidance.” Brain Res Rev 2005. 49(1): 48-64; [secondary source] “Gel heal injured brain and bone.” (secondary source) Eric Bland 2009. at http://news.discovery.com/tech/brain-injury-gel.html (accessed November 3, 2010)).
Is anyone else aware of whether this has been explored in a scholarly criticism, that might add something to the article?
216.9.143.231 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real world implications - "remembering who you were" for mentally disabled, brain injury/Alzheimer's treatment 

message: I get a lot of use out of wikipedia, so I am disappointed by the tone throughout this Talk page.  It seems to me the standards for Novels should be comparable to the rest of wikipedia, but I get the feeling that some of those posting are treating prose as a rarefied domain.  
re: stories that followed this one, especially on film. Flowers for Algernon was groundbreaking, if not the first story of its kind.  It gave a boost to the science fiction genre, helping to expand the mainstream perception of what the genre could do.  Cliff Robertson won an Oscar for this role, a very rare instance of an s.f. film winning a non-technical Oscar.
I don't see the problem with noting that certain films have used a similar plot; Keyes's story was particularly influential (and to say this could promote a lawsuit seems over-the-top).  In addition to Lawnmower Man (1992), other films with similar stories include The Outer Limits "The Sixth Finger" (broadcast a few years after the story's publication, and before the movie Charly) and Molly (1999), and the based-on-truth Awakenings (1990).  Most people seeing any of these films would be reminded of Keyes's work, or vice versa: all of them mine drama and poignancy from a central character who becomes more intelligent or aware, then regresses.  The article doesn't have to list every example; it could note that the story broke ground and mention a few of the major stories/films that followed. ProfessorAndro (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia standards across all articles require reliable sources. It's that simple. GDallimore (Talk) 16:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Actually "The Sixth Finger" is based on "The Man Who Evolved" by Edmond Hamilton, first published in 1931, pre-dating Keyes' work by over 2 decades. Leonardo da VinciTalk 02:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenge to the above, especially exclusion of films influenced by 

message: Several of the items appearing in the list of Adaptations were not adaptations, but either were works that were connected to Flowers only via the use of a similar plot device or which were parodies of the original work.  None of them were sourced (except for the Star Trek one, which was sourced only to IMDB, and even that non-reliable source made no mention of any linkage between the television episode and Flowers for Algernon).  I also moved the item about the modern-dance piece from the Adaptations section to the Inspirations section.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed they are not adaptations per se, but they do seem to belong under Inspirations so I placed them there, also added NewsRadio. Didn't have any better sources to add. Puppykhan (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Puppykhan doesn't seem to be with us anymore, but I'll comment on his actions here anyway.  The discussion above (under the "Lawnmower Man" section) remains as relevant today as it was eight years ago.  We really do need to be sourcing these "inspired by" statements.  Having said that, I'll concede that if a television episode has a similar plot line and has the title "Flowers for ...", then we can wait awhile for a source to appear.  However, this doesn't apply to the Simpsons and Star Trek episodes.  I've added a source for the Simpsons (in which the scriptwriter explicitly links the episode to "Flowers").  But there is no such source for the Star Trek episode; even the IMDB cite doesn't make the connection.  So I've removed it.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of some "adaptations" 

message: @User:Zero Serenity, @User:Fefu, @User:LowLevel73, @User:LtNOWIS, @User:GDallimore  Hello, all.  I've pinged you because, over the years, each of you have weighed in on the question of whether Gordon worked in a factory or a bakery.  I recognize that this is a minor point, but the article keeps going through the occasional "improvement" of having the place of employment changed from one to the other.  In all likelihood, the confusion exists because the place of employment varies according to the particular version of the work (i.e., short story, novel, movie, television presentation, etc.).  I think the best way to put a stop to these "improvements" is to place a statement in the flush language at the start of the "Synopsis" section, stating that some details in the story vary according to the version and then explicitly stating that the place of employment is one of those details.  But before I do that, I want to get my facts straight.  Would each of you be so kind as to weigh in on precisely which version you were looking to, and what that version actually said about the place of employment?  I'll get the ball rolling by saying that the version that I own is the English-language short story and that it has Gordon working at the Donnegan Plastic Box Company.  Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the short story its a factory and in the movie its a bakery. I go with the original version. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 03:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of employment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flowers for Algernon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605082209/http://www.sfwa.org/awards/archive/pastwin.htm to http://www.sfwa.org/awards/archive/pastwin.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151006051106/http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/fashion-and-entertainment/hollywood-exclusive/a-talk-with-the-simpsons-al-jean-on-the-show-s-25th-anniversary-season.html to http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/fashion-and-entertainment/hollywood-exclusive/a-talk-with-the-simpsons-al-jean-on-the-show-s-25th-anniversary-season.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the novel and adaptation he worked at "Donner's Bakery" but in the short story, which I have a copy in front of me says he worked at "Donnegan's Plastic Box Company" but the article for the short story still says he works at a bakery. Although it's minor I think it's something that should be corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Movie Fan (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where he works in the story vs. novel and adaptation.