Talk:Atomised

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Time frame

the historical setting of the plot is wrong in the text, the plot is mostly 1950-60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, only the epilogue is set later

Responding to the unsigned, undated comment above : the chapters narrating events from earlier decades occupy a short portion of the novel, mainly at the begining, and in a few flashbacks. The bulk of the story happens in the last years of the 20th century, starting from Michel Djerzinski taking a sabbatical year at the age of 40.

Transhumanism

There desperately needs to be a reference in this entry to the epilogue's transhumanism which the author either intends as an admirable scenario or (hopefully) as a horrific dystopia, along with a link to the wiki entry for transhumanism to show readers that there are in fact people today who desire the kind of scenario in the epilogue (people who need to be intellectually defeated, IMO) Wigglestrue (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading this comment, I just corrected / completed the article, adding in particular (almost 10 years later !) a paragraph which evokes this (very important indeed) aspect of the novel. English isn't my first language (french here), thus, although I tried my best to avoid any grammar mistake and write natural-sounding sentences, it should be verified by a native speaker.

To answer the comment above : it is not clear whether the author actually wished this to happen — nor does it have to be. Like any great novelist, he's able to have no definite or permanent opinion on any subject he adresses, and to genuinely embrace any point of view necessary. While he was writing this, and when he was promoting it, he appeared as a strong advocate for such a radical mutation, with thought-provoking but consistent arguments (people aren't used to this, and that's a large part of why he became such a phenomenon). You could get a glimpse of his philosophical stance at the time by reading the postface he wrote for Valerie Solanas' “SCUM Manifesto”, called “Humanité, second stade” (“Humanity, second stage”, or “second state”), and a few others texts (one of them specifically about cloning and its moral implications, named “À quoi servent les hommes ?”, translatable as “What is the purpose of men ?” or “What are men good for ?”, which is also derived from a reflexion about said Manifesto, where he says that the perspective of being cloned himself lets him “troubled”, but not “terrorised”, and he concurs that a society made exclusively of women might be better on all accounts), which have been reissued in a collection called “Interventions” (I don't know if there's an english edition). Then he wrote “La possibilité d'une île” (“The possibility of an island”), based on the same core idea, but with the Daniel 24/25 narratives set much further in the future, and, reading it, one clearly gets the impression that such an endeavour results in utter misery for the neo-humans, who live isolated (with a dog at best), communicate only through computers, and all commit suicide around the age of 50, while the whole fabric of civilization seems to have vanished, replaced by an autonomous and ominous machine. Whatever he personally believes, he's able to see and describe both sides of the proverbial coin, to project himself in the minds of those who want this to happen, and in the minds of those who do not want, while he positions himself “au milieu du monde” (in the middle of the world, which was the subtitle for “Platform”, which he wrote in between). The people who are dangerous are those who work towards those kinds of goals without acknowledging it, or those who acknowledge it but are incapable of actual thought, who are just devoted to the Idea that Science must aim for those goals for the same reason a dog must lick his balls — because he can.--Abolibibelot (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

Les Particules élémentaires → The Elementary Particles — English book title per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Law Lord (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Move to Elementary Particles (novel), which is currently a redirect to this page, per WP:Use English. Cnilep (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support, Is there a reason to use the "(novel)" disambiguator? I don't see an immediately obvious need.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It serves to disambiguate from Elementary particle and The Elementary Particles (film). Cnilep (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - In my experience this book is very well known as "Atomised", and that is what the article picture and sources use. Knepflerle (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems that the US title is The Elementary Particles, and in the UK it's Atomised. The sources currently used in the article talk about Atomised.^[1][2] Jafeluv (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would have no objection to moving the page to Atomised, preferably with a redirect from the US title. Cnilep (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Or to The Elementary Particles (book), to distinguish more clearly from elementary particles in the atomic physics sense? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly moved this to Atomised, since it seems nobody objected that title. The Elementary Particles is a redirect here. I hope this solves the naming issue. If you disagree, please let me know on my talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

wrong Redirect

Atomised Redirected from The Elementary Particles?? could someone please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)