Talk:The Midwich Cuckoos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Categorisation

This looks like mis-categorisation. It is a work of science fiction, not horror. PatGallacher 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is very poorly written. Bad grammar, incomplete sentences, and various other errors. It should be thoroughly edited by someone who has actually read and understood the book.124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What does...

...SF under themes stand for?

Science Fiction. RossyG 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Feminist POV

The analysis strikes me as strangely skewed on a feminist viewpoint. Would the writer of the article criticise Defoe for the lack of strong female characters in Robinson Crusoe? There are no citations made for the lumpen " many would criticise...". In actual fact, Wyndham encapsulates and successfully satirises the mores of late 50s British sexual politics, such as they were, quite successfully in the book. Does the same author of this article criticise Wyndham's 'Trouble with Lichen' because the main character, Diana, is the only strong character throughout, is female, and there are no truly sympathetic male characters in the novel? Thought not. Jatrius 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to disagree. The book is undoubtedly a product of its time, so it would be unfair to criticize using 21st century sensibilities. But I don't see where Wyndham's writing satirises. Throughout the book male characters disparage female reactions to events, and the female characters respond by acting exactly as described. They abandon all intellectual processes in a headlong urge for offspring, no matter what the cost, because they are mere helpless females driven by their hormones. You never get the impression anywhere that Wyndham disagrees with the opinions voiced by his leading male characters, while his female characters are very poorly treated. Consequently I find this book Wyndham's most dated and actually annoying. I'd phrase things in the article more strongly. --Escape Orbit 14:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My impression was that the women were obsessed with the alien babies because of the latter's mind control, not because of some crazed maternal instinct. And a lot of the men did come across as arrogant blowhards. The only truly level headed character was George Zellaby. At any rate, is it really necessary to criticize every older book out there for not containing strong, twenty-first century style female characters? This seems as pointless as clucking over the poor hygiene standards of earlier characters (i.e. "Some critics maintain it was unsanitary of Laura Ingalls' family to only bathe once a week"). Give readers some credit for realizing that in 1950 or 1500 that ideas of gender roles were different. 70.53.2.190 (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

typical Septics

"...a British version of The Body Snatchers..." HairyDan (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Who did it and why?

Is that mentioned in the book?--Cyberman TM (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a John Wyndham thing that many of the what's & why's are never explained - Triffid origins are never confirmed, the Kraken invaders are largely an unknown, and the same is true for the cuckoo origins. a_man_alone (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that's not entirely true. As I remember, the Children explain that they are alien-human hybrids designed to supercede humans on the evolutionary scale. That is why they are a threat. Their purpose, as adults, is to get rid of humanity or enslave them, their telekinetic powers and mind control making them potentially unstoppable if they were allowed to grow up. Zellaby stops them before they have a chance.

Many of Wyndham's books are about a Darwinian threat to humanity by a more evolved or evolving species. The spiders in WEB, for instance, of the Triffids themselves which gain the edge on humanity when we lose our sight. ThePeg (talk)

In the second movie, one of the children say that their purpose is to be destroyed, and the humans' purpose is to destroy them. Bob Emmett (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Damon Knight is entitled to his opinion. However a significant amount of other critical comment seems to have been deleted. In my view the novel is now somewhat dated but still quite readable. PatGallacher (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some definite example of where the article is not neutral? What 'other critical comment' are you talking about? Whether Damon Knight's opinion is notable or not, it's not enough to say "I, personally, disagree". Thanks --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No response. So I've removed NPOV tag from the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear PatGallacher: I've restored the material that you cut. Please feel free to put back the "other critical comment" that you say was cut. LyleHoward (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Zellaby as 'grandfather' to one of the Children

I have removed this reference. The Child born to Gordon Zellaby's daughter Ferrelyn dies soon after birth as a result of an influenza epidemic. Gordon Zellaby can have been a 'grandfather' to this Child for a few months at most.Rithom (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Missed one

Regarding this edit: I just finished reading the book this morning. As Zellaby is entering the Grange at the end he asks the Children if they're all there. They say yes, except one (Stephen?), the one who was recently shot in revenge after the show-trial that the kids got. He was doing well, but still off somewhere (home? hospital?) recovering. Did I misread something? Staecker (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry: I haven't got the book to hand, but I thought I knew it quite well having read and re-read it several times. I'll take your word for it then. Alfietucker (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem- it's the best part about the ending, I think. I imagine the adulthood of the surviving kid is what the planned sequel Midwich Man would've been about. Staecker (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of the children survived. To quote the book:

'I hope there'll be a good attendance,' Zellaby said, in half-question.

'Oh, yes, Mr Zellaby,' one of the boys assured him. 'Everybody – except Wilfred, of course. He's in the sick-room.'

The sick room would definitely be in the Grange; I cannot imagine the Children would be treated elsewhere. Neither the Children nor the authorities would countenance one of the Children being taken to a local hospital. The explosion is described in graphic terms and it is clear that the entire Grange (including the sick room) would have been destroyed – a "white and red glare" which was "above the trees", the fact that Zellaby's house, some distance away (the author drove back through the village from the Grange), had every window broken by the blast – it must have been a devastating explosion. I cannot infer a survivor from the narrative in the book. Regards, Hebrides (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds conclusive to me. Hebrides, do you want to take care of this edit in the article? Alfietucker (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't consider that the sick room could be in the Grange. I'm not sure that's a certainty, but I agree it's not really clear that he survived. I'll undo my edit in the article. Staecker (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Critical response

Is it fair to include a few reviews when there are countless? It seems that it merely serves to reflect bias of article creators rather than provide true consensus opinion about the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.74.208 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What bias? There are 2 positive reviews and one negative one, which is probably about the consensus of critical opinion. If there are more reviews feel free to add them, as long as the section does not become biased or overlong. PatGallacher (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a few more from the best sources. There seems no reason for a major book not to have several paragraphs' worth of reviews; indeed, if we're to have several paragraphs of uncited plot, we certainly should have at least a balancing amount of review material to demonstrate notability and to illustrate the different opinions of major critics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Why the pic of Aldiss?

It illustrates nothing, and has no place in this article. The citation and commentary is sufficient Fiddle Faddle 23:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Even while it can be argued that far too much store has been put in Aldiss's comments about Wyndham, they are in general terms, while the quotes by Rebellato and Atwood counterpoint them specifically in relation to The Midwich Cuckoos. I'll remove the picture. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)