Talk:The Wall (novel)

Film adaptation

This book was adapted to film in 2012: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1745686/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.196.236 (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not dystopian fiction?

I removed the dystopian references – the terms "utopia" and "dystopia" have to do with society, and here there is no society, so they cannot apply. A previous edit referred to the novel being described as dystopian in a source, but sources can be wrong and if they are they shouldn't be blindly reproduced. It is also possible the source was misunderstood. Robina Fox (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Could the source be identified and quoted, please? Robina Fox (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

While Cornick's essay is inaccessible to me, I've read a little more about this book on Amazon, and it seems the publisher described it as "ecofeminist utopian fiction" while some others, possibly in reaction to this statement, call it dystopian. I still maintain that these words are misused in relation to this book. It could be called "post-apocalyptic fiction", but not definitively since the reader never finds out what actually happened. Robina Fox (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read every essay on this book in English and German, as Austrian literature was my specialty for my master's degree; Amazon.com is not a great wealth of sourced and reliable scholarly information. Per long-standing research and sourced material, the terms stands in multiple articles which would be inaccessible to any English reader. The article I cite is, however, in English and backed by reputable, authoritative sources itself. Icarus of old (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, and impressive, though I'm still not seeing any explanation of why the term "dystopian" is appropriate. I notice that the German article on the novel describes it as fantasy and "magical realism"; it also mentions the robinsonade aspect, and uses "utopia" in the sense of an ideal or idyllic existence rather than an ideal society, which is its usual literary use in English. And "dystopia" is the opposite of "utopia" only in the latter sense. (Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't a scholarly source either, but it's still revealing). Robina Fox (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid your own personal definition of dystopian is rather limited then; it means much more than your earlier post states, according to Wikipedia itself and the sources I've consulted when I wrote the majority of the article some time ago. The usage is entirely appropriate here and has been for some time. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I'm afraid multiple scholarly sources would disagree with your personal interpretation of the term and how it more than suitably applies specifically to this work. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, this comes directly from Dystopia: "Oxford University Press. September 2005. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a "dystopia" is: An imaginary place or condition in which everything is as bad as possible; opp. UTOPIA (cf. CACOTOPIA). So dystopian n., one who advocates or describes a dystopia; dystopian a., of or pertaining to a dystopia; dystopianism, dystopian quality or characteristics." This definition, quoted by Wikipedia from the Oxford English Dictionary, provides the best and broadest framework for the idea, with which Cornick agrees. Icarus of old (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First published in 1968, receives prize in 1963?

According to the "Composition" section the novel was first printed in 1968. But according to the lede it received the Arthur Schnitzler Prize in 1963. Pretty sure some Wiki editor slipped up here. If not, this confusion should be explained. --73.114.24.234 (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note: I double-checked the dates against the source, which confirms 1968. Also, since I could not find record of any such prize, I deleted that information as well. Icarus of old (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

1963 is correct - and so is the information about the prize. I just edited the article on the novel accordingly and provided a ref (see: http://marlenhaushofer.ch/publikationen/von_marlen_haushofer/romane/die_wand.php + also see German Wikipedia) Albrecht Conz (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Loosely-based films?

It is not standard Wikipedia policy to add films to a novel page merely because they share plot similarities. Icarus of old (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite common to do. This has nothing to do with WP policies. It can't be done for mainstream themes covered in hundreds of film, but a plot where, with the exception of the protagonist, out of a sudden (and without any further hints or explanations as to why) all humankind vanishes, is not that common that it could not be done and would not be beneficial to readers interested in this theme to learn about.

In general, See Also links are given on the basis of some kind of relation/association between the linked articles (if the link is not given in the prose already). If the association isn't obvious, the link can be expanded with some brief explanation.

As you do not appear to see the relation whereas I do, I propose that we add this explanation so that it becomes clear to anyone why the link exists. Those who are not interested in a particular theme explored in different works can ignore it, whereas those who are interested in it can follow the link, watch the film (they would otherwise never learn about) and see the same theme addressed from a different angle. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:SEEALSO, "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category." Which categories/topics listed on this novel's page also relate to the categories/topics of the proposed links? Icarus of old (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Of the already given categories "Novels about survival skills", "Dystopian novels", "Post-apocalyptic novels" would apply, but they would also apply to many other films. But that's beside the point. What they share is a protagonist out of a sudden thrown into a world without humans - and without explanations as to what happened. They share - although in a different way - the theme of struggling to stay alive and to remain mentally sane. At some point in the plot they meet another survivor (of opposite sex). Animals becoming prey, an open end, ...

Since you do not seem to be familiar with "In My Room", here is a link where you can (legally) view the film for free (only for 4 remaining days and I don't know if the link works outside of Germany): https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/arte/in-my-room-oder-beziehungsdrama/arte/Y3JpZDovL2FydGUudHYvdmlkZW9zLzA1NzQzNi0wMDAtQQ

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Using this logic, all romantic comedies would and should reference all other romantic comedies, as they are categorically similar. This would be quite the task to undertake; also, applying themes across different artforms (novels vs. films) further complicates this arrangement. I don't need to watch a film to follow this line of reasoning. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hm, you should be familiar with a topic before you argue about it.

Your argument above is a red herring and beside the point. Most probably this is because you do not know the film and therefore simply cannot see the similarities - which is a pity because this makes it impossible to exchange arguments based on facts and logic.

Of course, there is no point to link all romantic comedies, or dystophies, and I never proposed to do so. These are much too broad categories.

The relation or association must be much closer to make sense and be beneficial for readers as a See Also link. In our case, the relations are strong enough that even critics were seeing them and were comparing the works.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Then it should belong on the film page, and not the novel page. Comparing themes in films to themes in novels, no matter how similar, makes a leap. It’s not a red herring to bring up romance as a similar paradigm; it's a simple analogy. Not everything you disagree with is fallacious since we're now making assumptions about one another. Lol. Icarus of old (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I have added this to Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements for a third opinion on the matter. Icarus of old (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hm, based on your entry at Third opinion you are shifting the topic of this discussion: Up to now it was about if See also links to narrowly related topics are appropriate or not, now you seem to be raising the new point if See also links between films and novels are appropriate or not. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) It is a red herring to suggest that the fact that it would not be appropriate to crosslink unspecific and broad themes like romance, comedy or dystrophy would imply that it would be equally not applicable to crosslink articles discussing narrowly similar themes like in our case. In fact WP:SEEALSO specifically proposes this: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category."

I'm not against adding the links to the "The Wall (2012 film)" page as well, but this does not mean that we should not add them to "The Wall (novel)". Film or novel is just the medium, both share the same theme.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I am well-aware of what a red herring is, so your use of a wikilink is not unnoticed, merely unnecessary. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on the nature of the "See also" section as it applies to comparison between films and novels):

If Matthiaspaul is correct that the relations are strong enough that even critics were seeing them and were comparing the works, then I think that that should be added to the "Critical response" section of the article, with cites to reliable sources, not to a "See also" section. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Voorts, yeah, that would be an option I have considered as well already. Where suitable, see also links are often worked into prose over time. Some sources: [1][2][3]

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)