Talk:The Power of One (novel)

Novel & Film

Maybe the plot of the book should be discussed separately from that of the film, since the two are so different. Marcelle 08:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is now a film entry, The_Power_of_One_(film). This article should be purely based on the novel. JustJimWillDo (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Somebody should write a plot section for the book, possibly using http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/power/summary.html. Bfotino (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, someone could write a plot summary after reading the book itself. Vince 02:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinceouca (talk • contribs)

Name

Where did the trivia of Peekay's real name come from? It is never mentioned in any book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.13.144.96 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 October 2006.

maybe the film? i dont know though. Thedreamdied 10:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Peekay's full name was created for the book version. In the film, the viewer is never told Peekay's original name.

Also, why is Peekay referred to as P.K. in this article? Peekay was never meant to be an initial, it's his name... Well it's important in the book.

I agree, his name was only mentioned in the movie, in the book, his original name was never important. Sharwood 14 Feb 2007

The article has his movie name incorrect - it was Peter Phillip Kenneth Keith (PPKK) Sharwood May 27 2008

Book Vs. Film

I think this article would greatly benefit from a division into two articles: one for the book, one for the film. Trying to constantly refer one to the other, especially when it is stated early on that the film doesn't follow the book very closely, only makes matters confusing. What do others think? Keldan 09:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could start the film article. 210.55.126.213 21:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Sadly, i have neither watched the film nor read the book so i won't be much help. Thedreamdied 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be made into separate articles. The film version is very different. While the film roughly follows the book, it eliminates many parts, and adds a love interest. In the book, there is no love interest. Also, his best friend has a different name from the book to the movie. Doc, in the movie, moves back to Germany after the War. In the book, he dies in the crystal cave of Africa. In the movie, Peekay's mother dies, while in the book, she becomes a born-agaion Christian and ignores Peekay, letting his grandfather arrange a tutor for him (Doc). Also, the book ends with Peekay going to Rhodesia to mine diamonds, and confronting the judge there (and soundly beating him, and then carves a Union Jack over his Swastika tatoo), as compared to the movie, where Peekay meets the judge in a riot in the township, and only beating him up, only to let someone else shoot him (The judge - for those of you who dont know, was his childhood tormentor and SEVERLY bullied him). In the book, Peekay goes to Oxford, while in the movie, he decides to stay in South Africa. Sharwood Feb 14 2007

              Also, Sharwood, in the film he is given the name 'Peekay' after having gone to the Afrikaaner school, not by his mother like in the film.  Wheeler 4 March 08

That sounds about right. There are dozens of plot differences in the two though. His interest in boxing is started by Peil Keet (sp) in the movie, but by a pro boxer on a train ride in the book. In the book, Doc gives him a more formal education, as opposed to the 'natural' education in the movie. His friend, Hymie v. Levy (book and movie names), is pretty different in both, besides names - in the movie he is a complete supporter and almost subservient to Peekay, in the book, he is the leader in most of their ventures, mostly ending up making them a profit - please no Jewish stereotype jokes. In the book, while he has the ability to earn a scholarship to Oxford, he instead chooses to work in the mines - in the movie, he choses instead to stay and help - apparantly indefinately. Obviously a book can explain and expand a universe in different ways than a movie - in addition to the fact that the arthur can describe his/her own world vesus a movie that usually must retain certain guidleines to be thought economic and marketable. These guidlines include - simplification, streamline, more concrete drama (good v. bad, love) and a more definate ending. - sharwood may26 2008

As a fan of the book, I found the film a disappointment. (1) The book had supernatural elements, eg. Peekay's spiritual communion with witch doctors and effortless mastery of African languages. He had an immaculate conception -- not the slightest hint that he had ever had a father. In contrast the Peekay of the film was a very ordinary boy, of conventional parentage. (2) One of my favorite elements of the book was Peekay's influence on the Afrikaner jailers of Barberton, inspiring humanity even in that stony ground. The film's invention of an Afrikaner schoolgirl love interest was not a satisfactory substitute. (3) The Peekay of the book was a great warrior and leader, while the Peekay of the film was a minor hanger-on to Gideon Mandoma, the only real leader. The downsized Peekay of the film might be a necessary concession to political reality, however. A fictional book would have no impact on South African politics, but a mass-market film putting a (fictional) White liberal in the center of the liberation struggle could be profoundly offensive. Hcunn (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Film

I thought I should start a topic on the film only. In the film, towards the end, Peekay is shown with a background of cooling towers for a nucleur power plant. Since this move takes place in South Africa during the late 1940's, early 1950's (at this point in the movie), this is impossible and is a goof by the movie. Sharwood 15 Feb 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:BryceCourtenay ThePowerOfOne.jpg

Image:BryceCourtenay ThePowerOfOne.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Children's adaptation

I've added a section about the children's adaptation. Does anyone have any more information about the plot of this version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.248.219 (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

vag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.6.102 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding Plot Summaries

As Book Two and Three weren't summarized, I'm going to add them to "Plot". Also, why is the the "Plot" section labeled as "overly detailed"? It doesn't contain the second or third parts of the book! -- Christian Vandercook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.78.246 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

PK

The Bollywood film this page links to doesn't appear to have anything to do with The Power of One, and is called PK, not Peekay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.16.222 (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)