Talk:Tomorrow series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First line[edit]

could we do something about young adult invasion novel?, that sounds like underage erotica to me. 207.161.179.80 (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copyright infringement[edit]

i'm fairly sure the entire plot summaries section is plagiarised from 'the tomorrow series web companion'. i haven't got a link to the site right now, and i won't tag it for copyvio because it's very possible the owner of this information put it up. did whoever put it up have permission. if not can someone obtain it or else rewrite the summaries. i may or may not draft a rewrite of the summaries: otherwise they should be deleted.Flage 07:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote all the plot summaries from my own memory (I may not have been logged in at the time, though; can't remember.) I don't think I used the "web companion", though. In fact I'm not sure I've even heard of it. Battle Ape 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baby, Pram, etc.[edit]

Could I suggest to all editors and people commenting on this article to keep in mind that it is fiction and, as such, the author was quite entitled to make their own decisions about what was or was not possible and what the reactions of others may or many not have been. Please be civil to other users but also refrain from posting edits unrelated to improving the article. Thankyou! --AlisonW 16:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called artistic license, people. Get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.11.39 (talk)

It wasn't so bad before the talk page got vandalised. Flage 08:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our criticism doesn't matter anyway, as content should only be added if it's notable. No way am I adding to any criticism section that '[User's name] of Wikipedia [link to this talk page] stated that [insert alleged plot hole here] reduced his experience of the book'. By all means, include in the article what the reviewers thought, but realize that this isn't a book club - our opinions matter zilch. --Safe-Keeper 01:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticsm[edit]

I havent read any of these books but could you write a criticsm section both literary if there is any. and if there is any weight to the invasion like why they could be invaded I mean really Australia is an island you would find any ships that would be comming months ahead of time and the only logical invasion would be from Indonsia. Jamhaw 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]

Oh don't join in with the trolling too. Criticisms are based on literary style, not on content unless outrageous. A fictional invasion by a fictional (and unidentified) enemy is hardly grounds for criticism unless you really want to hate the series. It's a plot device, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a very effective plot device in order to emphasise character development. This is a story about individual survival, not global conflict. --Scottie theNerd 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look scottie you have no idea do you. The entire plot is circled around the invasion otherwise it would be 200 pages of hard core sex, orgys and nudity with nothing else. The book is about war not them having some picnic in the bush.

I keep asking you this but you never answer. How could this invasion happen?

PS Why is there a critical reaction part on the page but is is full of nothing but good. Isnt that a bias? I suggest putting in a plot holes section or criticisms part(with WP: NPV).

KRANDOR!? F 22 09:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, stop dragging your displeasure of the story into this Talk page. You've been blocked once before, and it would behove you to drop this issue before the administrators take more decisive action against you. If you have nothing constructive to add to the article itself, keep your opinions to yourself. Just because you can't draw a direct line to current-day politics doesn't mean it's a plothole. As for criticisms, see above: if there's a professional, documented source you have, feel free to cite it. Do not throw in your own opinion. You haven't asked me anything, and I do not intend to play along with your game. Either you edit, or your leave this page alone.
And in case you've forgotten, the Tomorrow series is about survival, not war. --Scottie theNerd 14:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The critical reaction page is "full of nothing but good" because there weren't any reliable sources that could be cited. As you can see, the "critical reaction" section is clearly a work in progress, at the moment, unless someones edited it, there is only a short list of some of the awards. Awards a good because they are a documented source and they allow for a quantative assessment. A critiscism, especially one sourced to a book review on Amazon or a MySpace page, is subjective anyway and unless it's from a professional, it's pretty much original research. Especially if you wrote it. Flage 08:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't someone just block this dumbass? Battle Ape 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the process isn't that simple. Please refer to this page for details and more. --Scottie theNerd 09:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More spoiler-free material[edit]

Any ideas?Flage 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard not to include some form of spoiler material once you've read the entire series. It's a good idea but somewhat unrealistic. The books tend to merge together in your mind ~Sushi 10:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, my class had to read the first book for English, and I've already finished the fifth book, I can't tell where one book ends and another begins. lewismith3 (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dawn[edit]

Shouldn't something be said about the novel's similarities with the film, Red Dawn? McDanger 09:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it in the 'see also' section i started a few months ago. i wouldn't know what to write though. Flage 09:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right its pretty similar to Red Dawn. I thought the exact same thing when I first saw it. Comradeash (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dawn (released 1984) [1] predates TWTWB by 9 years but I've never found any evidence that Marsden knew of that movie when he wrote the book.
Paul Roberton (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers[edit]

There are no spoiler warnings and hardly any spoiler free info? Death.by.maggots 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tommorowwhenwarbegan.jpg[edit]

Image:Tommorowwhenwarbegan.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion topics[edit]

The discussion page should not be used to discuss whether the book is good or bad or if there are parts of the storyline which may not seem 'logical' or if the story is possible or likely. The fact is that the book has become an extremely popular piece of literature and is widley popular, especially in Australia. --124.180.159.96 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to questionize anyone, but can someone tell me where Lee's surname Takkan was found? I recall that while reading these books, although in Swedish, I noticed Lee's surname was the only name not mentioned. I'm very glad someone has found out, I only want to know where. 83.185.83.166 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Error/Vandalism[edit]

Hi all, just thought I'd point this out. There seems to be an error in the section regarding Corrie's character description. It seems someone has edited this section and made it completely false, stating that Corrie gets shot in the leg and Kevin "thrusts his [combat knife] into all their hearts" Heres what has been edited into the article:

Corrie was thinking about the show grounds. Robyn and Corrie waited for the others. At the thought of the showgrounds, Corrie got a sick feeling in her stomach and a hard lump at the back of her throat. The more Corrie thought about her friends’ location, the more Corrie was upset. It could have been fate that we had been in Hell on the exact day of the invasion of the town. At least for a few seconds everything was dead quiet. The invaders only fired one more shot, one bullet was all they needed. The bullet hit Corrie’s leg and she hit the ground. She lyed there reviewing the time she had spent with us’, how’d she wished her family would be safe. Kevin fired another shot towards the invaders. As he sprinted into the enemy lines he drew out his combat knife from his belt. He thrusts his blade into all their hearts. Kevin butchered all of them. The others and I rushed over to aid her. Robyn held her hand to assure Corrie would be fine. We all knew that this wasn’t the case. It became harder and harder for her to breath. Each breath was more painful than the last.

It is obvious that this is NOT coherent with the storyline, as Kevin never had a "Combat Knife" at any point in the story. Could someone please fix this problem, otherwise remove the section entirely. I would do it myself, but i am not too familiar with the editing system in Wikipedia.

Also, i noticed that under the Fiona Maxwell character description it states "...knows virtually nothing about camping or living in the bush, but she always has her period on time." If this could also be fixed, much thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.212.81 (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • hahaha at the period thing, though it is funny I will fix it. Blammo77 —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol thast what i thought, but still, this is Wikipedia after all - that belongs on uncyclopedia. cheers for the fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.212.81 (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting off the Ellie Chronicles section[edit]

I'd like to suggest that the Ellie Chronicles section at the bottom be split off into its own page. The Tomorrow series and the Ellie Chronicles are two separate series, and as such each should its own page. It would only make sense to have the Ellie Chronicle on this page if the page title were something that covered them both - but I don't think any overall title for both exist. --JoelBarnes (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that I agree with this --Sauronjim (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Nick carson (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead of Night[edit]

Why is the second book in the series missing from this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.65.1 (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book. It doesn't need to be logical.[edit]

Everyone please stop arguing about the logistics of the book... write to John Marsden or something. It's just a book. And anyway you're ruining the entertainment value.Htimsleinahtan (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a bit silly. I wonder if those same people complain about the lack of credibility in Alice in Wonderland? Anyway, this Discussion page is for discussing improvements to the article, not whinging about a book. HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't happen.[edit]

I noticed this in the plot of the first book: "Ellie, Kevin, and Corrie are chased by soldiers from the showground after seeing a man get shot for attacking a soldier..." I just read the book last week. Nobody got shot or attacked a soldier. They only witnessed someone asking the soldier permission to go to the toilet. -Htimsleinahtan (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change the article to reflect what the book actually says. (You seem to be quite familiar with it.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported IP edits[edit]

An IP keeps changing "Georges T. Doods from the SF Site described the series as "an elevation of adventure literature to heights that are only achieved once or twice in a generation" to "Georges T. Doods from the SF Site praised the series for its well crafted action and depictions of combat stress, describing it as "an elevation of adventure literature to heights that are only achieved once or twice in a generation", sourcing the changes to this review. Quite aside from the citation still being flawed after 3 attempts, the source doesn't support the claims. There is nothing that indicates "well crafted" and the closest you get to "depictions of combat stress" is "These are kids who are well on their way to developing what was once called shell shock", which is altogether different. I've invited the IP to discuss here.[2] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re unsubstantiated claim: well-crafted action.
From this review (which I referenced) [3]
  • ...the quality of the description of the harrowing escapes of Ellie and her friends tearing through the bush, dodging bullets, immediately reminded me of Buchan's hero Richard Hannay running from the enemy agent through the English moors in The Thirty-Nine Steps. This high-intensity pace is sustained throughout the books, and is well on par with any modern thrillers and even older spy-adventure classics like, Erskine Childers' Riddle of the Sands, or Geoffrey Household's Rogue Male. But just as well portrayed are those equally harrowing moments where they must be perfectly silent, perfectly still until their legs are cramping so hard they want to scream, but if they do, they know they'll be dead meat.
From his reveiw of The Other Side of Dawn [4]
  • ...Ellie's escape and eventual capture after the gas depot bombing was one of the most gripping and exciting sequences in the entire series and in my extensive reading of adventure literature. With the possible exception of Ellie and Homer's bombing of the harbour in The Third Day, the Frost (a.k.a. A Killing Frost in the US), I was glued to the book for the time it took me to read it. The last time I was so engrossed in a chase scene not of Marsden's making was when I read the account of highwayman Dick Turpin's ride to York on Black Bess, in William Harrison Ainsworth's Rookwood (1834), a passage considered by many to be the best chase scene in English literature.
Re unsubstantiated claim: combat stress
From [5].
  • ...these books portray the emotional and physical aftermath -- the post-traumatic stress -- of the daring raids and subsequent days of being hunted. They detail the development of the group's love-hate relationship with fear, the addiction to the adrenaline rush, but also the withdrawal symptoms. These are kids who are well on their way to developing what was once called shell shock, and nowadays appears so frequently in Vietnam vets' accounts of flashbacks and nightmares.
Combat stress seemed a good way to describe this using the least number of words possible.
  • I thought that the original text "Georges T. Doods from the SF Site described the series as 'an elevation of adventure literature to heights that are only achieved once or twice in a generation'" was vague and that it didn't explain why he thought that the series was 'an elevation of adventure literature to heights that are only achieved once or twice in a generation'. Hence my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.162.159 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the page name be "the Tomorrow series" not "Tomorrow Series"?[edit]

"THE Tomorrow Series" is what the series is called in the body text and on the John Marsden page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.2.6 (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The series started with "Tomorrow, When the War Began", so is referred to as the "Tomorrow" series. If it had started with "The Tomorrow, When the War Began" there might be a case for calling it "The Tomorrow" series, but that didn't happen. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It also says THE Tomorrow Series on the covers of the books.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kbM0XaA7pn0/TSHL6IhdC_I/AAAAAAAAARs/C_MNUjJEmZY/s1600/marsden.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lzzBqATe-8M/TD5gznKM4vI/AAAAAAAAGNk/zT39bryAc6Q/s1600/tomorrow.jpg
http://edu.glogster.com/media/15/52/89/22/52892296.jpg
http://www.quercusbooks.co.uk/images/book-covers/large/9780857387332.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garthruperts (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's different. Sources always help. I don't see any reason why the page shouldn't be moved based on those, but we should wait for any arguments against. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have several counterarguments that, if not completely against, would call for further consideration of the subject. Sorry in advance for the wordwall.
My understanding is that definite and indefinite articles like "the" are only used in Wikipedia titles if it is a definite part of the name (for example, the Herald Sun newspaper versus The Daily Telegraph; you'd use "the" to refer to either, but only in the second case is is part of the official name). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) gives as its "rule of thumb": If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name. Although it may be rendered as "THE TOMORROW SERIES" on the covers in the first three images linked above, the question is in conversation or prose, is it referred to as "the Tomorrow series" or "The Tomorrow Series"?
Going to John Marsden's website (http://www.johnmarsden.com.au), following the "Books" link, then clicking on the individual books in the series (I can't provide a direct link because of the website's Flash?/Java? nature) shows the post-movie covers (which I'm assuming are the most recent). These carry both the "Tomorrow, When the War Began" logo and the "The Tomorrow Series" strip on the bottom. The descriptions of the books that come up when clicking on them use prose like "...second volume in the award-winning Tomorrow series." The first page under the "Bio" link also uses little t, little s.
The fourth link above (http://www.quercusbooks.co.uk/images/book-covers/large/9780857387332.jpg), the only one not rendered in allcaps, shows the name written as "The Tomorrow series"; little s, with the T only capitalised because its the first word.
Doing Google News searches for the phrases, the results I see heavily favour "little, little s". Examples include This movie review from the Seattle Times refers to 'John Marsden's popular "Tomorrow" series', while this article from The Australian uses "the Tomorrow series" twice and "The Tomorrow series" a third time at the start of a sentance, and this 2003 article in The Sydney Morning Herald goes a step further by italicising Tomorrow in "the Tomorrow series". This interview transcript has John Marsden refer to "the 'Tomorrow' series", then to "the 'Tomorrow, When the War Began' series" two sentances later. Conversely, this book review in The West Australian gives "Australian author John Marsden's Tomorrow Series"; the only English language result I saw to do so. The search strings I used were "Tomorrow, When The War Began" "Tomorrow Series" and "Tomorrow, When The War Began" "The Tomorrow Series".
Based on this, I am of the opinion that "The" is not a part of the series title, and therefore shouldn't be in the article title. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 09:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a “the” in the title. Mainly because Tomorrow Series by itself just sounds wrong to me. I can’t think of any occasion where you would call the series by that name. Whenever people talk or write about the series it’s always preceded by something like “John Marsden’s” or “the” never Tomorrow Series by itself. 165.228.249.185 (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If you look at the other books by this author section in any John Marsden book (at least an JM book I've seen) the books in the series are listed under the heading The Tomorrow Series.
Example (You need to scroll down, it should be on the first page)

203.122.223.124 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film sequel[edit]

Putting an article about the proposed (and delayed) start of work on the second film in the series here for future use.

-- saberwyn 09:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is this a typo or a type of sheep[edit]

hi all. just a question to see if people who know aussie farming may know better. in book 4 darkness be my friend on either page 88 or 91 based on your book version is a line with Ellie passing a "crop of rape" ready for harvesting in a month or 2. what is a crop of rape? ive never heard that tearm before. i would assume its ment to be crop of grapes but considerign how often this book has been published over the years and mine is atleast a 2008 copy based on publish details on front i find it hard to believe a typo like this would last so long. can someone clarrify what it means?152.91.9.153 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/491375/rape 144.131.220.184 (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPOILER ALERT[edit]

There are spoilers in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Main Editor Of The Internet (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tomorrow series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of current events should be removed from the synopsis.[edit]

This book series is not about politics, it is about surviving while hiding and while normal infastructure is not available (no supermarkets, no school, no parents), and, eventually, is about rescuing their parents and neighbors and themselves from capture. While this does help lead to the end of the war, and a radical change for both sides, it is just not what this book series is about. Thus, a third of the synopsis should not be focused on it.

The "invading force" is purposefully never named, and is not important to the story, and its speculation serves no purpose in the story. The reason the forces invaded (lack of space and resources in their own land) is mentioned, but is in no way primary to the story. The cited refugee problem is never mentioned nor explored, and is not part of the story in any way.

The story and the characters would be the same, no matter who or why their homeland was invaded. Knowing this background adds nothing to the story.

The South Pacific's eventual resolution is past the end of this story and plays no part in it.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.138.107 (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tomorrow_series&oldid=1205726100"