Talk:Roadside Picnic

section 1

is this an explanation for that book and movie sphere?

No, that would be at Sphere (novel) and Sphere (film). Staecker 04:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see what he's saying (yellow ball that grants wishes), but the focus in the novel is about the zone, the anomalies/artifacts, and the politics around the zone. I'd like to see an interview where that link is stated before making any changes.

Another similar media is Darker than Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.138.255 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the "flying boot" mentioned in the book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.187.219 (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Boot, a built-in compartment on a horse-drawn coach, used originally as a seat for the coachman and later for storage. "Flying" strikes me as a Russian anachronism or perhaps slang for "motorized". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.33.50 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This "flying boot" is hovercraft used to travel in The Zone. I feel like translation is far from perfect, to be honest. Original russian name was "galosh" which means rubber boot used to protect your shoes from snow or water (were often used with Valenki). This term is mainly used as pejorative name for the vehicle implying it is old/uncomfortable/has bad handling. 84.17.11.18 (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Its slang. Just like some people refer to their house as a 'crib' or refer to girls as 'chicks'. The characters in the book refer to their hovercraft as a galosh or a rubber shoe which is worn over normal shoes to protect them against sleet, water or snow. Same way the hovercraft protects its occupants against the environment of the Zone. Meishern (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Chernobyl

Perhaps a reference could be found supporting the analogy with respect to the book? As it stands it looks like original research. Both book and movie predate the disaster. --81.156.177.239 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just logged in wanting to say "Why the hell is there a Chernobyl paragraph here??????" As you correctly say, both book and movie obviously predate the disaster! I wouldn't even call it "original research" -- original research about what? The use of the word "Zone"? This is a legitimate word legitimately used to describe, oh, zones. If no more discussion is held, I plan to remove it in a few days, I believe it decreases the value of the article as a whole.

Reality3chick (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There also needs to be a reference for it being "deemed a classic". I'm not disputing that it's regarded as a classic, but all of the awards it's listed as recieving came within less than 10 years of its release. Who deemed it "classic"? What evidence is there of it being considered a "classic". If it really is held in such high regard I'm sure it's on some credible list top 50 or 100 sci-fi novels or something similar. 69.3.159.116 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the standard for other articles to refer to a work as "classic"? I don't know, but I guess in this case a list or something of influential eastern-block scifi authors or works might help.

Reality3chick (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the phrase "deemed a classic" to "has won several awards". --90.214.206.203 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Chernobyl was in the article because of a computer game STALKER which 'borrowed' the phenomenon from this book. Anything related to the game will be purged instantly from this article. Meishern (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is the belief that the the brothers were referring to the Kyshtym nuclear disaster that occurred in 1957. SO the Chernobyl reference is definitely wrong, but its not completely misguided (according to some interpretations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnrod (talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite

I rewrote most of the article. I am still working on the Plot Summary. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! One thing; in the plot summary, Monkey is referred to as a 'normal, healthy' girl. She is covered in fur, has solid black eyes and may or may not be telekinetic - I don't know if that counts as normal! --90.211.132.97 (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary is the only thing that is left from the previous version. i really hate it, and it needs to be rewritten as well. Monkey has even more problems besides those u mentioned, like screaming all night and preferring the company of the copy of Rederick's dead father. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Artifacts/Anomalies

Should the Mosquito Manges, Witches Jellies, spiders' webs, batteries, heat-effect, Meat Grinder, and thunder-making lights from the book also be included in the list? While not beneficial to humans, they're still just as much artifacts as the rest of the items. Kudos to whoever added the info on the artifacts already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.182.50 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I am going to add all that stuff when I re-read the book sometime next month. The batteries are already added to the list of artifacts. I will make new section called 'Zone Phenomenon' or something like that, since Mosquito Manges can not be taken out of the Zone (yet) and thus are not an artifact. Thanks for the compliment on my rewrite. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of the artifact names have been revised in the 2012 Chicago Review Press edition, e.g., witches' jelly is now hell slime. As this is a new translation of the authors' original text, should all of these be revised? Mkhall (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to include both translations, some of the terms are quite different. I'm happy to work on this (just read the new translation) if it sounds like a good idea to others. Behemothing (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I own the new translation, maybe the article should mention it? Adam of kilkenny (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Just Funny

I find it funny that the Wikipedia article i wrote (this one), is referenced by (SFFWorld.com) which uses my own words (with my name there). I am being referenced by my own words! hahahaha. I didn't even include that reference, and wrote the Wikipedia article months before the reference. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering who copied who... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.134.156 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary - ending

I decided to take a look at the ending and it is MONSTROUSLY WRONG! In fact it's SO wrong that I wonder whether I've made it up! It's one of the most grandiose, spectacular and bitter endings in any work of narrative art, and I'm saddened to tears to see that the person who wrote the summary couldn't understand even the simplest plots even when they hit him/her in the face! I read the book from a printed file so I have a tiny tiny reservation that smth went wrong and I'd like to see some discussion on it. But as I said my reservation is tiny tiny. In any case I hope I drove my point home: THE ENDING IN THE PLOT SUMMARY IS MONSTROUSLY WRONG AT THE MOMENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.141.99 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole wikipedia entry for Roadside Picnic is seriously messed up and wrong. I added a ton of artifacts / anomalies long ago which SHOULD be included because those things are brilliant pieces of creativity that are as much of characters to the story as the characters themselves.

Fun fact, Dina Burbridge WAS sleeping with Red from a very early time in the story.

She looks at him while on the longue and says suggestively: "You want?"

Noonan and the other guy are chatting, says the guy from Malta is "courting Dina, no success." No success because she's Red's mistress.

Finally, one of the unedited Russian versions has the line "and he slept with that Dina, drunk or sober, asleep or awake."

He banged her a ton.

The only thing that provides a hint to this is her saying "You want?" and Red thinking how his hair, like his sister's, bounced rythmically.

Other things on this wiki entry should be pointed out, such as: Arthur and Dina are in fact not real people, but living dolls created by the Zone. There are all kinds of weird little hints -- single sentences that create an entire chapters worth of story in the reader's mind -- and maybe only hardcore fans of this novel should be adding stuff to this, not just noobs who read it once and go "Huh, it was OK".

--Roadside Picnic's #1 fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.120.124 (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The ending nearly brought me to tears too. But monstrously wrong? Eh... Perhaps someone with knowledge of Russian could look into it? I know that in many languages translations can give different results, as words can be translated into multiple, similar English words, and that the original connotations don't always mesh over so well. I read this book off of an online copy, and the words were indeed different from those in the plot summary. It used 'AND NO ONE WILL GO AWAY UNSATISFIED'. Seems similar enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.120.213 (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of the Russian language, although I am not fluent speaker. The last words would be more accurately translated as "Good fortune for all, given freely, and for no one to go away resentful". Resentful meaning feeling slighted, feeling like they didn't get their fair share. Andy Stockton (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I read a translation where the ending was "enough for everybody and nobody gets hurt". Since I don't speak Russian I will take the Russian speakers word for it that that was not a good translation, but I must say I really like that better than the more accurate endings. Gar Lipow 24.18.99.83 (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The "parallel Russian/English" link in the article gives it exactly right: "'HAPPINESS FOR EVERYBODY, FREE, AND NO ONE WILL GO AWAY UNSATISFIED!' " is the right translation, word for word. "Resentful, sighted, hurt" are all sub-meanings of what is intended - "unsatisfied", i.e. without getting theirs. WillNess (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Chicago Review Press translation (approved by ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Boris Strugatsky))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ends with "HAPPINESS, FREE, FOR EVERYONE, AND LET NO ONE BE FORGOTTEN!" Mkhall (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am 100% fluent in both Russian and American English. The way that the sphere was addressed to make the wish, was probably the same way that Redrick would order shots of vodka for the whole bar on the house (for free) - but instead of 'shots of vodka' he substituted the word 'happiness' - "Shots of vodka for everyone here, on the house. Make sure no one leaves sober." Translating word for word is pointless, its more important to translate the intent of the wish in the coarse language of a common man with little education (as was stated in the book a paragraph before the wish was made.)

Cheers!Meishern (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Adaptation

I removed the descriptor "black and white" in reference to the film adaption "Stalker". Only scenes that occur outside the Zone are monochrome in the film. As an analogy, calling "Stalker" a black and white film would be similar to calling "The Wizard of Oz" a black and white film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.22.18 (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Influences

I recently read HP Lovecraft's The Colour Out Of Space, there are some clues to this work having influenced the Brothers: (1) the general idea of an anonymous alien visitation (2) both stories reference the star Deneb (3) the appearance of a "Dr Pilman" at the start of Roadside Picnic, parallels the Lovecraftian name "Pickman", (4) a well containing luminous material (Witches' Jelly). I haven't previously seen Lovecraft referenced amongst the authors' incfluences. I think that would be worth adding in. Wikid (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Such an addition would have to be supported by reliable secondary sources. In this case, use of only the primary sources (i.e., the fictional texts) would constitute original research. Sindinero (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

True, true -- in their sources, the Brothers' attributions lie sleeping -- maybe bookmark this until someone makes the connection elsewhere? Google didn't turn up any other source Wikid (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a possibility to watch. Wikid (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl

Sorry I'm not logged-in, but in the game Shadow for Chernobyl, it's clearly stated that the Zone and Artifacts were created by an experimental science station (presumably working on future weapon designs), NOT by the Chernobyl disaster. The station was located in the Exclusion Zone for safety reasons: the experiments were dangerous, and the Exclusion Zone was the only large area devoid of people. 70.98.187.98 (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly does that have to do with this novel that was written before Chernobyl accident ever happened? Meishern (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheating his wife ? LOL

There is one laughable and far-fetched allegation in the Dummy phenomena part, where the author of the article states that the Stalker is cheating his wife with Dina. This is based only of a single "clue" which comes from an omission in the cited text, here it is the "hint":

"Arthur's hair, like his sister's, bounced rythmically"

But the real quote is like this (you can check it from http://lib.ru/STRUGACKIE/engl_picnic.txt):

"His dark raven hair, like his sister's, bounced rhythmically"

So now the hair is dark raven like his sisters' (Dina) which is introduced in the novel like this:

"She was all silk and satin, firm and full, flawless, without a single unnecessary wrinkle - hundred- twenty pounds of sugar-candy flesh, and emerald eyes that had an inner glow, a large wet mouth and even white teeth, and raven hair"

The other "hint" is also laughable. This part needs to be removed, as it is only the horny imagination of the article's author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.66.25 (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

cheating gotta go

I'm the guy who added the cheating part.

I'd just like to say... if you removed it, you're a complete noob, because if you've ever read the original Russian version, you'd know that there's a part near the end which states:

". . . and he slept with that Dina, drunk or sober, asleep or awake."

Suggesting he banged her countless times.

Most people who read Roadside Picnic are totally clueless, or at least seem incapable of picking up on all the tiny, subtle, masterful hints sprinkled throughout.

And to refer to me as some horny guy....... good job, idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.120.124 (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Completely agreeing with the previous comment. Will remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.58.35 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand the confusion here. It seems that the 2012 publication has added content concerning Dina - there is a paragraph or so preceding the line "He just could not fathom it", which states that Red has slept with Dina while drunk and while sober. I'll post the quote tomorrow but the text matches that which can be found here: http://www.ebook3000.com/Arkady-Strugatsky--Boris-Strugatsky---Roadside-Picnic_163377.html

--86.181.47.200 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Rating of Article

I think this article needs to be reviewed since it had a Low/C rating since a long time ago. I think it should rank at least a B . However a few more things are needed before applying for Good Article status.

1) Needs at most 1-2 additional relevant images, and here I am not sure what would make most sense - photo of the authors or a screenshot from the Stalker movie (without the actors, maybe a panorama shot of the zone or something specific to the book, like throwing bolts in front to test for gravity spots.); maybe a telescope image of that star where they calculated Visitors came from. Ideas are welcome.

2)It would be nice to include more of what notable people in the SciFi community who read the book had to say, or how this book influenced anyone notable.

3) Anything about writing process or themes or philosophy would be cool.

If you could lend a hand , please. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Just skimming the article, and comparing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment#Quality scale (WP:SU uses the same scale), this article seems to fail the B criteria 1, 3, 4, and 6. At best it is a C article. --Izno (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you are likely correct with your assessment Izno. Thanks for taking the time. So it's a bit more of an uphill battle. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed your removal of a major portion of the article as 'cruft list'. I reverted your edit (Please see WP:NOCRUFT). Please seek consensus among editors before removing large portions of articles that are not violating Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am bold when an article fails verifiability, what Wikipedia is not, and neutral point of view. "Not violating Wikipedia guidelines" as a statement about my removal makes me laugh. Writing about fiction is the most relevant guideline and also condemns the text that I removed. --Izno (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%, for what it's worth. It sounded like some fan of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was trying to make up an item list in the style of a video game. Consider this gem:

• Rattling Napkins – Unknown function. Very rare item.

There's no reason to have this sort of thing in the article. Probably the empties and the golden sphere are the only artifacts worth specifically mentioning, and those probably only in the plot summary. Staecker (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said it didn't need a rewrite, but blindly killing 1/2 an article while using the reason 'that it won't stand up to a Good Article standard', is a dodgy reason. You ever seen Star Wars page? the one containing a list of all the characters plotted on a huge list against every single Star Wars movie made? Thats a Good Article. Frankly. I agree with Staecker, that the list needs to get culled to remove items that are mentioned once in passing. Yet the items mentioned repeatedly multiple times in every chapter, that are well described, and are part of the plot line should remain, though why Star Wars is a good article and still contains a list of such important characters as Greedo from Episode 1 is food for thought. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You seemed to ignore my response above. Please feel free to respond to it. To respond briefly to your comments:

• I did not blindly kill half the article. I selectively killed half the article, the half for which it is trivial to see fails the policies that I linked to above.
• Other stuff exists. It's not my job to police an article on Star Wars. If you believe that the Star Wars article should be nominated at WP:GAR, you are free to pursue that option.
• "should remain": That is the conclusion of your argument for which the evidence (as I linked to above in my previous comment) does not back up your position.

--Izno (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been convinced that my initial position was indeed correct and that the section you removed should return for the same reasons given by editors and admins in support for the Magical Objects in Harry Potter who phrased their reasons more eloquently than I ever can. Since you consider it 'your (self-appointed) job' to patrol articles on sci-fi/fantasy novels, I fail to see your unwillingness to apply the same principles and logic you are using to censor this article to other articles in the same category. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd vote for returning the section. I am not a wikilawyer, but the section was pretty useful for referencing. Imagine my dismay when I returned and found it gone and had to unearth it from the archive. Shaddack (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Usefulness" is not a criterion for retention or deletion of information on Wikipedia. If you do indeed find it useful--and I will not judge whether you think so--that information should be "findable" elsewhere--Wikipedia is not its home. You might consider moving the information to an appropriate "fansite". --Izno (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You have the burden of verifying the information; you have the burden of showing that the content is within Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality; and you have the burden of showing that the information is not what Wikipedia is not (and especially, that the information included is discriminated). "Censorship" this is not. --Izno (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

But, if you think I have been unfair, feel free to start a request for comments, seek a third opinion, or request feedback at the relevant WikiProject or village pump. --Izno (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

TV show

I heard about a TV show being based off of this book. It would be on WGN America. Does anyone know if this is true or not? I'm not sure if it was a rejected pilot or not, but I thought that I would mention this.

65.214.67.173 (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the page with details of WGN cancelling. That article states the pilot was being offered to other channels/networks, but I've not heard anything in the ~6 months since, so I'd assume it's dead. What might be worth adding if anyone can locate definitive details is whether the pilot was actually filmed/completed - a commenter at that Deadline page says that some promo material was briefly on YouTube, and the IMDB page has what looks like behind-the-scenes photos. ErsatzCulture (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

I have translated the lead section from the original Russian article: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5 I hope it helps to remove tha=e tag (I wouldn't do it anyways), so it is up to other editors to decide. I invite all the editors to the discussion of the changes and I especially welcome those who speak both English and Russian in order to evaluate my edits in the comprehensive way. By the way, I haven't deleted a single word from the previous version, just added the new information--OnlineStalker (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk revert?

Is it even legal and according to Wikipedia guidelines? I found someone completely reverted "Lead section== in the article "Roadside Picnic" made by a new user OnlineStalker and then the same person deleted the talk details about new information in the talk without any explanation. Is this person an ultimate judge with no one to supervise, I don't know but to me it looks like a prejudiced opinion, bureaucracy, vandalism and a clear abuse of power. If this message is reverted, I'm going to write to the Wikipedia Foundation about the persons involved in this and especially about the treatment of the new editors. I'm dead serious about complain on CLS Student and Cullen. Looks like a sect of dataists to me who abuse the power and hide behind "Wikipedia complex rules". I think they do not have place among Wikipedia volunteers if they can't even tell the difference between a good or bad faith and attack newcomers who did their first edit (assuming good faith for the first article or edit, forgot about it?). There will be complain about these people and I will expose them to publicity

Annihilation

Annihilation (film) does not belong in the Adaptations and cultural influence section. It clearly IS an adaptation, but of the book of the same name. The author of the novel has downplayed any influence. Critics who have noted a similarity (note, not a cultural influence) have also noted a similarity to a much earlier work (Colour out of Space). The best reference supplied actually talks about the similarities to Tarkovsky films rather than the book.

Like anyone, I can see why a critic would find Annihilation "reminiscent" of Roadside Picnic, but to claim a cultural influence is WP:OR. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, you are going to make a problem over this? And who is going to determine what is and what is not culturally influential/influenced - you or literary critique? How much of literary critique is not an original research anyway? Following your reasoning half of this article's subsection "cultural influences" list should be purged, as well as half of any such list in every subsection dealing with it across the entire wikipedia! This lead me to believe it is just plain old "I don't like it" issue, rather than serious objection over the subject matter or references provided. I can just hope you will try to adhere to basic wikipedi guidelines and leave my edit for the time being, that is, until you (or anyone else) show that you are in position to mount some sort of consensus over this particular entry - because, between just you and me, regardless of arguments presented, I believe, actually I am certain, project guidelines and policies are on the side of sound, well-referenced edits, and not blatant removal with: "I say, literary critics are OR". Because, this thing always boils down to how we perceive and apply guidelines and policies, and not to our perception of arguments and theories and how we present them.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. I'm happy for you to try to establish consensus or to take the matter further. I'm not trying to be a dick, I genuinely think what you are doing is WP:OR. I think the refs talk of similarities, not cultural influence.

I'm sure you're aware, it's not up to me to prove anything, there should be sources stating there is an influence. And I'm guessing you know WP:WHATABOUTX isn't a great argument either.

It's always hard when someone reverts something you've put effort into, but I can assure you it has nothing to do with "I don't like it". All I dislike is refs that don't support the argument made. All the best. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it kinda is in your court to prove that one's meaningful edit with valid refs shouldn't be in the article. Editor usually shouldn't take himself into position where he/she needs to prove his/her edit should stick, it is always much easier to write something without inserting ones personal opinion - after all that is one of the principle policies here - if/when one's edit passes the test of notability and verifiability and is backed with relevant source, than it's up to those who think something is still wrong with it to show they have a valid point when they reverting it - that's always tough thing to do, and your frail effort is illustrative example. Good luck.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC) And, by the way it's very symptomatic how you read my post above, in regard to how you may read references in this entry. Further, I was primarily pointing to majority of the listed items under the subsection in this very article, not about some other particular article(s) ("WhataboutX"). That I mentioned in general possibility of such problem "across entire wikipedia" is not "WhataboutX" argument, especially when I have entire subsection here, which I primarily noted, listing instances of influence which could be also questioned with your your understanding of "cultural influence" and "similarities" - most of it should be removed if we are to adopt and follow your understanding of perceived difference between the two.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope, because none of the refs you've supplied talk about cultural influence. There's no point supplying refs about something else. Provide them, seek consensus, or take the matter to a higher authority. I don't intend to do anything else besides revert anything that isn't properly reffed. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

IMHO the refs pretty clearly indicate a cultural influence- unless "cultural influence" has some technical meaning for you that I'm not aware of? Are you looking for refs where VanderMeer says directly "I was influenced by RP"? The AV Club ref only talks about Stalker, not RP, so that one is out. But the others are pretty straightforward in pointing out parallels between the works. I find the refs at least as good as the one provided for The Final Station, which doesn't even refer to RP except as a pun in the article title. So what's the problem? I would be in favor of including the first sentence only of Santasa99's text. To me the whole paragraph is a bit long, but certainly Annihilation is a more important work than many of the others in this long list of influences. Staecker (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Staecker:; @Doctorhawkes: I was willing to suggest something like that, where my current (long version) paragraph could be skimmed, so that remaining entry include only one or two sentences - first maybe - but Doctorhawkes was too categorical vis-a-vis sources.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

First sentence is fine by me. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Done.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Tarkov?

The Russian-made videogame "Escape from Tarkov" might warrant a mention in influences being that it has several references in item descriptions and dialogue to Stalkers (primarily the game, but the concept as a whole as well) in the English version. I'm not sure about the Russian version but I'd be willing to bet it has a lot of the same and possibly more direct allusions to the novel itself. This is all not to mention that the gameplay loop has the players acting as Stalkers, entering an abandoned exclusion zone, gathering valuable resources, equipment, and salvage, and fighting your way back out in a former Soviet Bloc nation. 24.68.229.147 (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Correction to history section

Before anything else: I found this page after going down a bit of a rabbit hole and have not read the book. With that said, the book's history exists regardless of its contents. The history section contained inaccurate claims of severe soviet censorship, and the citation for those claims was from a page that talked about something completely unrelated (another book from the brothers called Snail on the Slope, and which also had no mentions of government censorship of any books anyways.)

At first I decided changing it to citation needed would be good, but I did some more digging and discovered that the book was never actually "refused publication," nor was it "significantly departed from the original version." It appears the book WAS censored by the Soviet government, but for the purpose of having foul language removed from the book, and newer version of the book simply have this originally-intended language added back in. To quote Boris Strugatsky himself:

"It didn’t even cross our minds that the issue had nothing to do with ideology. They, those quintessential “bloody fools,” actually did think this way: that language must be as colorless, smooth, and glossy as possible and certainly shouldn’t be at all coarse; that science fiction necessarily has to be fantastic and on no account should have anything to do with crude, observable, and brutal reality; that the reader must in general be protected from reality — let him live by daydreams, reveries, and beautiful incorporeal ideas."

Thus, there was no significant departure from the original, and the book was not refused publication (it was however delayed for a while, it seems.) A following sentence already cover this (on the restoration to the original) more correct version, and I changed the language in it to make it a bit more accurate: Boris Strugatsky did not restore the newly published version HIMSELF, it was based off of a different version he had previously restored.

I believe whoever originally added those two lines in there may have taken a small kernel of truth they heard and expanded it just based off of what they thought sounded right, as it, to use the same language, is significantly departed from reality. AquaticOnWiki (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Into The Radius? (VR Game)

Is into the radius based off of this? 2600:8800:1AC0:6800:DB4:A5E4:1F02:B5EB (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Song Red likes to hear when returning from The Zone

The song is named "Не возвращайся, если не уверен" by Red in the book. An acoustic version by Антон Соколов is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA-9RiYVW5M Andrés Delfino (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)