Talk:Feed (Anderson novel)

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

I have added an infobox--Geracudd 23:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Last sentence of the first paragraph makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.143.120 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedipedia - decoding the language Anderson uses in Feed[edit]


Defining the words or phrases used in Feed:

Boyf = boyfriend

Chat = communicating without talking - simply using one's brain to communicate. Like texting or IM-ing without a phone or computer.

Unit = Person, slang such as "man" or "dude"

"da da da" = blah blah blah

meg = Totally or really

brag = something that is really cool or "hip"

feednet =
Equivalent to the internet

skeeze =
To hit upon, or flirt with someone

Halt-N-Buy =
A store

Youch = Good looking 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.111.91 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.21.92.239 (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Edits[edit]

I plan on editing and improving this site. Here are the sources that I plan on using so far:

Adams, Lauren. "M. T. Anderson Feed." The Horn Book Magazine 78.5 (2002): 564+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 5 Mar. 2012.

Blasingame, James. "Feed." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 47.1 (2003): 88+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 5 Mar. 2012.

Blasingame, James. “An Interview with M. T. (Tobin) Anderson.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 47.1 (Sept 2003): 98-98. JSTOR. Web. 5 March 2012.

Bradford, Clare. “Everything Must Go: Consumerism and Reader Positioning in M.T. Anderson’s Feed.” Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 2.2 (2010): 137+. Project MUSE. Web. 5 March 2012.

Bullen, Elizabeth, & Parsons, Elizabeth. “Dystopian Visions of Global Capitalism: Philip Reeve’s Mortal Engines and M. T. Anderson’s Feed.” Children’s Literature in Education 38.2 (June 2007): 127-139. EBSCOHOST. Web. 5 March 2012.

Davidson, Jenny. "Slave to Science." The New York Times Book Review 12 Nov. 2006: 42(L). Literature Resource Center. Web. 5 Mar. 2012.

Goodson, Todd. “A Pinch of Tobacco and a Drop of Urine: Using Young Adult Literature to Examine Local Culture, Using Local Culture to Enrich Schools: An ALAN Grant Research Project.” The ALAN Review 32.1 (2004): 50-55. Google Scholar. Web. 5 March 2012.

Kerr, Lisa. “Frankenstein’s Children: Ethics, Experimentation, and Free Will in Futuristic Young Adult Fiction.” The ALAN Review 36. 3 (2009): 28-34. Google Scholar. Web. 5 March 2012.

Ventura, Abbie. “Predicting a Better Situation? Three Young Adult Speculative Fiction Texts and the Possibilities for Social Change.” Children’s Literature Association Quarterly 36.1 (2011): 101+. Project MUSE. Web. 5 March 2012.

Zipes, Jack. “Why Fantasy Matters Too Much.” The Journal of Aesthetic Education 43.2 (2009): 77-89. Project MUSE. Web. 5 March 2012.

Grapefr00t (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outline for Future Site Edit[edit]

A work in progress, but these are some of the edits I am considering for this page. The most concerning area to me is the cultural reference section as it has only two little bits of information. I want to add to that and add some sub sections in that area.

  • Introduction
  • I'm going to break this section into two parts. The first part will be the first paragraph as show with the addition of the stylistic commentary from credible sources.
  • The second part will be the other paragraphs in the introduction and will be under the title "background."
  • Will edit for opinion, clarity & add references
  • Take out the cultural/consumerism references and put them into own section
  • Plot
  • Mainly will be editing for opinion
  • Rewrite most for clarity
  • Cite
  • May try to add a small section of a list of "Feed Slang"
  • Characters
  • Removing/pruning what's already there
  • Again, removing opinion
  • Style
  • Removing and adding to the introduction of the novel.
  • Citing commentary on style from credible sources (in intro).
  • Awards/Nominations
  • Check sources
  • Update
  • Cultural References
  • Add to this list
  • Create another section for consumerism, technology, etc
  • Add environmental references/ historical references
  • Mainly beef up this section, because is central to the theme of the novel
  • Resources/Sources
  • Add all that I use

Grapefr00t (talk)

This looks very good! Just be sure that the "Cultural references" section doesn't become a long list. Wikipedia articles tend to generate unhelpful lists like that - try to make the section about the theme of the novel, as your sources describe it. Perhaps even make a section on consumerism? Wadewitz (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback Your instructor is right--you should be careful about long lists of potential trivial information and it would probably be a good idea to focus on a couple or three well-written paragraphs about thematic content (that professional reviewers have found) rather than a long list of every cultural reference. Similarly, it is a good idea to discuss the slang in the book, but avoid merely giving a list of definitions: how did the author come up with these words? How have professionals "decoded" this slang? Why is it included at all? See examples like Nineteen_Eighty-Four#The_Newspeak_appendix and A_Clockwork_Orange#Use_of_slang that explain how these slangs came to be and how they are used. You've got a really good handle on how to write this article and I'm sure you'll do a very fine job. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:LoversSpat So far, I like what I see. The introduction to the page is very informative and the although the plot is a little long, it's very detailed and ensures that the editor (you!) knows this book. However, I feel like a wikipedia article shouldn't be citing actual page numbers and quotes (On page 77...) because that seems more of an essay style of writing rather than an encylopedia I agree with Grapefr00t and advise you to be very wary of long lists! LoversSpat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

I agree with the plot section being a little lengthy. It leaves little to the imagination of anyone interested in reading the novel. Keep some of the high points and just focus on getting the point of the novel across. Your plans for the article look solid and should make for great revisions. Thanks! Dmbfan85 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additions based on research[edit]

Be sure to add material based on your research! The heart of this assignment is learning how to succinctly summarize others' work. Wadewitz (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

There should be a separate section for the awards of this book. The book's prizes and awards currently reside awkwardly in the 'Authority' section, which is definitely not where they belong. Yea55 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feed (Anderson novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Feed (Anderson novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation[edit]

The article "Feed" seems to focus heavily on plot summary. Even the introduction summarizes, without using any references, and without mentioning the significance of the novel. The introduction and the overall article seem unbalanced because they do not include many scholarly references. The Talk page contains a section called "Upcoming Edits" which Grapefr00t added in 2012. It contains many scholarly journal articles, but the View History seems to show that none of them ever were added. The page seems out-of-date because no one has updated it significantly, few references exist, and its imbalance seems due to bland plot summary without any scholarly or contemporary context.--Ncanty (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Given the lack of scholarly references throughout most of the article, as well as the older publication date, I believe more scholarly references should be added that focus on other aspects other than the article's plot. The inclusion of more current references as well as a shift in focus of what is being discussed seems to need to be done to give the article credibility and the neutrality. Hterry08 (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought there was a general lack of sources. The first half of the article has no references and after that there are only a couple referenced sources, which means either there are uncredited works or this is the writer(s) personal opinion. I am also confused about the Style section; I am not sure what the intended purpose or main idea of this section is.--KBMathews (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what I was thinking, too. The sections could use more detail, and I felt there was some general repetitiveness in the continued focus on plot and basic consumerist themes. I also agree that the Style section in particular, which should probably be specifically discussing how Anderson adds information directly from the Feed between chapters or how he writes using the characters' slang, has extra information that makes it seem unnecessary; for example, Titus being an unreliable narrator maybe belongs under his character bio. –KSterli2 19:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitkifwiki (talk • contribs)
I am also bothered by how this article focuses on plot. I am left wondering, how did people react to this novel? Was there any controversy? How did M.T. Anderson come up with the idea to write Feed? I feel that the article would be more informational if it included more sections than just plot, characters, and themes.--Gdalrymp (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some viewpoints that are underrepresented and overrepresented in this article. Under the "Themes" section, there is a lot of information on Consumerism whereas Language and Authority are briefly discussed. It would be better to have all the themes mentioned be represented more equally and to include more themes that seem to be missing as of now. If too little information from reliable sources is found on one theme, then maybe it would be best to not include it so that the article will stay neutral rather than lead towards a biased opinion of what themes exist in Feed. --Amentis16 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as well it doesn't appear as if any citations are made under the Authority title. I also think that the effects of technology as a theme is very underrepresented in the article. I believe that in its current form the plot summary far outweighs the literary analysis. One would need to be cautious in adding to that section in an unbiased way but it definitely could be done by using a variety of sources. --Jessehersh (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the warnings about technology found in the novel were not represented well. The ideas about corporate control, however, were represented too much, compared to how much technology was discussed. I also thought the summary was skewed. While I appreciate that the article left out information that was frivolous, I though it focused to much on the relationship between Violet and Titus, and left out enough details regarding the technology aspect to mislead the reader. For example, it said Titus's father, Steve, had an affair with a co-worker, which was revealed through a video seen by the characters. This video was not a video, it was Steve's memory, which demonstrated a huge aspect of technology in the book. Night storms (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of you. There are no references under "Authority," which makes it seem a little biased and I am weary to believe what is written there. The information that is presently under that section focuses too much on authority as it concerns Titus. Authority was present and impacted all characters in the novel, not just Titus. There should be more information on the feed as authority, rather than Titus' friends. --Mmeyer7 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused that the last two comments made on the Talk page before our class's comments, the External Links Modified sections, were made by an Internet Archive Bot. What is an archive bot and how are bots editing articles on Wikipedia? I thought only real people could do that.Ctweeten (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about this as well. If this is referencing a real bot, then how can a bot decide which sources are credible or not? Furthermore, if a bot can make changes to an article such as this which is about literature, has it "read" the work? Can it synthesize the information and analyze the text for themes and character developments? If it cannot, could that be why it seems like the article seems heavily reliant on plot summary? Sarahlaw1 (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This stood out to me, too. I wonder if these internet archive bots are just about template or correct formatting, or if they make any substantive edits on wikipedia. Brittanyweis (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Th article relies heavily on plot summary, but this summary seems to be missing some information and assume the reader has read the book. For instance, it is not until the character's section that locations like the moon and "The Rumble Spot" are mentioned. Perhaps these could be mentioned earlier in an additional section on locations in the book. Travel to the moon could be included in the Context section.Haykim (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The skipping around of locations in the book can be very confusing to readers so a Locations section would be very helpful for people to understand where the events of the book are taking place. Mmagiera11 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The article lacks some neutrality in the section entitled "Style". While there are some scholarly sources, the language used is biased and not necessarily accurately supported by evidence. In addition, there are edits that need to be made to remove unnecessary information. For example, the character description for Titus includes a haphazard phrase at the end telling readers what he was designed to look like. This may be helpful in another Wikipedia article about the inspiration for M.T Anderson's Feed however in this article it is a distraction. The descriptions for the characters are underdeveloped and detract from the article rather than add to it. If a character section is included the descriptions should have more fleshed out detail that creates a full picture of the character. Lkobus (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that some of the links within the article were distracting and unnecessary. For example, the link for "cloud" literally lead to a page about clouds, which is something that is a little too obvious to be needed. Also, I found that the link to "gated community" led to a page about condominiums, which would be misleading for the reader. Some of the links seemed useful, but others just seemed irrelevant or like they were done just so someone could say they inserted a link somewhere. It was kind of funny, but I could also see where it could get confusing/overwhelming to some users. JClanton12 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation: References and Links[edit]

The overview, plot, synopsis, and authority sections do not have any reference links. I recommend adding sources to support these sections in order to avoid bias. The plot and synopsis sections seem to drive the article, but these sections can be perceived as personal opinion without any references. The authority section also seems like personal opinion without citations.

Also, The link for citation 12 does not work; when I click on it, it says "Page not found." The links for citations 9-11 work though.

--AshMillette (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just double-down here and say that I also tried the link for citation 12 and got "Page not found." The other cited links worked just fine, but 12 needs to be replaced. I agree with the above suggestion to add more references for the summary-style sections. While it might feel awkward to cite the summary portions of the article, I feel it will strengthen it overall. Right now, it reads like someone's book report- not necessarily untrue or biased, but certainly of one voice. Some phrases sound somewhat opinionated by nature when they are not backed up; we can likely avoid this problem here by adding more references to the overview, plot, and synopsis sections especially. --Zfischer97 (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although the link for citation 11 does lead to an actual website, many of the links on that website are down. Everything from 1992 to 2011 does not work and Feed's award cannot be seen if one was actually given. Svasia (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly Sources[edit]

I feel like the sources being used while doing a good job of aiding the article, they do need to be linked to as well. This makes it easier to find them as sometimes a simple google search will not have the article appear as easily. Also, a wider variety of sources would help create a more reliable article that is more credible. Lhovey2 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's quite possible they aren't online. In which case, the editors gave us what they could. I find myself wondering more about the title of the section. Maybe "Additional Sources" as a way to indicate places readers can find more information than editors could include in the references section? Aschuet1 (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation:[edit]

Is everything relevant?: 

 I felt like almost everything was relevant to the article and I didn't feel it straying from the topic that much but it did have times where is didn't seem to stay true to just the story. It didn't detract from the article too much. It was simple and straightforward  but I felt that for the most part it there is room for it to be improved and perhaps tailor it a lot more to to the story itself. I would have wanted a lot more info and I felt that a lot of Wiki pages make you feel like the world of the book or show or movie and this just felt like it wasn't detailed enough to give someone a real picture of what is going on in the story itself. I was a little distracted though by some of the language and felt that a lot of it wasn't as encyclopedic as it could have been.

````Ivana Mileusnic

Article Evaluation[edit]

I feel in the Wikipedia, it talks the characters more in details. We only focus on those main characters in our class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RX782FA (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar novels[edit]

What about The Feed by Nick Clark Windo (2018) is surprisingly similar by having people´s brains directly connected to a network and having hackers messing with memories, what about the legal issues, how can two novels have so much similarities and still there be an Amazon prime series from the second novel, does anyone know what's the story behind Clark Windo novel having been published despite those similarities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.94.171 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to "Uglies" series?[edit]

I got to this page via Amazon Prime and the movie "Landscape of the Invisible Hand." I have never read Feed and I was wondering why it sounded familiar This sounds similar to "Pretties" - the second book by Scott Westerfeld's Uglies series. "The premise of the novel relies on a future set in a future dystopian world in which everyone is turned "Pretty" by extreme cosmetic surgery upon reaching age 16" where "rebels against society's enforced conformity in hopes of exposing the societies dangerous obsessions with perfection and uniformity." Pretties

Unfortunately, I had never heard of this novel and it's been out since 2002. Sabinal17 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feed_(Anderson_novel)&oldid=1201957209"