Jump to content

Talk:Snow Crash

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.104.101.94 (talk) at 20:55, 7 July 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Should this article be linking to neuro-linguistic programming at all? I admit I haven't read the book in some years, but my memory is that what is presented in the book is only "neuro-linguistic programming" insomuch as it presents a technique whereby the human mind can be, quite literally, reprogrammed through the use of language. In other words, it matches the meaning of the three parts of the phrase... but that does not make it NLP. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see that it's been removed before and unchallenged. I guess the later mention is just one that slipped past. I'll get it. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Stephenson's first novel, The Big U. Part of the plot is derived from Julian Jaynes's ideas about the "bicameral mind," which is a theorized primitive form of consciousness in which people follow directions from the "voices of the gods" in their heads - one hemisphere talking to the other. MFNickster (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q about Raven

If Raven's death triggers an atomic bomb, why does this not happen after Enzo kills him? Is this a major plot inconsistency? Should it be noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.133.182 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo didn't kill him. After Enzo hits him with the shock cone projector, it's implied that Raven takes off in the pizza delivery car. MFNickster (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ideas put forward in the book have a connection with memes; cultural entities that are transferred like a virus from person to person. Should this also be mentioned in the article?

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Meme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiennegoosens (talkcontribs) 15:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source links memes and viruses and Snow Crash, then yes. I doubt such a source exists, however. Woodroar (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intro section

It seemes like the first section, which is usually sort of a general explanation of the topic, and a few facts, basically summarizes and gives away the entire plot of the book. Someone coming here to decide what the book is about and whether they'd like it may be a bit upset to find out the central conceit of the book (which takes a while to be revealed) is spelled out in the first 10 sentences.

Ergonomic Cat (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns are generally covered by wp:spoilers. Granted, it's a touchy subject to some, but unlikely to change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information about characters

It would be useful at have more information about the character, maybe even a character section. For example, the Librarian isn't mentioned but is quite important. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendations @Jonpatterns:. At one point the article had a fair bit of discussion of characters, but was boldly removed because it represented too much Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works in the article with WP:OR. I could support a limited return of some of the character material, if you want to add it back, Sadads (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could add it back in an abridged form, if it doesn’t go against the guidelines or editor census. Jonpatterns (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Characters, which generally represents consensus on this type of content, the character lists are not necessary unless the plot description can't handle the content. @Jonpatterns: do you think you could find some critical discussion that helps, or, as a reader, would you think better integration of character information into the plot description would be more useful? I don't think there are many other people keeping an eye on this particular article, so I would suggest Being bold to execute the additional information in the way you think most useful. I could support that, Sadads (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technologies of Snow Crash

We've just had material from Smartwheels merged here. If this follows the usual pattern it will be controversial for a while and eventually get deleted on stylistic grounds. Maybe we need an article on the technologies. Most of it could be mined from old versions of the article. Thoughts? Dankarl (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: will there be enough real world discussion for it to meet Wikipedia:Fiction's requirement for real world context and can that be verified? What I have seen so far appears to be mostly trivia, not actually encyclopedic materials (though some of it is), Sadads (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the material were clearly out of scope, it would have been deleted rather than merged here. But it does not really belong in the main article; it does less to establish the setting or advance the plot than some other technologies we no longer list. So what to so with it? Per WP:Fiction, "Individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article". Dankarl (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like smart wheels or reason need to be here at all. A brief explanation in the plot summary maybe . Stephenson's interpretation of the metaverse within the larger mileau of virtual reality in fiction seems relevant, as well as his use of cyborgs (either the rat things or ng's 'permanently-jacked-in' technology, but those might be better tied into the literary section. 76.104.101.94 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]