Talk:Snow Crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Novels / Sci-fi (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Science fiction task force (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article is currently undergoing a peer review.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Link to NLP[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Intro section[edit]

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)

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)

Information about characters[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

Technologies of Snow Crash[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

The "reign supreme" issue[edit]

Someone ignorant of how to write English properly deleted the word "supreme" from "reign supreme" in a sentence I drafted several years ago so the result was a nonsense sentence in this article. Please check Google Books. "Reign supreme" is a valid usage in formal written English. Examples are here, here, and here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Just traced this---it disappeared in an edit back in November 2009. Damn. Is anyone watching the vandals? --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What does everybody think of the division of the plot section?[edit]

I was about to delete it as being slightly out of resonance with our policies on plot sections, but the more I studied it the more I began to think it might actually have encyclopedic use for our readers, and now I think I'll make it my once-a-year IAR. What do my fellow editors think about this format? Snow talk 12:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I think its an interesting approach, and doesn't seem out of sync with our intentions on Plot summaries (maybe circumventing our policy about spoilers). I haven't read the book, so the two summary versions seem to handle it slightly differently in ways I can't articulate very well. I could get behind the IAR, but at the same time I could see how that first section ought to be better integrated into the lead, so that the summary at the beginning of the article actually summarizes the content adequately. Sadads (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
(Hey, {{ping}} is working properly again; good to know!) @Sadads: My own thoughts basically mirror yours there. You mention spoilers and that's part of where I can see value here. Mind you, I've always agreed with community consensus that if you read a Wikipedia article on a narrative topic, you better be prepared for the possibility that something is going to be spoiled for you. On the other hand, having a "back cover" style summary of the plot which goes into more detail than the lead but is nonetheless geared towards those who aren't interested in (or would rather not know) every little twist in the plot could have some value.
Well, I'm not sure it would ever catch-on broadly, but I'm content to leave this one the way it is in any event. Snow talk 18:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I try to catch this kind of stuff in GA reviews, but up until that point, I am content with having diverse models of sections, because sometimes they actually lead to innovation or powerful insight (and every topic is different). It looks like it might be worth one of us merging the overview into the lead, and reorganizing the lead anyway (it seems to be much less a summary, and more a hodgepodge of real-life knowledge about the book, Sadads (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, the second and third paragraphs of the lead contain very little information that is of central importance to a general encyclopedic understanding of the topic. Much as I was initially taken with this two-pronged approach to a plot summary, I think you're probably right -- the "plot overview" should probably be tweaked a little and merged into the lead, with the afore-mentioned paragraphs currently located inappropriately in the lead simultaneously moved into lower sections. I'll attend to it tomorrow, unless you decide to get at it first. Snow talk 20:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Snow Crash. 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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)