Talk:Zodiac (novel)

Bicameral mind

Where did it imply that the Satanists were bicameral minded? — Omegatron 03:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Connections between books

I am not sure that this is correct. "This book sees the first instance of Stephenson adding thin connections between his books: though he is not mentioned by name, Hiro Protagonist, the main character from Stephenson's later novel Snow Crash, is alluded to as the boyfriend of one of the background characters — specifically, "the boyfriend who keeps the samurai swords in the trunk of his car." Hiro does, in fact, keep samurai swords in the trunk of his car. (More on that at Snow Crash and The Diamond Age.)" Hiro isn't the only one in Stephenson's books that carry samurai swords in their cars. The Shaftoes of Cryptonomicon also carried samurai swords in the back of their car. So this might just be something that is common in his books. It is doubtful given the different backgrounds of the Snow Crash and Zodiac, that they are talking about the same or even simular people.Headrattle 00:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

At one point I wrote something in that disputed this -- I thought the timeframes were off. But I wasn't 100% sure so I took it out again. (Snow Crash still feels "near-future" to me but when it was published, "near future" was a couple decades earlier than it is now.) Jerry Kindall 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should read "The boyfriend of one of the background characters has something in common with other characters in some of his other books. Hiro Protagonist wielded Samurai Swords in the book Snow Crash and the Shaftoe Brothers had Samurai swords in the trunk of their car in the book Cryptonomicon." It is obvious that they aren't the same people. Though Snow Crash is supposed to be happening within the next few years or so. It was the forseeable future. As such, simply owning Samuria Swords does not make them the same people. Especially when characters in other books ALSO have Samuria swords.Headrattle 04:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The only connection between the books is a single sentence about swords in a trunk. It's just a nod; not a big deal, and definitely doesn't deserve to be the focus of half of the article. — Omegatron 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How can Stephenson be "adding thin connections between his books" when this was only his second novel and (I assume) first mention of Samurai swords in car? Wouldn't this claim be more appropriate in reference to a later book? A-giau 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to argue that the article should say there's a connection between the books, but I want to point out that we're outright told how Hiro's swords were acquired and when. His father obtained them during WW2 by taking them from a Japanese soldier he defeated immediately after one of the two bomb drops (I forget which). So if you want to, you can figure out whether the described "boyfriend" is consistent with the age of a WW2 vet, or the son of a WW2 vet, and use that to decide for yourself if the books are intended to be linked. (I think it's just a nod, but using this reasoning you can decide for yourself. And it really doesn't belong in an article about Zodiac, unless maybe it's part of a "common tropes in Stephenson books" thing.) Dfjdejulio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

Chemistry

"While the book has been generally well received by fans of the author, it has come in for criticism with regard to the science contained in it, particularly the chemistry in which the protagonist is supposedly an expert."

Having read the book and not noticed any glaring scientific errors, I did a quick google look around and failed to find any criticism of the science anywhere except one Amazon review, which doesn't mention any specific details. In fact, most everything I've seen claims the chemistry is accurate. It's even listed as related reading for a water chemistry class at the University of Colorado. Pending a citation, I've removed this sentence. Gjc8 06:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stephenson Book Zodiac.png

Image:Stephenson Book Zodiac.png 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) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I updated the image page with reasons. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

satanists??

"uncovering a conspiracy involving industrialist polluters and Satanists in Boston Harbor."

there's no conspiracy with the satanists. there are some heavy metal rock fans, and the corporate conspiracy folks try to disguise some of their vandalism as the work of satanic rock fans, but i don't think there's a conspiracy involving both the corporations and the rock fans. 12.197.7.22 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's how I remember it, too. I'll simply remove the reference to satanists. JöG (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)