Talk:Snow Crash/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent edits

Ok, discussion, fair enough.

• The term "shot" is not helpful, or even accurate for the image descriptions - what is a "shot"? How does that term help the description? I've never seen that term used in such context before.
• Posh / exclusive - The Black Sun is not by definition Posh[1] - it is exclusive. The novel explains that there are many individuals who want to be allowed entry but are not, and there are individuals inside the club who do not fit the posh definition - the Japanese businessman who Hiro defeats in swordplay for one. In fact, Hiro, Da5id & Juanita are not posh either.
• Grammatical errors? Please clarify. Where are these errors? I am thinking that you might mean the removal of the dots from "U.S. version cover shot", however I removed those to match the corresponding UK image description which states "UK version cover shot". If you think the correct grammatical usage is to dot the contraction, please do so to the UK text as well.

a_man_alone (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. :)

• As far as "shot" goes, I'm rather indifferent. A look through the Good literature articles shows a variety of captions and even some images without captions at all, although the WikiProject Novels article template strongly suggests a caption. I'd suggest something like "Cover of the U.S. paperback version" because it seems to me (based on my brief survey, admittedly) that seems to be dominant caption type and includes the most information. The UK version would be "Cover of the U.K. paperback version" (see below). If we can find the exact year of publication for those covers, I'd say that should be included for completeness.
• "exclusive" is probably the best, I think; "high-class" would require a hyphen if we use it but, like "posh", doesn't quite explain it so much as "exclusive" does. Does Stephenson use a particular adjective in the novel? (Not exactly sure where my copy is at the moment.)
• I should have been more clear, but yes, it should be "U.S." and "U.K." in this article, for consistency (per WP:ENGVAR) and because this is a U.S. novel. (I've fixed "U.K." for the moment, but like I said earlier, I think the whole phrase should be changed.)

Anyone else want to chime in? Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't intended to revert removal of "shot" which I think is informal and redundant and just as well gone. Agree with Wyatt "exclusive" is best.Dankarl (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Exclusive - not sure how Stephenson describes it in the book, but when I get home (I'm currently at work) I'll have a scan through the relevant chapters, and see if there's any specific term he favours himself. I should have used "exclusive" the first time round, but it only occured to me after I'd first used "high class"
• "Cover of the U.S. paperback version" - and ditto for the U.K. version. I agree - that's a better phrase. Mine is the UK paperback - and indeed the very same cover image that is scanned on this page, so I'll have a look at the printed/copyright date as well.

I'll not make any changes until I've checked the novel, and confirmed dates etc. Also - you'd think it was Christmas or something, so I'm going to be busy with real life, and may be away for a few days in fact. a_man_alone (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased my edits were accepted, but I've misplaced my own copy of Snow Crash, soc an't update the dates for the image covers. Soon as it reappears I'll add them in. a_man_alone (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OR

One of Google's projects "Knol", announced July 2008,[16] will enable experts, connoisseurs and possessors of uncommon knowledge alike to share and potentially monetize their information on a subject. Hiro made use of a similar system for part-time work, "collecting intel to upload into the CIC library", by researching various subjects he predicted would be sought after in the near future.

This is OR, not supported by the sources, nor is a connection established between Knol and the novel. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Because there has been no response to my concerns, I am now removing this material. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. I did some searching and found a few mentions, but no claims in a RS. --Gwern (contribs) 18:48 22 January 2011 (GMT)

The idea of the CIC database is, for instance, imagine Wikipedia but where editors get paid for their contributions based on how much their contributions are read.75.69.183.33 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Link to meme and Richard Dawkins

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 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Link to NLP

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/^2¢/_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/^2¢/_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

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

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

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

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?

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)