Jump to content

Talk:Neuromancer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Radio Version

There was a radio play based on Neuromancer on BBC World Service in October 2005 in the Play of the Week slot. Perhaps this should be added to the translations list.--Zoltar Jackal 15:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Rather to Adaptation section, IMHO. Here's info I found about BBC radio version of Neuromancer:
(main source: http://wordaloud.dnsalias.com/wordaloud/main.asp?Action=RDDisplay&DID=8421 )

Cast:


All the best for cyberpunk fans --83.31.117.8 14:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)mattness pl (Poland) http://shadowrun.rpg.pl

Armitage

I wonder if his real name is somehow related to the man known as Willis Carto. It might be a mere conicidence, but somehow I'm not convinced it is. --JollyRogerz 01:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tiesser - Ashpool

300 years old? Any reference for that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.25.251.110 (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

There isn't a reference because it isn't accurate. In the book, the only real claim to his age is when he says he's "over 200". Rnb 03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian release cover in infobox?

Why is this in the infobox, this is the English article of the book. Also the first edition paperback cover was in it why was it removed? As well when you click on the so called "Brizilian book cover" image its file name is "Neuromance british cover" whats with that? Alus 04:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded and named the image before discovering it was the Brazilian cover. I don't know how to change the filename, please feel free to do so.Skomorokh 16:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay I do not think you can change the name of the file that you uploaded you have to reupload it. I just do not really think it is the appropriate cover to have in the infobox of the English article. And since the first edition cover is already uploaded I will place that in the infobox thanks for responding. Alus 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough.Skomorokh 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced now and the reference is apparent, but only to what Gibson himself described as a throwaway line in the movie. I think it'd be giving readers a false view of the magnitude of link involved to say Armitage is based on Plissken. Certainly, it's not the only inspiration. --Agamemnon2 14:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "throwaway line" may have inspired the Screaming Fist military operation in Neuromancer but I recall seeing Gibson at a book signing for "Mona Lisa Overdrive" where he said that it was Lee Van Cleef's character (Commissioner Hauk) who inspired Armitage. As for direct parallels between the two characters I can only point to the fact that they both wear a single earring. Not much! -216.80.66.128 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Freeside's Shape

The descriptions given for the Freeside's shape throughout the novel seem at first to vary quite a bit. This has caused some confusion and has created a few errors in other wiki articles, notably Stanford torus. I believe the majority of the confusion arises from the passage: 'The islands. Torus, spindle, cluster. Human DNA spreading out from gravity's steep well like an oilslick.' the distinction is somewhat cleared up in the next paragraph: 'Call up a graphics display that grossly simplifies the ex-change of data in the L-5 archipelago.' What's being described here is not Freeside by itself, but rather a collection of habitats within the fifth Lagrange Point. The Torus being Zion, the Spindle being Freeside and an unnamed cluster of other stations. 76.48.58.111 06:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Neuromancer 20th Anniversary Edition.jpg

Image:Neuromancer 20th Anniversary Edition.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Neuromance british cover.jpg

Image:Neuromance british cover.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, the image now has a fair use rationale. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 20:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Cyberspace

The word cyberspace was coined in his 1982 story "Burning Chrome" and popularized by Neuromancer. Lerner (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Matrix

I suppose the Wachowski brothers had influence from this novel in creating their own complex story.

I would say their story is rather simplistic, but that is probably just me ;P --Lost Goblin 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. note that the term Gibson used was actually Cyberspace. I am rather amused to see that the word "matrix" has been used 4 times in this article when it actually should have been Cyberspace. I suggest it to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.16 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Gibson uses the words "matrix" and "cyberspace" fairly interchangably in the novel. It seems like they're okay in the article. Rnb (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
He does indeed, it's no real difference to the real world where people use 'internet' and 'web' interchangeably. magnius (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Matrix" paralel

We all know The Matrix trilogy has some inspiration on William Gibson's Neuromancer, but I think the influence is way deeper than just the cyberspace theme. Is it just me or Case, Molly, Armitage, Wintermute e Neuromancer REALLY resamble Neo, Trinity, Morpheus, The Architect and The Oracle? Do you guys see it as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.58.18 (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a talkpage for discussing improvements to the article, not a forum; many links have been made between the two, documented for example in our article Influences and interpretations of The Matrix. this lesson plan and this forum discussion. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask at the reference desk. Regards, Skomorokh 15:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the opening quote

It's obstructing the plot summary, put it in a thumbnail or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.210.99.151 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not causing me any problems on my browser, and no one has ever complained about it before. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It's one of the most famous SF openers of all-time, so I'd like to keep the quotation. Is the problem that it's on the right hand side or what? Is this version any better?  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Note for inclusion

Surreally Gibsonian.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet Archive: Neuromancer - "promotion video spot for William Gibson's book Neuromancer, with commentary by William Gibson and Timothy Leary". -- Quiddity (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note for exclusion

At the end of the opening paragraph it currently reads:"Gibson explores artificial intelligence, virtual reality, genetic engineering, and megacorporations long before these ideas entered popular culture."

I propose removing the portion that sais; "...long before these ideas entered popular culture." since this is subjective and I believe unfounded. For example, Robert A. Heinlein was writing about virtual reality and artificial intelligence in the 1950's. The term "virtual reality" can be traced back to the French playwright, poet, actor and director Antonin Artaud. In his seminal book The Theatre and Its Double (1938), Artaud described theatre as "la réalite virtuelle", a virtual reality "in which characters, objects, and images take on the phantasmagoric force of alchemy's visionary internal dramas". The term "genetic engineering" was coined in Jack Williamson's science fiction novel Dragon's Island, published in 1951. Although Gibson is surely a visionary on these subjects I would hardly consider any of these subjects as being foreign ideas to popular culture in the 1980's.

Is anyone apposed to me correcting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.36.173 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Neuromancer/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Remember that inclusion in WP is not a matter of right or wrong, but a question of sourcing. The immediate problem is not that the phrase is or is not wrong, but that it is unsourced. It really ought to be left in the article and tagged with the {{citation needed}} tag. If no one comes up with a source within a reasonable time, it can then be deleted. However, both editors need to stop reverting and settle the dispute here on the talk page. If it can't be settled here, then it needs to be taken to some other form of dispute resolution. 24 — just a piece of friendly advice — while it's perfectly legitimate to edit Wikipedia anonymously, and while it may not be entirely fair to crib on that position, you'll probably get a better result if you create a username and log in, but that's entirely up to you.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 06:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks:
Thank you TransporterMan for taking a fair look at the issue. I will post the citation needed as you advised. I appreciate and understand your advice about a user name but I am offended that someone would treat those without a regularly maintained user account automatically as vandals. Wikipedia users should embrace everyones constructive input to make Wikipedia the best source of information on the internet. The abusive response is all the more disconcerting given the minute and clear accuracy of the edit I made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.36.173 (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Film Updates?

The film project appears to be in dire straits. AFAIK Hayden Christensen was contacted to play the lead role but later backed out. Would this area suffice to post updates until the film project's status has been determined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent News/Speculation

www.filmjunk.com/2009/05/11/liv-tyler-in-talks-for-neuromancer/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Slashdot Submission:

http://scifiwire.com/2010/05/greatest-sci-fi-novel-ever-to-finally-be-filmed.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dystopian

I was in the audience of a talk with William Gibson, in which he mentioned that he did not (at the time, at least) consider Neuromancer to be a dystopian novel. The reason given was that contemporary, dystopian SF-literature was almost all set in post-nuclear war environments, which made Neuromancer seem optimistic as it portrayed a future where mankind was still alive and well.

Would this observation be worth including in the article?

Though cyberpunk doesn't necessarily have to be dystopic, I think it's a major attraction to the subgenre. I think given the context most dystopian sci-fi was written (the 1980's and the height of the Cold War) almost dictated it a rule that it had to be set in a pot-nuclear war environment. Neuromancer's setting was evidentally written against that trend. In today's world the threat of nuclear war is not nearly at the same level it was in the 1980's and I think it's plausible the setting could be reinterpretted to be dystopic. Though considering what Gibson has written in articles in the recent past (a couple of Wired articles come to mind) it's believable to see the world of Neuromancer to not be dystopic. Gibson Cowboy 14:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
There's not even a mention of any war or other type of apocalypse to have happened. I suggest someone strikes 'Dystopian' from the list of genres. 90.177.105.208 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed "dystopian" from the infobox. It's still mentioned in the text a few places --h2g2bob (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say put it back... Dystopian doesn't mean post-apocalyptic necessarily, and the writers of works aren't the ones who normally decides what "kind" of work it should be. Bencoder (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Dystopian is the opposite of "utopian", and it means the depiction of a nightmare society. It doesn't imply anything about a preceding war, though that seems to be an element in most of the stories. The most famous dystopias are BRAVE NEW WORLD and 1984.CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Glossary

I propose that a "glossary" section be added to the page. I just read this book and found it to be nearly incomprehensible (and hence quite lousy) due to the usage of never-defined terms like "fletcher", "Ono-Sendai", "flatliner", "Hosaka", etc. and I still haven't figured out what "ice" is (software?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.144.171 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, there used to be such a section but it was moved to Sprawl_trilogy#Glossary.  Skomorokh 
Glad I'm not the only one. I felt quite similar to what you describe. I just finished the book, and I think a lot of parts of it were lost on me because they were either too poetic (the whole thing about meeting Linda on the beach, the cyberspace and its programs and ICE being personified in general, Jane T.A.'s plan) or "slang from the future". I looked over this studyguide and most questions are questions that I asked myself while reading Neuromancer, yet didn't know the answer to even after finishing the book. I should note that English isn't my native language, though I'm fluent.
Unexplained terms and references create an interesting, mysterious world, of course, but other SF writers often pull this off while also explaining the tech and society defining the novel's background. 178.201.100.215 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why or how the Related Topics were selected. I agree that all were influenced by Neuromancer, but if being influenced by Neuromancer is the only criteria, then there could easily be dozens of Related Topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.244.128.12 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Linda Lee

Quick note, re this addition. Was going to remove as OR, but a quick google for "Annabel Lee" "Linda Lee" gibson poe neuromancer found mention of the comparison in ISBN 0226486982

Might warrant more research. -- Quiddity (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Gibson for writing Neuromancer out of ignorance?

I know I've read an article or two that mentioned Gibson knew virtually nothing about computers when he wrote Neuromancer, and a percentage of his readership was upset about that, viewing it as a kind of betrayal. The man who had created such a unique vision of a cyberspace-entangled future wrote the story on a manual typewriter. Would this be worth mentioning if a reliable source can be found? It's the most frequent criticism of the book I've encountered. --134.131.125.49 19:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Betraying what or who? Did he have some obligation to somebody and break it? Do you know what "betrayal" means? CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a little disappointing that Gibson isn't (or wasn't) more interested in computers than that, compared to, say, Bruce Sterling. I've also read that while most of the world was getting connected to Internet during the 90's, Gibson still had no access. On the other hand, I think this is what might have helped him create his unique vision. What he knew of computers and technology was somewhat shallow, but he was able to take that and combine it with his imagination to create the cyberpunk style which we all love. //Kada, 6 August 2007
Gibson didn't write Neuromancer "out of ignorance", as this is a work of fiction. Please keep two things in mind: 1) many of the greatest ideas and inventions were made by people outside of their field of interest, and 2) when asked where these ideas originate, writers often speak of or allude to a muse, mindstream, dreams, or the logos, in much the same way that Plato writes on the theory of forms. The mind of a writer, when relaxed but focused, can access ideas that are accessible to everyone, but it is the writer who "captures" these concepts and manifests them in the physical world. If you ever have the chance to listen to a writer speak about their craft, you get the idea that they are merely conduits, empty vessels that are filled with knowledge that they cannot claim as their own. This may sound bizarre to some, and insane to others, but I encourage you to look into the fact of the matter for yourself. —Viriditas | Talk 08:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[Citation Needed], no really. 77.251.55.118 (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The book is far less about computers and the internet than many suppose. The matrix/cyberspace matters much less in it than does simstim, and landscapes and made objects more than terminals. 86.132.248.52 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A spoiler?

The "Background" section mentions that the last sentence of the book is "He never saw Molly again." I haven't read the book, but isn't that a monster spoiler?

Read the book before commenting on its ending. 86.158.200.218 (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

I deleted the sentence: "Gibson explores artificial intelligence, virtual reality, genetic engineering, and megacorporations long before these ideas entered popular culture.[citation needed]". This is not directly pertinent to the book and rather should be moved to the author page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmon echo (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 March 2010

It's also completely untrue. All of those ideas were current in popular culture decades before Neuromancer. It's amazing that people who know nothing feel qualified to edit an encyclopedia. 86.158.200.218 (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Portmanteau

Is this word actually used in the novel to describe a "Neuromancer?" If not, I believe the word should be removed from the page, or at least, unlinked. Drinkybird (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point, "portmanteau" describes the title, not the title character. Its use in the article is correct. HMishkoff (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the word is unnecessary and should be removed, unless 'portmanteau' is used in the novel to describe the word 'Neuromancer' by the author, then it may be appropriate. Drinkybird (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think in this case it's helpful to explain the title of a book with a made up name. Rnb (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if we remove "portmanteau," then maybe we should remove all the words in the article that aren't in the book. (Yes, that was a joke. I'm just trying to make the point that "portmanteau" is a perfectly good word, and is perfectly apropos in this case, and that there's no reason for us to limit our vocabulary only to words that Gibson used in the book.) HMishkoff (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This person seems to have a bizarre vendetta against the word as a whole: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Portmanteaus magnius (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
"Portmanteau" was coined by Lewis Carroll in THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS and later became a technical term in linguistics. It means a word created by fusing other words together and retaining their meanings (a famous example, also from THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, is "chortle" from snort + chuckle). Why is the poster creating such a fuss over a properly used linguistics term?CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
"...a technical term in linguistics." Why are we throwing a technical term from linguistics in an article that has nothing to do with linguistics? Something that is part of the average reader's lexicon makes more sense, like combination. WP:NOT#JARGON 131.151.161.156 (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
"Gibson defines Neuromancer as a portmanteau of the words Neuro, Romancer and Necromancer" Can you not tell from that sentence what the word means well enough for the sentence to make sense and be readable? I learned dozens of words from reading that I now use in conversation. Reading expands vocabulary, and that's kind of the point too–reading things other people wrote; the exchange of ideas and thoughts; people learning from each other. Reading Wikipedia and other online texts especially has helped greatly in expanding my vocabulary. Portmanteau is not an obscure or overly-technical word. It's a perfectly normal word and one that is used throughout Wikipedia. If you don't know what it means, simply click the link and find out. But you now know what the word means, and it probably took you about 15–30 seconds to find out. Also if you want to change the word in this article, why not in other articles too? It doesn't make sense to eradicate the word from Wikipedia simply because some people might not initially know the meaning, especially since most people could figure it out very quickly. And what should the word be changed to? Portmanteau replaces multiple other words, and there are so many ways those other words could be arranged as well. If each article that now uses portmanteau was changed to exclude that word and include some other non-standard combination of words instead, where would the consistency be, unless we came to a consensus of what to replace portmanteau with? The fact is that the word defines a specific concept: a certain way to combine two or more words to create a new word. Sure it can be explained with a phrase or a sentence, or even by pasting the entire portmanteau article each time the word is used. But the point is that it's a concise way to convey a concept, and there's nothing wrong with it. —danhash (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
"Portmanteau is not an obscure or overly-technical word."[citation needed] Wikipedia is the only place I've ever seen this word. Just because a bunch of people like you have inserted it into many articles here does not make it a common word. As for what it could be changed to? Blend is a strong first choice. Although also technically linguistic jargon, it has the advantage of being in common usage as "a combination of things", which meshes with its usage in linguistics and makes its meaning intuitive to average readers. Blend is also, incidentally, the definition of portmanteau word according to Merriam-Webster. 131.151.161.156 (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I have never inserted the word into any articles. If I was writing an article and it was appropriate to use the word then I would. But I'm not on some campaign to insert that word or any other word into as many articles as possible. Portmanteau is also in common usage and is a more specific term. Maybe you don't hear the word used in your circle of friends, but that doesn't mean it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. —danhash (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion portmanteau isn't too technical a term for use on Wikipedia. But I wonder what the criteria for obscureness is? Anyhow, the Simple English Wikipedia may be of interest to people wanting less technical Wikipedia, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer . What some people may find amusing is that the name Wikipedia is also portmanteau of wiki (Hawaiian for fast) and encyclopedia. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Inspiration for the creation of the Internet?

Regarding this recent edit: I'm not sure I understand how Neuromancer can be said to be the inspiration for the creation of the Internet, since the Internet had already been around for a pretty long time before the publishing of Neuromancer. – Mipadi 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit is not too clear, but it seems to suggest that the writing (as opposed to publishing) of Neuromancer somehow called the Internet into being--January 1, 1983 sometimes being considered the birthdate of the Internet. This idea might be a little too mystical for the article; in any case, it should be spelled out a bit more or deleted. Nareek 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems a bit of a stretch to say that the Internet popped into being in January 1, 1983; at any rate, the concept of such a network was definitely conceived long before Neuromancer. I'm suspicious of this edit. – Mipadi 09:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't the internet created in the 1960's? Along with laser discs, flat panel TVs and most other tech we still have today?184.155.130.147 (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Neuromancer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The use of 'Russia' in this context is questionable, possibly outright wrong. At the time it was the Soviet Union, and although the novel doesn't go to great lengths in concern to this, it is likely that it is CCCP they are talking about, not the old imperial Russia or the modern semi-democratic one (especially as if you'd told someone at the time that the latter would even exist in the future, they wouldn't have believed you).

Last edited at 11:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 01:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuromancer/Archive_1&oldid=1197667359"