Talk:Neuromancer

Comic

There was a comic adaptation published by Eclipse, shouldn't it be included in Adaptations? Tried to do so, but my contribution was deleted.

Music?

Wasn't there a section devoted to music that had been inspired by Neuromancer? I could've seen it in another article I suppose. -fs

Beyond 2000

The main page now meentions an episode of "the American version of Beyond 2000" that seems to have some sort of interview about an second cancelled remake of the Neuromancer game. Explanations as to the details or name of the episode, or to the show itself if it has a different name, or most especially to where this can be seen, would be a great contribution. As it is, most webpages that seem to indicate that they sell copies of the show, do not do so.

Brad Bird's Neuromancer

Neuromancer is a 1994 American hand drawn animated Science fiction film directed by Richard Rich written by Brad Bird Chuck Russell Joseph Kahn and John Milius produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Animation, Hyperion Pictures and Creat Animation animated by Threshold Entertainment Fox Animation Studios Sony Pictures Imageworks and Dygra Films. Released by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Warner Bros Family Entertainment 92.40.212.222 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. But certainly provide a source if you have one. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing work on article

Hi folks. I've started working on this article as a project, similar to the work I previously did on Dracula. I have revised the article structure and content substantially and introduced a new referencing scheme. Where possible, I have upgraded the quality of referencing, marked where alternative sources need to be identified, and removed poorly sourced information. If you notice any obvious issues, please do fix—for example, my US English may not be consistent where American should be used here. For anything more complicated please chat to me first; work on the article is not yet complete. 03:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 03:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I should have probably included my future plans involve...

Continuing work on Reception and Impact.

Adding 2 sections: "Context and interpretation" (subheadings: "Political", "Social", "Postmodern") and "Genre".

Rewriting Character to include professional criticism and analysis.

Any assistance finding more related images would be appreciated. Thank you. 03:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Danbloch, the "triple crown" is mentioned frequently across scholarly criticism of Neuromancer. I would not consider this "marketing", because it is not marketing. I will include references to this effect in the reception section but do not feel strongly about its inclusion in the lead. Regarding its inclusion in "Wikipedia's voice", it was in quotation marks because it the term is not mine or Wikipedia', with multiple possible sources. ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I would direct your attention to Hugo- and Nebula-award winner and former Philip K. Dick judge Robert J. Sawyer, who writes in his blog:

It is an honour and a privilege to be a Dick nominee, but the Dick is not, and was never intended to be, what the Hugo and the Nebulas are: an award for the best science fiction or fantasy novel of the year.

It’s only in the marketing of NEUROMANCER that the Dick/Hugo/Nebula is ever referred to as “science fiction’s Triple Crown.” It CAN’T be, because many/most of the SF books published in a given year are ineligible for the Dick (by virtue of not being paperback originals).

The use of quotes in the Neuromancer article implies that "triple crown" is a common usage which Wikipedia is informing the reader of, and this isn't true.

Having said that, leaving it out of the lead would be a reasonable compromise. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Danbloch: Thank you for that context! Given the source of the quote, sounds reasonable to include that context; I've added it as an EFN. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Any benefit of including the sentence about Autodesk ("Gibson sent a cease-and-desist letter to Autodesk co-founder John Walker after he launched a project called Cyberspace, saying they had missed 'several layers of irony'.") is outweighed by the facts that, first, it isn't about Neuromancer's impact, so it's off-topic for this section, and second, it isn't related to the paragraph it's in (and looks bad as a single-sentence paragraph). Also the "several layers of irony" quote doesn't convey any meaning to readers. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Danbloch: I don't really understand this one. The part in question is about Neuromancer influencing real-life technology development. It inspired a project by a major company, and Gibson's ownership over the concept allowed him to send a legal shutdown notice. The "several layers of irony" part alludes to themes of corporate control in the narrative, which will be built upon later. I disagree with your rationale for removing it, and will restore it, but I am open to further discussion. Regarding the single-sentence part, this article is going to be in constant flux over the next few weeks as I advance towards GA promotion. Do not expect everything to look immediately. At least, I hope you will agree the article has improved substantially over the shape it had last week. ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added the information back in, somewhat stripped down, with some new accompanying information to bulk up the section. I will highlight that it was not in a single-sentence paragraph, as you said; it was the third sentence of a paragraph. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Neuromancer didn't inspire the project, it was used as the name of a demo of a project (which AFAICT never went to market). But this aside, the article flow is okay now, which was all I cared about.

And for the record, I wasn't saying it was a single-sentence paragraph, I was saying it would look bad if it were split out of its existing paragraph. But I can see how this could have been misinterpreted. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know that I'm done for now. I'll take another look in a week or two. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Danbloch: Editing is a pretty solitary experience so I am genuinely happy to get input. I struggle to convey tone at times so please don't take it poorly. Thank you for your feedback. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello again. Another issue. I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the Delany quote. It's 230 words long, longer than some articles, and it's just inserted with no explanation, for a reader to read and draw his own conclusions. This means it's arguably a WP:COPYVIO (per WP:COPYPASTE#What about quotes?: the quotation must not be replaceable with free text (including text that the editor writes)). Here there's no analysis except that Delany "criticized the portrayal, highlighting their 'shrunken hearts' and brittle bones", which ignores the other 220 words and isn't even accurate--the shrunken hearts and brittle bones aren't highlighted, they're just one of about ten sentences in the quote. Delany's views should be excerpted and paraphrased if they're worth including. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neuromancer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs) 10:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Neuromancer has long been one of my favorite novels. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks π, looking forward to it — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• Not required, but might be good to update the non-free rationale on the file page to one of the standard templates.

 Working I'm pretty bad with this sort of thing. Let me get back to you. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• Warhola isn't mentioned in the article; I would either add his name to the prose and cite it, or remove it from the infobox.

 Working I've found Warhola mentioning making the illustration for the original cover in an interview — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• Explain the acronym ICE in its first use

 Done — ImaginesTigers (talk)

The acronym should be written out at first use; see MOS:ACRO1STUSE

 Done

• The penultimate sentence needs rewording - was this the first novel to win all three awards?

 Working Not sure what you mean here—the sentence begins It remains the first and only novel to win. I've tweaked the grammar – let me know if that helps. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

I would add all three of to clarify.

 Done

• I don't see anything in the prose that demonstrates It remains an enduring classic; the latest date in the "impact" section is from 2005. I would either add sources indicating continued popularity, or remove/rewrite this phrase.

 Done IMO "enduring classic" was a reasonable paraphrase. While the latest in-line date is 2005, there are sources from 2020 and 2022 attesting to it as a quintessential cyberpunk novel etc. That said, I concede the point and have tweaked the text. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Background

• Use the default thumbnail size (or the upright parameter) rather than hard-coding the image size.

 Done — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• The first sentence should be split in two. As currently written, it states that "Johnny Mnemonic" was working as a teaching assistant.

 Done This made me laugh – fixed — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• I would link "moll" to Gun moll#In fiction.

 Done — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• Link to The Long Tomorrow (comics)

 Done — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• Add the Latham citation directly to footnote d

 Done Thank god I provided a direct quote in that footnote... — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• Looking at Wikiquote, some of Gibson's statements about Neuromancer may be useful to note. (I'm a fan of "I'd buy him a drink, but I don't know if I'd loan him any money" about himself.)

I can see the appeal but believe this is better for Gibson's article (as, say, an inset quote in a quote box). I haven't seen the documentary but can't think of a way to include it that doesn't feel like trivia – ie., there's no analysis for it, no other context as to why. I've found the documentary on YouTube but watching it to potentially add one quote (that I would likely remove if someone else added it) doesn't feel great to me. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Plot

• Since it's discussed later, I would mention Zion here.

 Done Great point. I've added it in! I think this section requires further streamlining but I believe I will be working on this further in the future anyway. I need to reread the book. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• In "Talk for Book Expo, New York" in Distrust That Particular Flavor, Gibson apparently says the book is set in the 2030s.

 Done You're right, thanks for that. I've added in some other context he provides on that page, too. I believe this is more suitable for "Inspiration" than Plot for a couple reasons; I'm happy to discuss. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Genre

• I would move this into a subsection of "Context and interpretation"

 Done I was initially hesitant to do this but after thinking about it, I can get behind it. Ideally I'd want to bundle it in with a "Style" section (cf. Dracula, my last FA) but there just isn't enough scholarship to do so. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• The sentence beginning Gibson communicated is awkwardly phrased, since it says "these individuals" but names a different set at the end. It also has a lot of commas (yet misses an Oxford comma) and could use rephrasing for clarity.

 Done Tweaked. My Oxford comma style should be "only if necessary to avoid confusion" (ie., the famous "I went to dinner with my parents, Adolf Hitler and John Kennedy"). — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• I don't think the drugs and sex... quote adds much here; it would be better for the cyberpunk article.

Cscisery-Ronay does talk about Gibson and Neuromancer here at length:

• Psychology and even physiology are wiring, nerves are circuits, drugs and sex and other thrills turn you on, you get a buzz, you get wired, you space out, you go on automatic. [...] The metaphors themselves have a life. And in the hands of a master like Gibson, the fuzzy links can be subtly constructed, but always merely implied, four-level hierarchy of evolving systems of information processing from the individual human being's biological processes and personality, through the total life of society, to nonliving artificial intelligences, and ultimately to new entities created out of those Als. In Neuromancer, each level of the hierarchy is meaningless to itself, yet it creates the material/informational conditions for the evolution of the next higher one, and all participate in a quasi cosmic "dance of biz." (Cscisery-Ronay, Jr., 1991, p. 190)

I like the sense behind these concepts, but distilling this entire paragraph for an encyclopaedia is challenging without overloading the reader; I decided to present the rawest form of it, hopefully directing readers with interest to a valuable resource on the topic. Have a look at the changes I've made. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Context and interpretation

• Duplicate citation in Gibson's inexperience ...

 Done

• Per MOS:QUOTE#Attribution, quotations that represent opinions should have the author mentions in-text.

 Done

• No need for the "drugs and sex" quote here either

 Not done I've removed the previous instance of the quote, but believe preserving it here as a footnote clarifies and elaborates on the point made. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• Minds are saved to a Read-only memory (ROM), not specifically a CD-ROM, in the novel.

 Done Good catch — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• The sentence Some critics consider... feels incomplete; I had to read it twice to properly parse it. I would recommend rephrasing it.

 Done — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• The quote by Delaney is excessively long; remove it and rework the main idea(s) into prose.

 Done You're right. I've done this, and added in that Delany also praised the book as "extraordinary". There's a lot of meat to his description of Neuromancer but sadly it's just not possible to capture it at all. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Reception

• I would move the first two sentences later in the paragraph, since the awards weren't until after the release.

 Done I moved things around and rephrased. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• The second part of footnote g is not needed

 Not done This originally was not included by me, but was added as a compromise following a discussion with Dan Bloch. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• didn't --> did not

 Done — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• No comma needed after The Evening Sun

 Done — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Impact

• The title for the Grossman 2005 quote is messed up.

 Done — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• Link to reality TV, nanomachines and virtual communities

 Done — ImaginesTigers (talk)

• I'm not sure the sentence To Gibson's dismay... is necessary - the Autodesk product is hardly the most prominent use of the word. Was his reaction specifically to that product, or the general usage of the word in commercial products?

Yes – he was reacting specifically to the Autodesk product; I've clarified in the EFN. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Adaptations

• I would consider mentioning Timothy Leary's earlier plans for a Neuromancer videogame (very different from the one actually made).

 Done Thanks! I didn't know this existed.

• Remove "most recently" per MOS:CURRENTLY

 Done

• No need to mention that Tim Miller directed Deadpool

 Done

• Roland's first name is missing

 Done Oops

• The article is in Category:American novels adapted for radio, but I don't see any mention of a radio adaptation.

 Done Chances are it was previously in there, but I couldn't substantiate it with a high-quality source. As a general rule I tend to avoid touching categories. I'll have a little look now and remove what is non-defining (ie., that sources don't consistently and commonly say).

External links

• Remove the Goodreads link per WP:NOSOCIAL

 Done

• Not sure if the Worlds Without End link is needed - is that standard for scifi novels?

 Done Never looked at these – removed a bunch.

Sources

• Most sources are offline or paywalled. I checked all non-paywalled online sources with no issues.
• Some of the items under "websites", like the Couch and Hamman items, seem like they should be under "news" instead. (Or just merge the two sections)

 Not done I agree with you on some of them, but – honestly – it's just a huge amount of work because they're alphabetised with limited benefit to readers. I'd prefer to save that effort for FA instead of GA, if that's alright with you.

Overall

Thank you for these. Busy few days personally so I’ll pick these up at the weekend. Thank you for doing this! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Thanks for your patience! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Looking good so far. I won't push on the three not-done points (though other may bring them up at FA). Just waiting on the three items at top (Warhola, writing out ICE, and the award phrasing) and then ready to pass. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: My bad – I misunderstood what you meant on ICE (I thought you wanted a definition added). These three are fixed now. I moved some of the web sources into news, too, since they were all beside one another in the alphabet. Thank you very much for the review! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Great work - passing now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plot ending

It's been a while since I've read the book, but I'm almost sure there was no mention of alien AI in the original novel, it was first mentioned in Mona Lisa Overdrive ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_Overdrive ) ~2026-15674-14 (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It's in Neuromancer. See https://archive.org/details/neuromancer00gibs/page/270/mode/2up?ref=ol&q=centauri. Danbloch (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)