Talk:Sprawl trilogy

Novels: Sci-fi Mid‑importance

	Novels portal 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as High-importance).

Dystopia?[edit]

I think it can be argued that the Sprawl Trilogy does not represent a dystopic world because the reactions of the characters within the world are not, on the whole, negative. In other words, their reaction to the world is to to accept it as normal and live within its constraints, much as we do. I think this is an important point; for much of its history, science fiction has alternated between utopian and dystopian visions of the future. Gibson offers a view rendered in shades of gray, in which most characters are a mix of good and evil, dystopian and utopian.

The world in the books is described in a distopian setting, thus that alone simply makes it distopian. Though the characters aren't inherantly negative, they aren't exactly saints either. Case, Molly, and so forth are people who exist in the fringes of the serie's society and thus, their outlook will hardly represent that general world as a whole. In this instance, I believe that in their particular existence, these characters will find solidarity and happiness in a manner that doesn't conform to the world they live in. Also rampant and unchecked technology advances have pretty much rendered governments useless and corporations essentially keep the world's status quos in check. If Gibson's Sprawl Trilogy isn't a vision of a dystopic future, then I think the basis of classifying his books within the cyberpunk genre should be reconsidered. Gibson Cowboy 14:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the things you mention are good or bad is open to discussion, also worth noting is that the main characters in this books are hardly representative of the whole world they live in. It is clear that there are plenty of happy people there having normal lives as well as people suffering in misery, I would say this is not very different from the world we currently live in. Also I would completely disagree that the cyberpunk genre requires a dystopian view of the future. --Lost Goblin 02:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that most characters in most distopian novels "accept [the world] as normal and live within its constraints, much as we do." Most of the folks in Brave New World are actually pretty happy, but it is still a distopia.Wachholder0 06:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is valid, but I don't think that this issue is very relevant. --Lost Goblin 02:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very much an issue of point of view, I personally would consider it "realistic"(for lack of a better word) science fiction, in contrast to the utopian/dystopian science fiction you refer to. Of course some people will not like that future, but I don't think that is necessarily even the most common view. Also given the following definition of "dystopia", I don't think it applies at all:

  dystopia
      n 1: state in which the condition of life is extremely bad as
           from deprivation or oppression or terror [ant: {utopia}]
           
      2: a work of fiction describing an imaginary place where life
         is extremely bad because of deprivation or oppression or
         terror

To me it feels very much like our current world, with a very heterogeneous combination of good and evil, with the good/evil ratio changing depending on your point of view and personal values. And I think *that* is the beauty of it, that it presents us a world without making a moral judgement of what is presented in it. --Lost Goblin 02:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the trilogy[edit]

When did the name for the trilogy become Sprawl Trilogy? In my books this is called the Cyberspace Trilogy. 24.205.52.47 05:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the trilogy has an "official" name, I have also seen it mentioned as "the Neuromancer Trilogy", and the "The Sprawl trilogy" seems a bit of a misnomer as much of the action happens elsewhere, and "The Sprawl" as such doesn't have a very central role in the story. Still I think it is known most commonly under this name, but at least mentioning the various alternative names might be a good idea. --Lost Goblin 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'Sprawl Trilogy' name started being used when the phrase 'Bridge Trilogy' started being used - as a way to seperate the 2 'sets', to show they're not connected.

Personally, I've always considered there to be 4 books in the Sprawl set - since Burning Chrome should be included, especially as many of the stories and characters are referred to in the other 3 books.

193.243.227.1 11:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More appropriate covers?[edit]

The photo is of covers from the 1996 editions. (and IMHO, these covers suck) The covers from earlier (original?) editions look much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.59.182 (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Octagon?[edit]

Does this word really belong in the glossary? I always thought it was merely a description of the shape of the pills. I'm not sure synecdoche is the right word, but it's close in meaning, more like a poetic description of the form of the drug rather than intended as a part of the actual and literal vernacular of the setting. 72.73.33.64 (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]