Talk:The Shockwave Rider

Version
I read somewhere that one edition of the book was butchered by an editor who somehow turned two separate characters into one. If there was one thing Brunner always hated it was meddling editors, and I can only imagine his reaction to something like that. Can anyone confirm this and supply further details? ...Lee M 00:36, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

misc
Isn't this the book that introduces the concepts "flash mobs" and markets where people trade in predictions of future events, like the one suggested for terrorism in the USA?

Answer: Yes, indeed thats one of the many novel ideas introduced in this book. While it isn't the business of SF to predict the future (quote from: Ulrika O'Brien, Potlatch 13 Programming, http://www.potlatch-sf.org/potlatch13/programming.html), this book (of 1974!) has predicted quite a number of developments that only occurred many years later and we might see even more to come, like worms, the world-wide-web, automatic spying on data transmissions within the www by government agencies, reality TV shows like jackass and more, or warrying factions of religious fanatics, to name a few. The setting is after the big quake devastating the West Coast. If you believe in conspiracy theories there might be a reason why this book is unavailable and out of print almost all the time. When you see a copy somewhere, get it.


 * "The Shockwave Rider" does not introduce the concept of "flash mobs", although it is rich in many other insightful prognostications, including future-predictions markets ("Delphi boards"). Karl gregory jones (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the predictions can be carried over from Future Shock. Sweedack? --Error (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think of "flash mobs" as coming from a Larry Niven story, but I can't find a source for that thought. htom (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * However, Niven's version of flash mobs was based on teleportation-booth technology, and included a significant criminal element... AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is from Larry Niven's "All the Bridges Rusting": "The booths brought problems of their own, he thinks you're an ungrateful bastard. But they did. You know they did." "Like flash crowds?" "Sure. Any time anything interesting happens anywhere, some newstaper is going to report it. Then people flick in to see it from all over the United States. If it gets big enough you get people flicking in just to see the crowd, plus pickpockets, looters, cops, more newstapers, anyone looking for publicity. Then there's the drug problem. There's no way to stop smuggling. ... Oh, and the ecologists don't like the booths. They make wilderness areas too available." There is a T101 in your kitchen (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just checked: The book is available as e-book by one of the larger distributors (for 4,99€). I guess just the paper prints are out of stock due to lack of demand.  Any theory about a conspiracy trying to "hide" the information in the book would need to explain why the e-books are still available, containing the same information ;-) Alfe (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Question.. concerning the game "Fencing" described in the book. I had heard that John Brunner had wanted to actually make the game, but some game theorist pointed out that there was some flaw (or some such). So the question is -- does any one have any information behind this story? CheyenneWills 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I always imagined he was referring to some "go" like game.

Why "Wikipedia" sucks- example #267894
The very first sentence is simply incorrect. I see a "history" of more than 500 changes- yet this most basic 'falsehood' has been completely ignored.

As both my personal copy of the "first edition" of this book and my further internet research confirms- "Stand on Zanzibar" was first published in 1968.

Who wants to delete the "Themes" section? I'm pretty sure that Allende's coup in '70, his overthrow in '73, and/or Nixon's resignation in '74 were probably not influencing Brunner's work in 1967-68...

4.225.97.65 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Publisher: Harpercollins (Feb 1975), according to Amazon.co.uk. Perhaps you're thinking of Stand on Zanzibar, the dystopic New Wave science fiction novel written by John Brunner and first published in 1968 (ISBN 0-09-919110-5). . . . dave souza, talk 07:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Salvador Allende
"The Shockwave Rider" (published 1975) refers to the overthrow of Allende. (Ballantine paperback, second edition, page 227: "A Matter of Hysterical Record".) "Stand on Zanzibar" does not. Karl gregory jones (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Nixon
"The Shockwave Rider" does not refer to Nixon by name. It does portray the President, who is unnamed, as brutal and criminal. Nixon is perhaps the inspiration for the unnamed future President, given that Watergate and Nixon's resignation occured during the time Brunner was writing the novel, but this remains speculative. Karl gregory jones (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Real article
Is this a real article? If so, why does it have a non-mainspace allowed sub-article name? Unless there is a reason, i'll change it tomorrow (to the book title alone).Yobmod (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Ah, ignore me, is already a redirect. Though John Brunner/Shockwave rider was the title here :-/.Yobmod (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Laissez-faire is bad, you know
I don't want to go all ideological, but how does the line "The world described in the book is dystopian, with laissez-faire economics portrayed as leading inevitably to disaster as greed trumps long-term planning." connect at all with an economic situation where a powerful government oligarchy is playing kleptocracy? Did Brunner actually say that he considers that "laissez faire"? Adding a "citation needed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by There is a T101 in your kitchen (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Name of protagonist
The name of the protagonist was given as "Nick", and a recent IP editor changed it to "Nicky". I reverted it as likely vanity vandalism, after a quick check with a Googled source online. But when I got hold of my copy of the paperback, I discovered that the name is initially given as "Nickie". Apologies to the IP editor, who knew the name was wrong, but didn't quite get it right. To add a twist, by the end of the novel, the name is given as "Nick". I'm not sure about when/why the name changes, and I'm not going to re-read the novel right now. Can anybody clarify what the "Nickie/Nick" change is about? Was the first moniker a child's nickname, and the final name an adult's? Reify-tech (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's just a Nickname. (Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.) Alfe (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleting text from a talk page
IP 184.63.132.236 (talk) and I have been going round and round for a couple of days now deleting and restoring text from this talk page. Here are the edit summaries (in reverse cronological order):


 * 21:26, 29 July 2014‎ W163 . . (7,479 bytes) (+2,240)‎ . . (Undid revision 619053644 by 184.63.132.236. revert, the material that is being removed and restored is from 2008 and 2009. There is no need to remove it now.)
 * 20:37, 29 July 2014‎ 184.63.132.236 . . (5,239 bytes) (-2,240)‎ . . (The section says its about Stand on Zanzibar. Which is not this article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 WP: talk about the subject, not an other subject Undid revision 618900273 by W163)
 * 21:13, 28 July 2014‎ W163‎ . . (7,479 bytes) (+2,240)‎ . . (Undid revision 618897341 by 184.63.132.236. I did read them. Say why you are deleting other people's comments on talk pages. Be specific. Cite the Wikipedia policy.)
 * 20:46, 28 July 2014‎ 184.63.132.236‎ . . (5,239 bytes) (-2,240)‎ . . (Actually read these comments before you undo them again. It's impossible to ignore a comment without reading it first. Undid revision 618871286 by W163)
 * 16:58, 28 July 2014‎ W163‎ . . (7,479 bytes) (+2,240)‎ . . (undo two previous edits that seem to delete talk page comments by others. it is generally better to respond with your own comments or ignore the comments)
 * 15:35, 28 July 2014‎ 184.63.132.236 . . (5,239 bytes) (-439)‎ . . (self-defeating, not worth reading→‎Real article)
 * 15:30, 28 July 2014‎ 184.63.132.236‎ . . (5,678 bytes) (-1,801)‎ . . (appears to be about a different article/book →‎Why "Wikipedia" sucks- example #267894)

A comment about this was also posted on the talk page for 184.63.132.236 by Reify-tech (talk) at 21:40 on 28 July 2014.

Before this goes much further, please see WP:TPO. That policy says in part:


 * The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.


 * Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.


 * Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.


 * -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

British spelling?
The book of course has a British author, but is almost entirely set in the U.S., and if what is in the infobox is true (Harper & Row), may have been first published in the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)