Jump to content
The WGB
Sign in to follow this  
Cognitive Dissident

Easter Eggs

Recommended Posts

In this Flavorwire interview about the Peripheral, WG says:

Quote

The book’s fractal exposition will reveal Easter eggs embedded in the book.

While the his comment was made in the context of his use of neologisms in the book and trusting the reader to figure out what they mean, the thought that there might be Easter Eggs hidden in the book is tantalizing indeed.  The hunt is on - share your Easter Eggs here!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if WGs definition of Easter Egg is the same as the typical gamers. I was planning on rereading the book this summer and this adds an extra dimension of details to look for. I suspect that his Easter Eggs are details that hit you when you analyze some details, such as whose body/likeness is Flynne wearing, or what parts get to weather the Jackpot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the phrase in context of the interview question, which was about the fact that the reader isn't given any easy explanatory exposition in the book, I tend to interpret "Easter eggs" more as noticing details that foreshadow the direction the plot and/or future will take a lot sooner on a repeat reading. But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Psychophant, @heavyboots, I am sure you are both right, Easter Eggs in fiction tending to be messages or symbols hidden in the text that can foreshadow something in the plot's future, connect more than one authors works, or make reference to something or someone completely unrelated.  I find it exciting that WG refers to the exposition of the Peripheral as "fractal," suggesting self-similarity at different scales.  I wonder what he means by that?  It is certainly worth a second read to find out!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WG has used the term "fractal" several times when describing his writing process, and I suspect he means the same when he described it, years before, as "accretion". It is always risky to make interpretations based on that kind of descriptions, but I believe there is a lot of flotsam in the text that he understands its function only afterwards, depending on what he has been exposed to, seeing, reading and talking while he wrote, with some surprising or loosely connected factoids finding themselves in the text, linked in some strange ways to others. 

 

This additive, unplanned writing mode, combined with a drastic pruning and shaping, polishing the text till it is chrome bright and razor sharp, is what makes his work pretty unique. And slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Psychophant for clearing up what WG might mean by "Fractal Exposition".

 

I remember WG describing his process in a Paris Review interview:

Quote

 

Every day, when I sit down with the manuscript, I start at page one and go through the whole thing, revising freely...

The beginnings of my books are rewritten many times. The endings are only a draft or three, and then they’re done.

 

 

Certainly an iterative, organic process.. And it sounds from your description that the "Easter Eggs" may be generated by WG unconsciously, and the Author himself may be discovering them to his own surprise during subsequent iterations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This December 2015 review of The Peripheral in Entropy Magazine also mentions Easter Eggs:

 

 

Quote

 

"there are so many references to Gibson’s earlier work, particularly Neuromancer, that the story feels as if it were a palimpsest, which it may well be. He’s done it before."

"when William Gibson tunnels back into his own old work there’s bound to be more going on than a mere Easter egg hunt for the fans."

 

 

The author of the article makes it sound as if we should be stumbling over Easter Eggs at every turn.  I am in the middle of my second read and I am embarrassed to say that so far I have come up empty-handed.  Anyone with any better luck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if this qualifies:  "Neural Cutout" as a connection to Neuromancer. 

In the latter it takes the form of a chip which, when implanted in the brain of the subject, allows software to take over that person's body.  Molly has one implanted to earn money as a "meat puppet" to pay for all of her "street samurai" surgery. In The Peripheral it is a non-invasive electronic device that when worn allows the subject to control a "peripheral" body.  The common factor is that in both novels it disconnects the subject's body from their consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one may be a bit of a stretch, but here goes:

 

The name of a television show Flynne refers to throughout The Peripheral, "Ciencia Loca,"  translates from spanish to "Weird Science."  The latter is the name of a 1985 movie where (from Google):

 

Quote

Teen misfits Gary (Anthony Michael Hall) and Wyatt (Ilan Mitchell-Smith) design their ideal woman on a computer, and a freak electrical accident brings her to life in the form of the lovely, superhuman Lisa (Kelly LeBrock).

 

This seems like a reference to the climax of All Tomorrow's Parties where the Idoru, Rei Toei, emerges from the virtual to the real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016/7/30 at 1:19 PM, s.smigiel said:

I think the bigger question here is, are they clever references to earlier works, or intentional apophenia triggers?

 

If apophenia is the perception of  patterns or connections where none in fact exist, I am not sure what could be meant by "intentional apophenia triggers."  This seems like a contradiction in terms.  Are you suggesting that WG is deliberately  making what look like connections to his previous works but are in fact not?  If we take the example of "neural cutout," the term is used both in The Peripheral and Neuromancer - this is a fact.  The question, as I see it, is whether WG deliberately chose to use this term in The Peripheral as a connection to Neuromancer (i.e. as a kind of Easter Egg) or whether it was an accident (i.e. when writing The Peripheral he had forgotten he had already used the same term in Neuromancer).  The latter is quite possible as WG has been quoted as saying he does not go back and re-read his previous works.  But if it were an accidental connection, it could not be classified as an intentional apophenia trigger.

Please help me understand your point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...