Neuromancer was released 40 years ago today
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
I reread all his novels recently, after having a read in previous years quite a bit about the art and craft of writing, the various approaches to the the classic three act plot, etc (writing features heavily in my own work).
On reread, I honestly think vol 3 "Mona Lisa Overdrive" is the perfectly crafted sci-fi thriller, and his best written book. It was so well done I reread it a third time as soon as I was finished. I think it was his best single work.
Used to see him around sometimes in Vancouver too. If you see this, thanks for everything Mr Gibson.
This line delivered by the “Turing Police” investigating too-powerful AI still gives me chills.
There's on trick that kept is seeming up-to-date: the author invented many words without giving it any explanation, and later authors have filled in the blanks in a way that is compatible with the novel.
Based on what? Thematic Motif? Lexicon and Grammar? Characterization? Use of Imagery and Metaphor? Dialogue? Plot? Worlbuilding?
By any objective critique Gibson is a compelling and articulate writer, with a sharp ear for one-liners and a fantastic cynical descriptive prowess. Neuromancer fulfills most of what I'd consider to be the criteria of a 'good' book. No need to condemn one of the defining pieces of 20th Century fin-de-siecle and postmodern literature, not to mention the archetype of the cyberpunk genre, to the sci-fi ghetto out of genre-cringe.
The characters aren't exactly well developed, there's lots of pretty silly gratuitous sex scenes, etc. It's been about twenty years now since I've read the book; and, sorry, I have no desire to re-read the thing to give a more in-depth review. You can find critical reviews online easy enough.
To be honest, the genre is the one thing that kept me going.
It's ok, if you like Mr Gibson's writing. Tastes differ. No need to feel personally attacked. Not everyone is out to get 'your' genre.
I even specified objective over subjective reasoning to avoid the whole goalpost shift of it being a matter of 'taste', and your best retort was to call me triggered and tell me to DYOR?
Not the level of discourse I'd expect from HN tbh. I'm sorry I engaged.
Who said it's not 'literature'? I just said it's not good, but I never claimed it ain't literature. And I didn't complain about the unexplained techno-babble, that's actually part of its charm.
(You seem to be under the impression that I dislike 'genre-fiction', and that I am a 'literary snob' or something? Far from it! Btw, just because we disagree with literary snobs, doesn't mean that all their critiques are always all wrong.
To give a crass analogy: did you know that the Nazis passed some of the first animal protection laws and were some of the first administrations to take the health risks of smoking serious? We can see those two things as good, without agreeing with the National Socialists in general.
I don't think your average 'literary fiction' is any better than Neuromancer, either.)
> I even specified objective over subjective reasoning to avoid the whole goalpost shift of it being a matter of 'taste', and your best retort was to call me triggered and tell me to DYOR?
What's DYOR? Where do you see any trigger? I'm not sure how you can measure literature 'objectively'. You suggested more subjective criteria, like judging the 'Thematic Motif'. (Subjective criteria are fine by me!)
It's fine for you to like Neuromancer.
Gibson these days agrees with your assessment of the characters.
If those are your primary criteria for a novel maybe Austen is more your speed.
I like most of what Neal Stephenson writes (to varying degrees), and Ian M Banks and some of Charles Stross's works are also great. Of course, everyone like Terry Pratchett, too, and that includes me.
This happens so often I sometimes wonder if everything I see online is tracked and Astroturfed somehow (ofc it’s not)
Suffice it to say, I would have enjoyed it if I had read it.
Neuromancer is a bit of a guilty pleasure; like an airport novel.
It's fun enough to read, but it's not a good book.
I still liked reading it twenty years ago, but I wouldn't do it again.
There's better science fiction and also better cyberpunk available. Not to mention other genres.
Don't see this as a comprehensive list. It's just what I had at the top of my head, so no guarantees it's even what _I_ think is best, just what I could remember quickly.