This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For’s review of Neuromancer (Sprawl Trilogy, #1) > Likes and Comments
230 likes · Like
I remember Compuserve too! And the ones you mentioned too Rivka. Great review Michael.
Oh, and I've been meaning to watch Citizen Kane for years.
Well done comment on context. And one definition of classic is that it's value endures for later generations.
In film, I'll offer the early MArx Bros films - leaving aside the filler - the scenes with the boys still kill.
This is a severely insightful review. After reading a thread where people had raved about this book, I decided to pick it up—knowing nothing about its "context" as you put it. I didn't even know when it had been written.
As I started to read, I found myself slightly underwhelmed: the writing itself is somewhat disjointed, and the author has an idiosyncratic way of expressing things.
But, given the context of it being written 30 years ago now, it makes much more sense why this was recommended. Since, even with its flaws, it was still absolutely groundbreaking.
Thank you!
It always makes me smile when I think about the Hitachi his junkie girlfriend stole from him. I think it was a 3 MEGABYTE!!! Lol
Excellent review. I'm about halfway through it at the moment and am simultaneously blown away by the thought that he wrote this in 1984 & a little underwhelmed by the story as it stands. When it comes to this novel, context is everything. In the 80s no one knew what the Matrix was (for example) - now all readers have an instant point of reference,
I think "Neuromancer" nowadays has to be read as an alternate history, set in a parallel universe where the '80s never ended. And you can't just shove people into Gibson with "He's the best! Just trust me!" You have to let them know what they're getting into. I worship the ground WG walks on but he's not for everybody.
Not Michael wrote:
The word “cyberspace” was popularized by this novel and coined by Gibson
Shortly before the turn-of-the-century I first read this term used for the world wide web. While this is apt in a strict sense, it still strikes me as a diminishment. "Jacking in" and indirectly perceiving the internet as "construct" (bypassing the usual five senses) is other-worldly enough to make our current internet interactions seem very primitive. At best that was an unfortunate, seriously premature appropriation.
Neuromancer must have been absolutely stunning (in 1984)
I think it still is in a number of respects. For starters, see above the "construct". Gibson's near-future medicine is pretty wonderous. The Sprawl is a faintly dystopic extrapolation of the "megalopolis" - a term I first read in the early 70s - referring to the "extreme" urbanization of the northeastern seaboard. More an SF commonplace is the well-developed low-orbit infrastructure portrayed in Gibson's World. Did Neuromancer have ballistic, hyper-sonic transport (?), which is acheivable now - though costly - but which fits in with the extreme wealth portrayed in all the Sprawl novels. FWIW, that wealth and the idea of essentially independent Corporations and their extra-legal machinations, implies an anti-dystopic extrapolation of capitalism's success over recent centuries (whatever the dystopic "atmosphere" in his world-building).
In all three of the Sprawl novels I recall no mention whatever of government - no analogs to our federal agencies, no government services, not even cops or spooks. All the conflict is between powerful private concerns. Yet, it is clear that order pervades this future civilization, and the "wars" are strictly limited. In itself, this is interesting, and gives the novel a timeless quality.
I suspect the book is much easier to read now then it was when written
For hard-science-fiction-fans this novel's near-future technological-extrapolations were not hard to understand in the mid-80s. Gibson's prose, with little exposition, much implication, and descriptively dense, forces the reader to slow down - skimming is not allowed. In that sense, the novel is a literary challenge of sorts - which may make it currently harder to understand if literary sensibilities are less common thirty years later.
(Neuromancer is) rather middle-of-the-road overall
I'd like to see this idea fleshed out - in what way is Neuromancer "middle-of-the-road"?
What a terrific and thoughtful review. I've been mulling whether to read this or not and the disparity in reviews is startling. Thanks to this review it all makes a bit more sense. I'm still undecided whether to read it, but this has been a great help. Thanks.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
I remember Compuserve too! And the ones you mentioned too Rivka. Great review Michael.Oh, and I've been meaning to watch Citizen Kane for years.
Well done comment on context. And one definition of classic is that it's value endures for later generations. In film, I'll offer the early MArx Bros films - leaving aside the filler - the scenes with the boys still kill.
This is a severely insightful review. After reading a thread where people had raved about this book, I decided to pick it up—knowing nothing about its "context" as you put it. I didn't even know when it had been written.As I started to read, I found myself slightly underwhelmed: the writing itself is somewhat disjointed, and the author has an idiosyncratic way of expressing things.
But, given the context of it being written 30 years ago now, it makes much more sense why this was recommended. Since, even with its flaws, it was still absolutely groundbreaking.
Thank you!
I would claim Neuromancer is as influential as Citizen Kane, on its own way.
It is convoluted, made to be dated, has a weird language in some spots (and I love stuff like nadsat!), but it gave us The Matrix, Ghost in the Shell, Hackers and many others.
It is convoluted, made to be dated, has a weird language in some spots (and I love stuff like nadsat!), but it gave us The Matrix, Ghost in the Shell, Hackers and many others.
It always makes me smile when I think about the Hitachi his junkie girlfriend stole from him. I think it was a 3 MEGABYTE!!! Lol
Excellent review. I'm about halfway through it at the moment and am simultaneously blown away by the thought that he wrote this in 1984 & a little underwhelmed by the story as it stands. When it comes to this novel, context is everything. In the 80s no one knew what the Matrix was (for example) - now all readers have an instant point of reference,
I think "Neuromancer" nowadays has to be read as an alternate history, set in a parallel universe where the '80s never ended. And you can't just shove people into Gibson with "He's the best! Just trust me!" You have to let them know what they're getting into. I worship the ground WG walks on but he's not for everybody.
Not Michael wrote:The word “cyberspace” was popularized by this novel and coined by Gibson
Shortly before the turn-of-the-century I first read this term used for the world wide web. While this is apt in a strict sense, it still strikes me as a diminishment. "Jacking in" and indirectly perceiving the internet as "construct" (bypassing the usual five senses) is other-worldly enough to make our current internet interactions seem very primitive. At best that was an unfortunate, seriously premature appropriation.
Neuromancer must have been absolutely stunning (in 1984)
I think it still is in a number of respects. For starters, see above the "construct". Gibson's near-future medicine is pretty wonderous. The Sprawl is a faintly dystopic extrapolation of the "megalopolis" - a term I first read in the early 70s - referring to the "extreme" urbanization of the northeastern seaboard. More an SF commonplace is the well-developed low-orbit infrastructure portrayed in Gibson's World. Did Neuromancer have ballistic, hyper-sonic transport (?), which is acheivable now - though costly - but which fits in with the extreme wealth portrayed in all the Sprawl novels. FWIW, that wealth and the idea of essentially independent Corporations and their extra-legal machinations, implies an anti-dystopic extrapolation of capitalism's success over recent centuries (whatever the dystopic "atmosphere" in his world-building).
In all three of the Sprawl novels I recall no mention whatever of government - no analogs to our federal agencies, no government services, not even cops or spooks. All the conflict is between powerful private concerns. Yet, it is clear that order pervades this future civilization, and the "wars" are strictly limited. In itself, this is interesting, and gives the novel a timeless quality.
I suspect the book is much easier to read now then it was when written
For hard-science-fiction-fans this novel's near-future technological-extrapolations were not hard to understand in the mid-80s. Gibson's prose, with little exposition, much implication, and descriptively dense, forces the reader to slow down - skimming is not allowed. In that sense, the novel is a literary challenge of sorts - which may make it currently harder to understand if literary sensibilities are less common thirty years later.
(Neuromancer is) rather middle-of-the-road overall
I'd like to see this idea fleshed out - in what way is Neuromancer "middle-of-the-road"?
What a terrific and thoughtful review. I've been mulling whether to read this or not and the disparity in reviews is startling. Thanks to this review it all makes a bit more sense. I'm still undecided whether to read it, but this has been a great help. Thanks.
I tried reading this book back in about '90, and it wasn't my cup of tea at all. But ground-breaking it definitely was. It essentially defined the "cyberpunk" genre!