Neuromancer was released 40 years ago today(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Neuromancer was released 40 years ago today
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer
37 comments
For thousands of years men dreamed of pacts with demons. Only now are such things possible. And what would you be paid with? What would your price be, for aiding this thing to free itself and grow?
This line delivered by the “Turing Police” investigating too-powerful AI still gives me chills.
This line delivered by the “Turing Police” investigating too-powerful AI still gives me chills.
I only read it for the first time last year... mind blowing. It doesn't feel dated in the slightest. It could have been a new release.
There are a lot of things that date it, but for me one of the things that seems most grounded in the early 80s is the description of connectors and converters. If you ever had to deal with non-standard serial ports, or the plethora of different SCSI connectors then you’ll feel the pain of needing to connect two things and desperately searching for the right cable to do it with.
Cries into my drawer of Lightning / USB micro / USB mini / USB A / USB C adapters
I liked it when I read it, but it's not really a good book. Influential, certainly. But not good.
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.
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.
'It's not really a good book'
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.
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.
Why are you hallucinating '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.
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.
Lol, far from 'hallucinating', I am inferring your position by your regression to the common tropes used to diminish the genre - e.g. 'influential but not literature', 'unexplained techno-babble'.
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.
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.
Huh? You are hallucinating even more now, it seems.
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.
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.
Pretty sure there’s only one sex scene in the whole book, although it is fairly gratuitous. That sort of fan service to be expected in the genre.
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.
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 do happen to like Jane Austen's style. I wish she had written more science fiction.
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.
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.
3 megabytes of hot ram.
Interesting. I tried to read it in the late 90s and bounced off it, I wondered if it was “you had to be there” thing for the 80s.
Ah, yes, 40 years ago, wasn't that about the time the Jackpot started? I've heard rumors we are right in the middle of it now.
Love that novel so much and I was there when it hit the shelves, 40-years ago!
Sometimes coincidences scare me. I was just on that page earlier today by mistake while searching for [Neuromance](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LyTaD9pbI7M) the song/album.
This happens so often I sometimes wonder if everything I see online is tracked and Astroturfed somehow (ofc it’s not)
This happens so often I sometimes wonder if everything I see online is tracked and Astroturfed somehow (ofc it’s not)
Baader-Meinhof strikes again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
Although I highly recommend reading the full novel, if you don't have the time, this BBC audio rendition is only about 2 hours long and is pretty good. Note that it's a highly condensed version of the story and skips many of the best parts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89BHnaxULo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89BHnaxULo
Denis Villeneuve, please make this movie!
It's currently being made into a series by Apple TV+.
After what they did to Foundation, I’m not getting my hopes up.
What about what they did with Wool?
How was that? I started watching it, but I found the wool book way too oppressive and bleak, so I couldn’t bring myself to watch the show.
It's def bleak since it's mostly faithful to the book(s)...but was well done and the sets were convincing/acting very good.
As a kid I enjoyed the game on the C64. Then was inspired to read the book.
[deleted]
I always wanted to read Neuromancer. But then came the WWW, and finally smartphones, and I stopped reading novels.
Suffice it to say, I would have enjoyed it if I had read it.
Suffice it to say, I would have enjoyed it if I had read it.
You can start again?
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.
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.
It's a great book. What are you smoking
The plot is a bit silly (and full of holes), the characters are one-dimensional, the sex scenes are gratuitous, etc.
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.
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.
What's better cyberpunk in your opinion?
Ghost in the Shell, definitely, both manga and anime (but avoid the live action movie and the weird recent CGI show set in the US). 'The Diamond Age', perhaps, if you still count that as cyberpunk. 'Snowcrash', though I have some reservations about some parts of it. 'Cyberpunk: Edgerunners' is pretty good, too. There's some good cyber-punk-ish games like 'System Shock' and others.
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.
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.
It's still worth it today -- it's aged well, is a blast to read, and you'll probably tear through it in a sitting or two if you're anything like me.
Yeah, though there are several books I want to finish reading even more than I want to start Neuromancer. Yet that's realistically also not happening. Similar with some classic video games.
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.