6 ms·

I grew up reading Neuromancer and the Sprawl trilogy. I can honestly say that it largely influenced me into my current career (programmer). I really wish that

by Simucal 16y ago

I grew up reading Neuromancer and the Sprawl trilogy. I can honestly say that it largely influenced me into my current career (programmer). I really wish that Gibson wasn't so bored with capital F Future. I would love to see what kind of hard-scifi novel he could produce today. Everything he wrote seemed so terrible and magnificent at the same time and I strongly believed that it helped shape the direction of technological progress for a generation. You can't capture the hearts and minds of an entire generation of teen geeks and it not leave its mark.

raintrees 16y ago
I side-hopped to Neal Stephenson. Only, he seems to be writing one book each about large areas of possible future, rather than a series. Or a hyper-series, like C. J. Cherryh where sets of stories are told from different parts of the same over-arcing time-line. Neal Asher has the same thrill of technical what-if, but is not yet of wide enough breadth. And hopefully, Daniel Suarez will keep going.
vessenes 16y ago
I was interested to find out that he's not a singularity type (he's at pains to say this in a way that only singularity types will notice, though). Many sci-fi authors today do subscribe to the idea of the singularity, and feel that it is impossible to do the sort of 'life in 50 years' Sci-Fi prognosticating that Gibson did in Neuromancer. My favorite of the prognosticators is Vernor Vinge; I loved Rainbow's End for its balls-out attempt to paint a picture of (and make sense of) a near-ish future. Even that doesn't get 50 years out, though. Taking a totally different spin (and one he takes in his essay): Neuromancer is a product of its time just like, say Echo and the Bunnymen, David Bowie, or the Cure. Seen in this light, you can complain about the lack of new quality music today, or just get with the program and learn to appreciate Lady Gaga. Put that way, this first decade of the millenium is one which holds huge promise, huge unknown dangers, and a pervasive sense of lack-of-shock by we-the-people living in it. We should expect our Sci Fi literature to be variously engaging in this or responding to it. This is what I've liked so much about his last two novels; the real (or realistic, or at least possible in today's society) brought out and examined as the bizarre. I'm really looking forward to the close of this trilogy in the fall.
- pyre 16y ago
  > just get with the program and learn to appreciate Lady Gaga. I know it's a little off-topic, but I don't find Lady Gaga to be all that 'new.' She just reminds me of Cher. [Further off-topic: Chromium's dictionary didn't think 'reminds' was a word]
  - marr 16y ago
    That's because in the capital-F Future you cannot 're-mind'; you can only 'mind'.
ThomPete 16y ago
As far as my memory serves me, i seem to remember an interview with Gibson about writing about the future. It isn't so much that he lost interest but more that he doesn't feel like he can imagine the future anymore. I seem to remember him saying younger writers would be better. Again not 100% sure it was him, but if it was that could explain his diminishing interest and the fact that his books seemed to move further towards now than the future.

by Simucal 16y ago

raintrees 16y ago

I side-hopped to Neal Stephenson. Only, he seems to be writing one book each about large areas of possible future, rather than a series. Or a hyper-series, like C. J. Cherryh where sets of stories are told from different parts of the same over-arcing time-line. Neal Asher has the same thrill of technical what-if, but is not yet of wide enough breadth. And hopefully, Daniel Suarez will keep going.

vessenes 16y ago

I was interested to find out that he's not a singularity type (he's at pains to say this in a way that only singularity types will notice, though). Many sci-fi authors today do subscribe to the idea of the singularity, and feel that it is impossible to do the sort of 'life in 50 years' Sci-Fi prognosticating that Gibson did in Neuromancer. My favorite of the prognosticators is Vernor Vinge; I loved Rainbow's End for its balls-out attempt to paint a picture of (and make sense of) a near-ish future. Even that doesn't get 50 years out, though. Taking a totally different spin (and one he takes in his essay): Neuromancer is a product of its time just like, say Echo and the Bunnymen, David Bowie, or the Cure. Seen in this light, you can complain about the lack of new quality music today, or just get with the program and learn to appreciate Lady Gaga. Put that way, this first decade of the millenium is one which holds huge promise, huge unknown dangers, and a pervasive sense of lack-of-shock by we-the-people living in it. We should expect our Sci Fi literature to be variously engaging in this or responding to it. This is what I've liked so much about his last two novels; the real (or realistic, or at least possible in today's society) brought out and examined as the bizarre. I'm really looking forward to the close of this trilogy in the fall.

pyre 16y ago
> just get with the program and learn to appreciate Lady Gaga. I know it's a little off-topic, but I don't find Lady Gaga to be all that 'new.' She just reminds me of Cher. [Further off-topic: Chromium's dictionary didn't think 'reminds' was a word]
- marr 16y ago
  That's because in the capital-F Future you cannot 're-mind'; you can only 'mind'.

ThomPete 16y ago

As far as my memory serves me, i seem to remember an interview with Gibson about writing about the future. It isn't so much that he lost interest but more that he doesn't feel like he can imagine the future anymore. I seem to remember him saying younger writers would be better. Again not 100% sure it was him, but if it was that could explain his diminishing interest and the fact that his books seemed to move further towards now than the future.