5 ms·
I thought The Peripheral was a really frustrating novel to read. Many — perhaps most — of Gibson's novels have the main plot occur behind the scenes, with the
by atombender 7y ago
I thought The Peripheral was a really frustrating novel to read.
Many — perhaps most — of Gibson's novels have the main plot occur behind the scenes, with the principal character being a minor player a passive observer of events instigated by others, in particular by wealthy oligarchic figures with unlimited resources (think Armitage in Neuromancer, Bigend in the Blue Ant books, etc.). Think about what Case actually does in Neuromancer. He steals the ROM containing Dixie Flatline, and then... not much else. I loved Neuromancer when I first read it in the 1990s, but today a re-read makes it painfully obvious how much of the plot is on rails, with the main group of characters transported from location to location, ticking boxes on the heist checklist.
The Peripheral is an extreme example of this. Without spoiling anything serious, Flynne makes a pivotal conscious choice in the first chapter, and then for the rest of the book she does absolutely nothing other than being shipped around while other characters do stuff. She's even kidnapped at one point. The last two thirds of the book is spent mobilizing for a huge event that, at least to me, barely registers when it happens, and Flynne doesn't even seem necessary in order to resolve the central conflict, except that Gibson wanted her to be present. Flynne is not a badly drawn character, but she has very little agency.
I love Gibson's prose and his attention to world building and futuristic detail, which I think end up elevating his books above what the shoddy plots deserve, but even that seemed diminished in The Peripheral. The dialogue is particularly atrocious, with every present-day character speaking in the same annoying shorthand style. A lot of The Peripheral consists of people talking on the phone with each other and repeating known plot points to each other. There's a lot of lazy writing here for someone famous for their cool-sounding prose.
- shantly 7y agoIt has been my observation that some people are really bothered by structural or technical problems in storytelling—and, conversely, highly value structurally and technically sound stories—and others don't seem to notice at all. This doesn't seem to be a trade-off thing either—I find that few things actually are, just as "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" is more fairy tale than dependable guide—that is, those who appreciate technically-sound storytelling aren't somehow deficient in appreciation of humor or good characterization or well-written dialog or whatever. They are just very bothered by sloppy or poor plotting, while other people don't even notice. (presumably there are also some who notice but do not care, though I believe they're a rare species)
- wrp 7y ago> ...some people are really bothered by structural or technical problems in storytelling...and others don't seem to notice at all. Good point. I was just thinking this while reading reviews from people who loved/hated Haruki Murakami's 1Q84. Some people focus on language/affect and others on plot/information.
- wjnc 7y agoGood distinctions. For fiction I usually read without noticing the scaffolding too much. It's my way to go to sleep. Then I started reading the blog by Steven Erikson after a few Malazan books and noticed how much time he purports to spend on getting sentences, paragraphs and sequences just right. I think that is the beauty in art. There are many layers to investigate. And then some focus on techniques, some on material, some on historical perspective. I think being able to easily get the views of others on arts is one of the big plusses of today.
- mattkevan 7y agoFor me, this is the one of the things that makes Gibson’s books fascinating. Feature, not a bug. Often his stories are told from the points of view of three different characters, each of whom doesn’t fully understand what’s going on, and as events are generally instigated by vastly powerful AIs, corporations or ogliarchs, they have little power to do anything but hold on and try not to die. The fun for the reader is to piece together the clues and work out the implications of what the characters are experiencing.
- atombender 7y agoSure; I'm not against the idea. But if you follow Gibson's entire oevre as a reader, it quickly becomes a very obvious, tiring pattern. Gibson has a template, which goes: A wealthy, shadowy figure with nebulous intentions hires the main character, a professional of some sort, to investigate/seek out/collect something which isn't what it seems, and meanwhile machinations are happening behind the scenes, and at the end it appears the main character's purpose was peripheral and/or the intent was to lure some sought-after person to reveal themselves. The template becomes incredibly obvious once you recognize it. Interestingly, for some reason Gibson makes the mechanics of his plots painfully transparent. Another favourite author of mine, Iain M. Banks, has a few books that, if you think about them, follow a similar pattern: The Player of Games, Against a Dark Background, The Hydrogen Sonata, and Consider Phlebas all have the main character trapped in a trajectory where they're effectively secondary to large-scale background machinations and all-powerful AIs. (Against a Dark Background is maybe the most Gibsonesque here, and is less satisfying as a result, while still being very enjoyable.) One of Gibson's better books, I think, is Cont Zero — not a popular opinion, as far as I can tell — precisely because he eschews some of his normal narrative tics. But that novel also clearly justifies the lack of agency by following characters who are, from the outset, on the run from forces beyond their control.
- e12e 7y ago> The Peripheral is an extreme example of this. Well, the title is "the peripheral". Maybe agency will be more important in, you know, "agency"? :) I'm looking forward to it, at any rate.. Then again I really enjoyed peripheral.