2 ms·

Gibson's schtick was always to trade on stereotypes. Charitably, his books were "idea novels" about social forces. None of his characters were ever human.

pmoriarty 6y ago
Gibson's novels are full of stereotypes, particularly ones that seem like they stepped out of a Noir or hardboiled detective novel, such as his assassins, mercenaries, corporate execs, crime bosses, and an assortment of street life. But it's too harsh to say every character is a stereotype or that none of his characters were ever human. Take one of the protagonists of Count Zero, Marly Krushkhova, "the disgraced former operator of a tiny Paris gallery", who hunts down the maker of the Joseph Cornell-like boxes. She's completely human, and I can't think of any stereotype she would fit in to.
Neputys 6y ago
I like your to the point dryness. A bit cynical, but to the point. What would you say was the reason for him being so popular then? This is a normal question. I agree with what you wrote.
- FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
  I had to think about this but my answer is boring: "He picked the right themes and aesthetic at the right time." Cyberpunk would have happened without him (Blade Runner was released first), but most things are like that. He'd also studied English, which helped give him some sensibilities that would appeal to tastemakers. Neuromancer wasn't genre fantasy and it wasn't hard SF. (Even then, the name turned many people off.) And I guess he won some powerful allies early on in what was then the SF establishment.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Gibson's first story, "Fragments of a Hologram Rose", published in 1977, really shows off his literary education. It's got a real dreamy style to it.
pessimizer 6y ago
I think that's ideal for works that are primarily about the environment that characters inhabit. If the characters or also fluid and deep it's difficult to understand how the environment is affecting them. Since you know how those stereotypes would react in the contemporary environment, a lot of the interest in science fiction is to examine the contrast in behavior between now and this future.

pmoriarty 6y ago

Gibson's novels are full of stereotypes, particularly ones that seem like they stepped out of a Noir or hardboiled detective novel, such as his assassins, mercenaries, corporate execs, crime bosses, and an assortment of street life. But it's too harsh to say every character is a stereotype or that none of his characters were ever human. Take one of the protagonists of Count Zero, Marly Krushkhova, "the disgraced former operator of a tiny Paris gallery", who hunts down the maker of the Joseph Cornell-like boxes. She's completely human, and I can't think of any stereotype she would fit in to.

Neputys 6y ago

I like your to the point dryness. A bit cynical, but to the point. What would you say was the reason for him being so popular then? This is a normal question. I agree with what you wrote.

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
I had to think about this but my answer is boring: "He picked the right themes and aesthetic at the right time." Cyberpunk would have happened without him (Blade Runner was released first), but most things are like that. He'd also studied English, which helped give him some sensibilities that would appeal to tastemakers. Neuromancer wasn't genre fantasy and it wasn't hard SF. (Even then, the name turned many people off.) And I guess he won some powerful allies early on in what was then the SF establishment.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Gibson's first story, "Fragments of a Hologram Rose", published in 1977, really shows off his literary education. It's got a real dreamy style to it.

pessimizer 6y ago

I think that's ideal for works that are primarily about the environment that characters inhabit. If the characters or also fluid and deep it's difficult to understand how the environment is affecting them. Since you know how those stereotypes would react in the contemporary environment, a lot of the interest in science fiction is to examine the contrast in behavior between now and this future.