3 ms·
Ironically, this is something that I know has turned a ton of people off cyberpunk. I suspect there's a deep bifurcation between people who are intrigued by my
by ethbr0 5y ago
Ironically, this is something that I know has turned a ton of people off cyberpunk.
I suspect there's a deep bifurcation between people who are intrigued by mystery (e.g. new language) and people who are made uncomfortable by it.
When it's done right though, it strikes that good mystery novel tone for me: enough detail and context to be tantalizing and whet the intellectual appetite, but not so little or so much as to break disbelief or flow.
- mortenjorck 5y agoIt is indeed an incredibly hard balance to strike, and I'm one of those people turned off from a lot of other science fiction where it's done ham-handedly. What Gibson nails so consistently is literary naturalism: his made-up words sound like things people would plausibly say without feeling ridiculous; he's a master forger of linguistic currency.
- ethbr0 5y agoSomeone once told me that early electronic music was good, because it was composed by non-electronic composers searching for a way to extend the art. Science fiction feels very similar. If you read the earliest stuff (including subgenres like cyberpunk), you get authors who were looking to go beyond. Later, you get a mix of them and trend writers. To me the thing that he does well is break down where understanding comes from: (1) pre-context, (2) "literary naturalism" (great phrase!), (3) context, & (4) post-context. Sometimes, it's not critical that a reader understands 100% of a concept exactly where it's introduced, and by establishing less than that, tension can be created. I guess it's treating your reader as another character in your writing, and understanding that just as your in-fiction characters have different levels of understanding at various times in the plot, so can your reader. Personally, it feels very satisfying when a piece of understanding clicks into place later, and I hit 100% on (insert new concept here).
- keiferski 5y agoA lot of early cyberpunk also works because the authors were explicitly following noir/hardboiled styles, which are pretty straightforward and easy to "hang a story" on to. Some of the weaker sci-fi I've read fails to have any coherent structure and is instead just a jumble of random (but interesting) ideas.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- spats1990 5y ago>"literary naturalism" (great phrase!) Just a great phrase describing a key development stage of the western novel, nothing special or anything :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(literature) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(literature)
- JKCalhoun 5y agoUnable to get through Larry Niven's "Ringworld" due entirely to the long world-building narratives that were absent of plot or character. Maybe it gets better half way into the book?
- mlang23 5y agoI also found ringworld pretty unreadable. But I guess thats mostly because I find the world that is being built too hilarious and unbelievable. It lacks a sort of seriousness that cyberpunk usually doesn't.
- anigbrowl 5y agoIt won't, sorry. A lot of 70s-80s sci has aged really badly - not because of technology turning out differently but because the stories were built around stock characters that were cliches at the time they were written.
- webmaven 5y agoThis didn't start with cyberpunk, though. In fact it is a hallmark of your average pulp-era SF story to abuse neologisms mercilessly (often in combination with Deus Ex Machina and other cliches). The New Wave in the 70s consciously broke with the past by (among other efforts) eschewing neologisms, but writers (and editors) in other periods/subgenres have, generally, gone for a balanced approach.