4 ms·

I found Neuromancer to be quite a frustrating read, as if the author is trying so hard to be cool. I understand that he invented a whole sub genre which is cool

I found Neuromancer to be quite a frustrating read, as if the author is trying so hard to be cool. I understand that he invented a whole sub genre which is cool but for me the engagement with the characters was zero and the introduction of new ideas without context made me feel as lost as one of his characters.

speed_spread 5y ago
It was the 80's, _everybody_ was trying too hard. His more recent stuff is much less edgy and has better writing.
- version_five 5y ago
  Interesting, Neuromancer is by far my favorite Gibson book. I feel like I'm generally very sensitive to authors trying to hard, and I dont get that vibe, although I think I can see how it can be construed that way. Neuromancer was (i think) a ground up creation of that world Sprawl/BAMA etc. Personally I always find characters / places the best when you experience them as they are and don't get the explanation, which when attempted is inevitably less interesting than what you might imagine. The later books in the sprawl series (Count Zero I believe and another one whose name I can't remember) felt much more one dimensional to me.
  - speed_spread 5y ago
    I agree on the later books of the first trilogy (last one's Mona Lisa Overdrive) - they didn't leave as much an impression on me as Neuromancer did. Following trilogies were probably much more pre-organized than the first.
LiquidSky 5y ago
>the introduction of new ideas without context made me feel as lost as one of his characters. But that's exactly the point, it's SUPPOSED to feel overwhelming.
rasz 5y ago
Gibson wrote Neuromancer without ever using a computer, its all vague because he didnt know how any of this would work :)
zbentley 5y ago
Hmmm. It'd be a neat litmus test for you to read The Big Sleep or The Maltese Falcon. Those are books from a very different time/aesthetic compared to Neuromancer but, in their own way, also defined their genre by being so tryhard they became sublime. It'd be interesting to see if you have a similar reaction to either of them--have you read those?

speed_spread 5y ago

It was the 80's, _everybody_ was trying too hard. His more recent stuff is much less edgy and has better writing.

version_five 5y ago
Interesting, Neuromancer is by far my favorite Gibson book. I feel like I'm generally very sensitive to authors trying to hard, and I dont get that vibe, although I think I can see how it can be construed that way. Neuromancer was (i think) a ground up creation of that world Sprawl/BAMA etc. Personally I always find characters / places the best when you experience them as they are and don't get the explanation, which when attempted is inevitably less interesting than what you might imagine. The later books in the sprawl series (Count Zero I believe and another one whose name I can't remember) felt much more one dimensional to me.
- speed_spread 5y ago
  I agree on the later books of the first trilogy (last one's Mona Lisa Overdrive) - they didn't leave as much an impression on me as Neuromancer did. Following trilogies were probably much more pre-organized than the first.

LiquidSky 5y ago

>the introduction of new ideas without context made me feel as lost as one of his characters. But that's exactly the point, it's SUPPOSED to feel overwhelming.

rasz 5y ago

Gibson wrote Neuromancer without ever using a computer, its all vague because he didnt know how any of this would work :)

zbentley 5y ago

Hmmm. It'd be a neat litmus test for you to read The Big Sleep or The Maltese Falcon. Those are books from a very different time/aesthetic compared to Neuromancer but, in their own way, also defined their genre by being so tryhard they became sublime. It'd be interesting to see if you have a similar reaction to either of them--have you read those?