Sign in with FacebookSandi's Reviews > Neuromancer
Neuromancer (Sprawl, #1)
by William Gibson
by William Gibson
For well over 20 years, I have seen copies of William Gibson’s “Neuromancer” on the Sci-Fi/Fantasy shelves of nearly every bookstore I have gone into. I recently decided to pick up a copy and read it. I figured a book that’s been continuously in print for over twenty years and is considered a ground-breaking work in Science Fiction had to be good. I figured wrong.
“Neuromancer” is a very convoluted novel. It jumps from local to local and situation to situation in a very jerky way. To add to the confusion, a good chunk of the novel takes place in a 1980’s cyberspace that seems very dated to this 21st century reader. Gibson utterly fails at making any of the characters or settings come to life. And, the action isn’t very active. There’s plenty of sex and violence in the book, but it’s all very pedestrian. (The violence is slightly more exciting than the sex.) I couldn’t even bring myself to care about the “hero” and what happens to him. He has no passion, even when his ability to plug into the matrix is restored. There is an overwhelming sense of hopelessness to the novel that doesn’t ever let up. It’s depressing from beginning to end.
“Neuromancer” is considered to be groundbreaking in that it brought us the sub-genre of cyberpunk. However, it’s just not very good. For a much better cyberpunk read, try Neal Stephenson’s “Snow Crash.” It has many of the same elements as “Neuromancer,” but it’s fleshed out better, has better character development and brings both the real world and cyberspace to life.
“Neuromancer” is a very convoluted novel. It jumps from local to local and situation to situation in a very jerky way. To add to the confusion, a good chunk of the novel takes place in a 1980’s cyberspace that seems very dated to this 21st century reader. Gibson utterly fails at making any of the characters or settings come to life. And, the action isn’t very active. There’s plenty of sex and violence in the book, but it’s all very pedestrian. (The violence is slightly more exciting than the sex.) I couldn’t even bring myself to care about the “hero” and what happens to him. He has no passion, even when his ability to plug into the matrix is restored. There is an overwhelming sense of hopelessness to the novel that doesn’t ever let up. It’s depressing from beginning to end.
“Neuromancer” is considered to be groundbreaking in that it brought us the sub-genre of cyberpunk. However, it’s just not very good. For a much better cyberpunk read, try Neal Stephenson’s “Snow Crash.” It has many of the same elements as “Neuromancer,” but it’s fleshed out better, has better character development and brings both the real world and cyberspace to life.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Neuromancer.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-17 of 17) (17 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
A-ron
(last edited Feb 25, 2009 02:07am)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mar 04, 2008 11:53pm
Hmmm... that is odd I can't stand Stephenson's Snow Crash, but liked Neuromancer. I haven't read it in maybe a decade, but I can still recall most of the action and scenes. Oh well. I suppose these two authors hit different spots of the lymbic system.
reply
|
flag
*
I am endlessly saddened that this is the Gibson book that most dabblers into cyberpunk read first (not to say that you're a dabbler at all, Sandi, I've seen your shelves) and that it puts them off to not only Gibson but the sub-genre entirely. I am not a huge fan of Neuromancer but loved the other Sprawl books- Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive- and thought that he really hit his stride with the Bridge trilogy (Virtual Light, Idoru and All Tomorrow's Parties). The writing isn't magnificent but I am in awe of Gibson's ability to flesh out feasible sounding futures. Gibson's obsession with the Edge, where true innovation can occur, and the weaving together of the personal and the technological are two things that really warm my cockles. Also, personifying AIs with voodoo characters and "riding the loa" was delicious; I was reminded of that while reading Ian McDonald's River of Gods with the Krishna Cops.
Neuromancer is not very good. It's so cold, and soulless. I guess that could be the point, but I just couldn't bring myself to care about it.
There are many more, and better, examples of the genre out there - that is for sure.
There are many more, and better, examples of the genre out there - that is for sure.
I think Neuromancer was more groundbreaking than good, if that makes sense...I would agree with Logan that the Bridge Trilogy is better than Neuromancer...Pattern Recognition is brilliant as well.
I couldn't get through Neuromancer the first time I tried it. The plot was confusing and the characters didn't engage me. When I read it the second time, I found the future setting plausible and the characters well suited to their environment. Snow Crash was frenetic and fun, but the advanced technological society and lack of humanity in Neuromancer got to me on a much deeper level.
I ended up listening to it on tape, and enjoyed it in that fashion. It's pure pulp, but I think it's good pulp. Gibson writes in a way that oversaturates you with details (endless descriptions of surfaces, materials, brand names, flashing lights) but that accurately describes the world that Case lives in - information overload, so much so that his inability to access cyberspace leaves him a drug addicted husk of his former self. Even though the cyberspace Gibson describes is dated, I think the core idea of a completely connected society is right on the mark. You won't be seeing Panther Moderns prowling the street any time soon, but you do see people glued to their blackberries, and with an ever-present bluetooth earpiece. Plus, I'd rather read about a graphical representation of hacking then read "and then Case loaded up his DOS prompt, and sat around in his boxers eating ramen noodles and watching day-time TV while the computer scanned for an open port."
A-ron wrote: "Hmmm... that is odd I can't stand Stephenson's Snow Crash, but liked Neuromancer. I haven't read it in maybe a decade, but I can still recall most of the action and scenes. Oh well. I su..."Ditto. I read Snow Crash and hated just about every paragraph in it. My biggest stumbling blocks were the awful prose and corny humor.
I can deal with bad prose if a book has interesting concepts. John Shirley's "City Come Awalkin'" is a good example: corny writing, awesome ideas for its time.
Snow Crash, on the other hand, didn't have anything compelling for me. Just cliche after cliche mixed with lame juvenile humor. All in all, Neuromancer > Snow Crash any day.
Since when is cold and depressing mean "not good?" Just because you don't like books that are cheer, doesn't make it any less good of a book. I love Gibson, love his prose. He's my second favorite sci-fi writer behind Philip K. Dick, who also writes "depressing" and "dark." Some would say that Stephenson's writing isn't "fleshed out better" its "padded out like all hell." I haven't read him but even from friends who like him I've heard he is guilty of excess padding. Gibson doesn't TELL you anything, he SHOWS you, and lets the narrative tell the story-- not piping in every third paragraph to give you three pages of description that you really don't need. I will admit that "Neuromancer" is sometimes hard to follow and I actually prefer the next book in the series, "Count Zero," but I still think Neuromancer is deserving of all of its praise.
I am not a science fiction reader. This is probably my first sci-fi novel read by choice. (I think the only others are 1984 and Brave New World, both read for school.) I decided to read it based on a recommendation of a friend; he said that it was a classic and that it was said to have influenced the movie Bladerunner. I took the plunge out of my comfort zone and was rewarded by sophisticated style and a believable future world. It's not my favourite book, but I am glad I read it. The author certainly doesn't hold your hand; you are expected to follow along on your own. I liked the challenge of that and I felt rewarded at the end.
I totally agree with you Sandi. This book was convoluted and just bad writing. It's such a disappointment after all the hype.
In the context of Snow Crash -- a fun book, too -- Neuromancer is about 8 years in front of it. This is the headwaters, the way of looking that allowd others to see.
I decided to read Neuromancer after reading all the hype and I decided to quit reading about halfway through. Nothing about the book interested me and the plot was all over the place. Snow Crash on the other hand was highly entertaining.
I have just let this book go after 40%, and I completely agree with you. The writing is simply careless and the character is neither interesting nor engaging. I understand that people can have tastes for different things, but the reviews of enthusiasts are really misleading. They don't mention poor, jerky narrative, poor quality of dialogues and a very shallow and linear development of the main character. They give it three Ds (Dark, Dystopian, Depressive) and for readers like me it does sound tempting, but three Ds joined with a very poor writing technique is Depression squared.
