Neuromancer question

It's semi-difficult read, but not a definitely not poorly written. Gibson doesn't spell things out for you; he throws you in deep; he doesn't tell the reader what all the abbreviations stand for, all of the background on a location, etc... He leaves some of it for the reader to figure out, bits and pieces, throughout the book. This is the style, not the author being an idiot.
I had some trouble reading it, though I still enjoyed it. Reading it a second time I am liking it even more.

The book is absolutely bleeding with style and atmosphere. If the book was reader-friendly such that reading it was easy and casual walk in the park, it would take away from this.

Neuromancer is simply not that well written. It's appeal lies more in the atmosphere and the characters it creates, but not in its prose.

When I first read Neuromancer back in the day I got completely lost before I was halfway. I went back to the beginning. Something clicked in place and the book pulled me right through to the end and then on to Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive. Neuromancer set the tone for the 1980's for me and my 'cyberpunk' friends. A real adventure. But you have to get into the tone and pace, I guess, and then it's more then worth the effort.

I read this via audiobook, and that helped quite a bit. There were still some terms that I couldn't quite keep straight, but that's because I was trying to relate to imaginary concepts with real-world artifacts that functionally take on the roles of "decks", "boards", "jacking in", etc.

I sort of had an "enemy gate is down" moment during the Sense/Net heist, and just went along for the ride without forcing the book to re-orient to my perspective. Doesn't hurt that Robertson Dean rocks the narration.

I too had problems the first time reading it. However, I found that it made perfect sense the second time around. And this has been a bit of a pattern with me and Gibson's books. For every one that I find readable, there's one that isn't.

It's probably worth remembering when it was first published, in 1984, computers were still relatively primitive. Consider, for example, the movie "Tron" which is of a similar era.

As a result, Gibson made many assumptions and created many words for things we have ACTUAL words for today. Some of these items in real life have words derived from the works of people like Gibson, and some of them are very different.

It's a bit like in Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, where they refer to everything electric as "Anbaric", because it's set in an alternate universe.

I certainly found if I put aside my knowledge of computing and just let myself get swept away in the fantasy, I found it much more entertaining - then again, that's always the case for cyberpunk, so maybe I was just used to it.

I view Neuromancer as a flawed book. It has some concepts that just don't fit together for me. However, I really like the book. Science fiction requires some suspension of disbelief and at times you should just go with it and not worry about understanding. There were times as I read the book, that it didn't make sense and seemed a bit hard to read. It is easy to get lost in the technology and lose connection to the characters. While it doesn't always make sense and can seem odd, I believe for the full enjoyment of the Neuromancer, one needs to commit to reading the Sprawl trilogy. The story seems much more whole if you read all three books to me. As a stand alone. the world Gibson creates is fascinating but the story line really requires all three books to be read. The Bridge trilogy starting with Virtual Light is a great comparison in terms of ease of reading. It doesn't have as much tech and reads easier but the fantasy of the imagined future is what makes Neuromancer great. Also try to remember there really wasn't much of an internet when it was wrote. That fact is what gave me context to keep reading at times. I also have a slight imaginary, literary crush on Molly. Though she is at her best in Johnny Mnemonic. Which is a fun read and a short story, so easy to digest.

I thought I was doing well until about just over half way when I started questioning whether some of the terminology and characters were what I thought they were originally (e.g Tessier-Ashpool). As it was mentioned earlier, I found it much easier when I stopped trying to understand it so much and got myself lost in the fantasy instead. I feel this is particularly useful just before the ending.

Gibson is a master of tone and setting, but it felt like he got a bit burnt out at the end, much like someone coming down off a strong amphetamine (which is fitting). The plot's implications were too massive and thus felt a bit rushed. But damn, what a cool sci-fi noir scene the man can paint. Still haven't gotten to Count Zero>, but as it's set in a dreary London, I have high hopes.

No, I found nothing difficult about it.

A little bit difficult, but agree with others on the powerful atmosphere. The Peripheral was beyond me, though. Had to put that one down fairly early on.

I did not find it difficult per se, but I just do not find the writing style enjoyable. Things just happen and you move on. Things get introduced and everyone is like well there you go. I completely understand what you are saying though, I too had a very hard time motivating myself to stick with it. I will say that the last third of the book is much better than what leads up to it.

I would say that the first 50 - 70 pages at least is quite badly written and there is a marked improvement in the prose after that rough point. I was genuinely taken aback at how sketchy this book was considering the elevated place it seems to hold in the sci-fi cannon. It does definitely improve as it goes along and I enjoyed the book on the whole but the lack of clarity in the Gibson's descriptions does hamper it in my opinion.

I had this problem to.

i literally can't keep track of the characters and am really having trouble connecting the chapters. i feel like it's really hard to understand in that they pop from place to place and interact with a lot of people that seem very...random?

i really like the book because the descriptive atmosphere and emotional scenes are amazing but when it gets into character relations i'm really lost :/

I found it difficult to get through at times. I think that the copious sci-fi terms and disorientating writing style is part of its cyberpunk appeal.