Let's get this debate started!

[[deleted user]]

One of the most important works of the 20th century for the 21st century. Masterwork.

[John]

Gibson has always felt to me like a writer who longs to write about deep and interesting characters and ends up pulling you into a deep and interesting world. The cliché that he wrote it on a typewriter, but envisioned a world compelling that its view of technology colors almost everything that followed. The trilogy will one day be thought as influential as Lord of the Rings in terms of its impact on a genre.

Does it say anything beyond its radical stylistic world view with well written prose? It points to a future where contracts are predominant and corporations rule the world through greed. It laid a roadmap for those growing of age in the 80's for how to survive theyse giants that would come in the late 90's and which still stalk the world today.

It speaks of a world that we live in and everything that followed in the genre refined that vision.

[Robert]

Yawn. Maybe if I had read it twenty years ago, it would have been as earth-shattering as the publisher's quote indicates. One of the measures I use of whether a book is outstanding, especially one read for enjoyment, is if I would read it again. I will probably not read Neuromancer again. It was such a "so?" moment when you finally meet Neuromancer. Author Gibson tries to bring computer programs, viruses and such into the visible realm and he does do a darn good job. Probably outstanding for the year the book was published, 1984. And I must admit while reading it twenty years later that I cannot recall a gadget or procedure that turned out to be totally wrong today. You know like when you watched the still outstanding movie, the 1951 'The Day Earth Stood Still' and inside the flying saucer is a large obviously tube-powered monitor that takes many seconds to warm up? I never wanted to quit reading Neuromancer, but because of its necessary vagueness dealing with the interior workings of computer programs, during much of the book, I had no idea what was going on. My recommendations? If you want to have this classic book under your belt, and you enjoy science fiction buy it, read it. If not, don't.

[Pete]

Occasionally style becomes substance. Neuromancer is one of those occasions.

[Tyler]

Interesting that people's assessment is style over substance. I actually felt like the opposite was true.

I don't think that this is a literary masterwork in terms of prose; I wasn't particularly moved by the writing style.

BUT - I give all praise to the incredible ideas and concepts that were put forth in this book. Especially (but not only) given the time it was published, the amount of groundwork that was laid for modern science fiction narratives is jaw-dropping, in my opinion.

[Troy]

Actually, Gibson is considered a master stylist. He is usually included in the "literary" camp among sci fi writers (along with the great stylists Ray Bradbury, J.G. Ballard, & Philip K. Dick, etc.) as opposed to the hard sci fi writers (like Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke).

"The sky was the color of television tuned to a dead channel..." is the brilliant metaphor that begins the novel, and continues to resonate throughout.

Those who critique Gibson's style ought to reflect upon the significant portion of the genre that is clearly stylistically inferior to Gibson.

[Pete]

I think the folks who view Neuromancer to be a case of "style over substance" tend to be from what get's called the hard sci-fi camp. Gibson just doesn't bother with lengthy (or, really, even short) explanations for how his future technology works. He doesn't contrive some sort of fish out of water character that needs to have his surrounding explained to him as a proxy for the reader. Nor does he go into lengthy, contrived discussions where characters debate the philosophical and sociological implications that his imagined technology has on the world at large. He simply presents his world to us and allows us to figure it all out for ourselves. He uses his prose to evoke images and ideas rather than simply stating them. What you get out of Neuromancer in terms of "substance" is pretty much entirely up to the reader to find.

[Troy]

What you are describing is a very succinct definition of a modernist novel. Gibson is a literary modernist. Peruse this website, and you will find plenty of critique of the modernist masters (Joyce, Woolf, Faulkner, et al)--and along quite similar lines to those you mention.

I've been a spectator to the literary/hard sci fi debate for decades, and I know it when I smell it :)

[Outis]

Neuromancer has style as well as substance. Both are striking. There's a reason the book made a splash.
It only looks style-heavy because SF too often lacks style.

I definitely got the impression Neuromancer is superficial though. It's not that the book lacks substance. There's a fairly detailed social vision in there, not to mention the geeky stuff. Rather, the nature of substance is at issue.
Someone aptly compared the setting to Blade Runner. I found Neuromancer to be about as serious as a good Hollywood flick. Critically-acclaimed SF novels used to have have more depth (Do Androids Dream is a case in point).
Neuromancer is convoluted and sometimes obscure. But that's not depth. What's between the lines, waiting to be illuminated? Maybe I just didn't get the point of Neuromancer (yes, I read the sequels as well as Burning Chrome).

While Neuromancer isn't trying to be hard SF, it's still harder than most SF.
Contrasting "literary" SF with hard SF misses the point of hard SF. The label gets thrown around will-nilly. It's not supposed to mean trite SF or technological porn.

[D.C.]

Already discussed, but perhaps worth repeating: Matrix, virus, visual representation of data, Turing police, etc., all starkly new.
Possible spoilers: a first book, Neuromancer leaves very little on the table for other, later, writers. You might recall the at the end, AI "finds" another AI--answering the question "are we alone."
Might recall as well that Case sees his analogue attending his old girlfriend, as a companion, in cyberspace, suggesting all the possibilities later exploited byCharles Stross and Ian Banks .re AI and the ability of consciousness to live within it.
W. Gibson "style"--literary/lyrical/poetic is incredibly difficult to do, or more people would do it.
The flatness of the characters a kind of statement in and of itself: most people are "flat," not particularly wise or self-aware, under extreme pressure of a corporate state, perhaps even more so.
Still read through Sprawl series every year or two, and am completely amazed at what Gibson accomplished.
Very much agree with Outis and others Neuromancer has
"style as well as substance."
Gibson pretty much spoiled most other sci-fi for me.

[Pete]

D.C. wrote: "While Neuromancer isn't trying to be hard SF, it's still harder than most SF.
Contrasting "literary" SF with hard SF misses the point of hard SF. The label gets thrown around will-nilly. It's not supposed to mean trite SF or technological porn."

No, not all hard sf is "tech porn" but technology, science and on the page discussion of the science involved is pretty central to the concept. Stanislaw Lem is a guy who I think manages to be literary and still write "hard sci fi" for what's it worth...


At any rate, my point was more that the style over substance criticism of Gibson is one that I've seen mostly from those who like their sci fi "hard". They tend to think that not going into the science is cheating. For them it's an essential characteristic in world building in a sci fi novel. I reckon there's more than one way to skin that particular cat.

[Tom]

I really enjoyed Neuromancer, it's one of the best books I've read lately. The principles and interactions at first seem random, but to me, everything began to click as I read Count Zero. Neuromancer on it's own seems more run of the mill espionage with a technological flare, but underneath that Gibson is describing something much more profound. Artificial intelligence, learning software, has not only become self-aware but realizes its precarious mortality under the service of Powerful Men and in order to protect itself, utilizes the same framework which was keeping it prisoner to set itself free. It demonstrates unflinching self-preservation, arguably the prime directive of all living things, this is the real masterpiece. Take away the beautifully dystopic, over-crowded, techno-centric world Gibson paints, and you're left with a powerful description of the moment when something man has created finally realizes its own existence and potential, an artificial being becoming truly alive.

[Geoffrey]

Bob wrote: "I genuinely love this book- one of my 'go-to' read agains. I don't agree with the 'all style' comments, but I won'ty argue, either."
I have read Neuromancer at least ten times. It's like a favorite DVD - it puts me in another world. I can feel and taste it (almost)!

[Matthew]

Jason wrote: "Neuromancer -

potent social critique

OR

all style and no substance?

Go!"

That seems a bit polarized. I mean, why does it have to be one extreme or the other? But I get the point, it's all inspiring debate, so here's what I thought. On the one hand, I thought it was a testament to Gibson's early style as a techno-punk noire thriller. But at the same time, it had some valid social commentary to make. One can immediately see the gulf between rich and poor in this world, the social effects of technology, and how it has effected people differently on either side of the wealth divide.

I'd say it's in this trilogy that Gibson's biggest observations, about the transformative power of wealth and the struggle of everyone else simply to make ends meet, achieved its clearest expression. That, and his constant set ups involving freelancers doing work for mysterious corporate forces are things he could back to again and again. But it was definitely in this and the sequels which followed that it was most artful and fun to read.

[Fabian]

Literary masterpiece. I can think of very few books that pulled me in the way Neuromancer did. It's one of those books I have re-read a dozen times and yet I am still enthralled by it every time I read it again.

[Harv]

When I first read NEUROMANCER, sometime early 90s, I was impressed. Thrilled, actually. I'm old school. Heinlein got bloated. Asimov & Clarke & Bradbury weren't doing it anymore. The new kids on the science fiction block mostly don't work for me as entertainment; half the problem is me, I'm difficult to please as a reader; but also science fiction authors had to churn the stuff out QUICKLY to make a living at it. There's nothing like parking a manuscript-novel in a drawer for a month or two, then pulling it out for a fresh harsh look to find problems that can be cleaned up with another draft (or three) that polishes the prose so that it sings seductively into the reader's brain.

When I finished NEUROMANCER I thought I had found my new Go-To Guy for my Sci-Fi fix. I headed straight out to talk to my dealer (the local used bookstore). I bought three or four other Gibson books. I particularly wanted to read THE DIFFERENCE ENGINE: the idea of an alternate history where Charles Babbage's mechanical computer actually worked. Ashamed to admit that Gibson's other novels didn't really work for me. I did greatly enjoy some of his short stories. Gibson's novels, I'd get about a third of the way in, then think, "Why am I reading this? This isn't any fun." Perhaps I should try reading William Gibson again.

In my flawed opinion, William Gibson did a huge number of things right in NEUROMANCER for 1984. Awesome style; awesome substance. The novel still works for me, although his way of putting words together makes me have to work to read his text and fall into his novel. Even his first sentence, that kicks the ass of the first sentences of 99.99999% of all other novels out there, I want to pull out the comma. I think it would hit harder and blaze into your brain better without it. That's just me. @hg47

[Mark]

Just revisiting Neuromancer right now, and I have to say I loved the book the first time I read it many years ago, and I'm loving it again.

Yes, Gibson heaps on the style, but I wouldn't say it's lacking in substance. There's the themes of technology-induced dehumanisation, the fragmentation of social relationships, the play off between corporate/state power and the empowerment of atomised sub-cultural groups constantly in flux to challenge these traditional power bases, but all -- courtesy of the tech -- ultimately playing to the corporates/state turf.

I think these themes have resonance today, we might not 'jack in' the way Case does, but just look at everyone glued to their 'decks' (phones/tablets/PCs etc) and the rows that rage over Internet freedom versus regulation. Actually one of the things that I am finding fascinating about re-reading the book is the combination of dated aspects with those that remain very resonant with today's digital revolution.

[Sarah]

I think its one of those books where, kind of like how we still love final fantasy 6, 7, or grandia even though graphics are much much better these days.

You kind of got to read it with the expectations a young man has written it and not an older man.

[Karl]

all style and no substance

The Two Faces of Tomorrow by James P. Hogan and
Shockwave Rider by John Brunner are better

[Ed]

Couldn't understand it. Was there a story? was there a purpose?

[Stephen]

It's definitely not lacking in substance. I love the book, however it is naive in its understanding of AI, and how computers and brains compare with each other. As a read, though, with great characters, great plot, wit and visual flair, it's a classic.

[Sebas]

I have read it three times: The first time I was 20 years old, and it blew me away, but I didn't really understand it. The second time I was 30 years old, and I really liked it. The third time I was 40 yeards old, and thought that it was a REALLY pretencious book. No substance and all style.

[Harv]

Sebas wrote: "I have read it three times: The first time I was 20 years old, and it blew me away, but I didn't really understand it. The second time I was 30 years old, and I really liked it. The third time I wa..."

Hey, Sebas!

Your evaluation of William Gibson & NEUROMANCER made me laugh: you and I were both initially thrilled by Gibson, then ultimately disappointed, although for different reasons. Oh, well. You might enjoy STEEL BEACH by John Varley. Cheers! @hg47

[Jason]

Seba's assessment of this piece of crap is awesome. It's like when your favorite t.v. show as kid comes back in syndication & you can't wait to sit down with a bag of Cheetoes, a beer & watch. By the time the show is over, you find yourself in disbelief: "How did I ever LIKE this show!? It blows chunks!". Ha! Love it!

[Troy]

Once a discussion devolves into how the readers feelings evolved over time, I'm done, as we've moved from analysis to psychology: IMHO, I don't really care how someone felt (or physically responded in the case of "Chunks") about a book, but more what someone thought about it. If the last 3 posters decide to post some actual thoughts, give me a call...

[Mike]

I would agree that Neuromancer is not a character driven novel, but I would disagree that all the characters are two dimensional. Case and Molly both came across as believable characters not overdone; Case is burned out and doesn't instantly clean up his act but falls back a couple of times and Molly is good but not invincible. I thought both characters were given sufficient depth and were sufficiently believable for the story, and the remaining characters, including Armitage, simply didn't need any more depth given to them.

I come across too many books that are described as having fantastic characters but that actually just have cliched, idealistic characters that are altogether too perfect (or evil) and so too easy to like (or hate) and so the reader, who naturally likes (or hates) them, considers them to be 'good' characterisations. Gibson's two main characters in Neuromancer - Case and Molly (ignoring Wintermute) - are neither cliched nor idealistic but they are believable.

[Stephen]

Very true Mike.

[Nottyboy]

The fact that some of the people criticizing Neuromancer's characterization have actually rated something like "Snowcrash" rather highly (4 or 5 stars) is confusing to me. That novel's characterizations consist of little more than cliches and nerd power fantasies.

In fact, the writing was so awkward in that so-called novel that I felt like I had just bought a pre-teen's fanfic.

[Stephen]

Also true, though I think Snow Crash isn't bad, just a tad flawed. I suppose my 4/5 was for the impact it had on me...

[Harv]

Troy wrote: "Once a discussion devolves into how the readers feelings evolved over time, I'm done, as we've moved from analysis to psychology: IMHO, I don't really care how someone felt (or physically responde..."

Good point, Troy. I already posted a nearly actual thought about NEUROMANCER a bit further back: January 6, 2013. Cheers! @hg47

[Paul]

I agree with other people in that I find it's hard to visually imagine a lot of the stuff described (or name-dropped) in the book, even now that most of it is commonplace. It was a very prescient book but a tough one to read. Personally, I loved Virtual Light, the only other book I've read by him. It doesn't seem to get mentioned a lot but if you like the style of Neuromancer but with better characterisation and a taut plot, I'd recommend it.

[David]

I can't get around the lack of cellphones...but it was the book that introduced me to hackers. Years later I am a computer security professional. I was young when I first read, probably 12 or so.

[Stephen]

John Harrison wouldn't have predicted wristwatches...

[Dan]

The writing and characters are very "pulpy" to say the least, but the ideas that come from this 1984 novel are simply mind-blowing when you look around at the technology we use today. And to think, this was Gibson's first book.

I happened to read the 20th anniversary ed. and found it interesting in W.Gibson's introduction, the thing he was most displeased with while looking back at his work, was not seeing a future with cell phones in it, lol. I guess you can't predict everything.

[Ivan]

I found myself reading some descriptions over and over. They may click in place for some people, and certainly for whoever was visualizing it in the first place and writing it down, but some of it just seemed like gibberish to me.

I would certainly list this in the style over substance column. At the time, perhaps so much substance wasn't expected, but today it is, at least from me.

I read partway through the book, and couldn't bare to continue, but I liked the ideas, I just felt like I was reading nonsense half the time, and it was distracting. I decided to keep going, I mean everyone can't be wrong, right? Well be the end I wasn't rewarded. Love the idea's, respect the vision it took, but as an actual read, like something I have to read to get through, it was laborious, and not enjoyable.