Neuromancer

Rating:
Summary: Oh god, what a waste of time.
Review: I loathe film noire; the whole stupid set of cliches from the
self-destructive anti-hero to the femme fatale to the dark gritty city.
And this book is nothing but run-of-the-mill film noire translated fairly
mechanically into a sort-of-futuristic universe.
Heck, maybe in 1984 it was a great leap forward in terms of imagination
(though I fail to see quite what those leaps were), but in 2004 it reads
like a sad list of cliches. In particular, the central conceits of the
book, namely that computer "hacking", in the sense of penetrating
secured computers is best performed via some sort of VR rig, and that the
essential contents of a human mind can be captured to silicon to create a
living-yet-dead representation of that person, are neither justified nor
explored. This is not an SF book, or at least a good SF book, in the
standard sense of twisting some aspect of reality slightly through some
pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo and then exploring the result; rather it
concerns itself with its personalities and their story, as in a traditional
novel. That might have been fine, had these personalities and their story
not been, as I've said, nothing but a set of noire cliches.
I persisted till the very end in the hope that, eventually, there would
be some sort of interesting payoff, some sort of culmination of the various
threads, but no such luck. If you're the sort who cares more about the mood
of a book than the plot, originality, or even that the whole thing makes
sense you may love this book. Anyone else, don't waste your time.

Rating:
Summary: Gibson's work didn't cease to improve, but...
Review: ...this book breathes stylistic fire into a genre coasting on assumed scientific literacy. If the characters speak extensively in jargon adapted to technologies that don't yet exist, that's OK - in the present, shop talk not understood by general readership is a fact of any technical field, e.g. my mom browsing the magazine rack and struggling through paragraphs in _Wired_.

Besides, Gibson coined the term, "cyberspace," in this novel; most authors, even ones of talent, do not create words used commonly thereafter. To all the people who criticized him for using unique terminology, there's this great thing called context. Try using it.

One thing I have enjoyed about Gibson is his tendency to use protagonists and not heroes to view the events contained within his stories. I do not have any particular sympathy for the men and women who interact with Henry Dorsett Case in the course of his assigned task.

In the tradition of great noir fiction and film, there is no sense of resolution about anything. The characters who did not die return to their separate paths and continue about life in a world controlled through an invisible hand of corporate and technological pressures against traditional structures of power like government and organized crime. No great truths were revealed, and none were promised.

Have no doubt, Gibson is an original whether you enjoy his style or not. For an understanding of current trends in science fiction best reflected in the success of _The Matrix_, you can begin here and work your way through the other books.

Rating:
Summary: SF NOIR...POETIC DREAMSCAPES OF A DISTOPIC FUTURE...
Review: I have read this masterpiece during my university years, about a decade ago, and have re-read it countless times since then. Even reading only some pages brings up powerfull imagery, unforgetable prose...
I realy loved this book!!! (and all three of the Sprawl series: Count Zero and MonaLisa Overdrive). Own them all!!!

Rating:
Summary: Believe the Hype
Review: I read this book in July of 2004 and thought it was fantastic. I read it on the advice of a coworker who knew my love for the "Matrix" genre. I had never heard of the book, but quickly purchased it, and read it in 3 days. I highly recommend it for those who enjoyed the creativity and imagination of the "Matrix" movies.

Rating:
Summary: Neuromancer - a glimpse into what could be...
Review: I've read Neuromancer four times. I admit that it is a rough read with all of it's jargon, but all in all if you give it a chance and settle into it, it is a good read. Why have I read it so many times? Perspective. It's like mining. There is so much to the world the Gibson has created. I'm into compter engineering and information systems by profession. Gibson's speculative fiction put a social face to what typically starts as science, then is engineered, then is released to the masses as product. What he has done is essentially rendered one posible image or view of where our technology will ultimately take us. It's hard, it's gritty, it's brilliant, but it is fiction, for the moment. It is a beacon, a sign, and a warning all at the same time. I completely understand why it has won so many awards. If you are a geek, it is a must read. If you are casually into computers, again it is a must read. Gibson has spun quite the twisted, sound bite based story, but it is an incredible work. His concepts on AI alone are worth the read. As the saying goes. 'truth is stranger than fiction'.

Rating:
Summary: The Book that Started the Cyberpunk Revolution
Review: In 'Mona Lisa Overdrive,' Gibson writes about a documentary called 'Antarctica Starts Here.' 'Neuromancer' could easily be titled 'Cyberpunk Starts Here.' Tag along with Case, Molly, and Dixie Flatline as they careen through a distopian future, where real life is an approximation of cyberspace, and the only signposts are written in Gibson's trademark prose. This book has been copied and rehashed so many times that it will probably seem familiar, even if you've never read it. But `Neuromancer' is the source. Every major idea in the cyberpunk/technogoth genre started with this book. To call `Neuromancer' brilliant would be six kinds of understatement. It's crazy, riveting, amazing, enlightening, and a lot of fun. If you've never read it, prepare for a weird but delicious treat. I've read it about six times, and I'm still not tired of it.

Jeff Edwards, Author of 'Torpedo: A Surface Warfare Thriller"

Rating:
Summary: Vast, jacked-in fantasy
Review: It is my understanding that Gibson coined the term "cyberspace"-and very beautifully. When I dream of cyberspace realities, I can not help but invoke fragments of William Gibson's vast, jacked-in hallucination-what you might call "virtual reality".

There was one more component to William Gibson's cyberspace-that of the spiritual-and these segments are quite beautiful.

I'm giving this book 4 "Amazon" stars because I think Gibson's "Count Zero" is even better--especially the references surrounding the artist Joseph Cornell. One can't nitpick a classic such as this--too much--although some aspects of the adolescent "cyberpunk" content are difficult to reconcile in maturity--regardless, I can acknowledge the need for these significant concepts to be made available via an accessible pubescent perspective.

This book left me craving more Gibson "cyberpunk"--and there's not much to be found. I've read Gibon's short stories--not bad. I couldn't get into "The Difference Engine" or "All Tomorrow's Parties"... I'm not feeling "Pattern Recognition" in the store either, but his blog has piqued my curiousity. I want Gibson to bring the world to its knees, in tears. Pretty please?

To discuss the book--if it's allowed by Amazon, hit me up on AIM/Yahoo "yesiliveinaustin"

Rating:
Summary: Written for a specific audience; not general fiction/scifi
Review: Many people have complained that this book is confusing, poorly assembled, badly written, shallow, dull, etc. Other people have written that this is the best scifi book of all time.

It's neither.

Neuromancer is not scifi, nor is it poorly written.

From the minute you read the first line of this book, you have essentially been locked into the world of someone else. You aren't given instructions or a glossary or anything to make the new world user friendly. But that's the point.

This book delves into noirish psychological questions, and the nature of personality. The jargon is part of what the characters call "home." It's information dense, detail-oriented, and an anti-adventure.

What Neuromancer does with brilliance is plunge you deep into a futuristic view of society from a programmer's or hacker's mind, which is not, per se, linear.

If none of these ideas appeal to you, this book is not for you. You will most likely be confused, unhappy, etc. with this book. If these concepts sound intensely fascinating, you will probably like Neuromancer.

Rating:
Summary: Prescient, but...
Review: One of the most influential sci-fi books ever published, "Neuromancer" rocked the world when it was released in the early Eighties, creating an entirely new genre of sci-fi, cyberpunk. At a time when computers were primitive and the Internet was not even imagined, William Gibson created a world where life becomes digital and vice versa. Designer drugs, designer body modifications, and a melding of human and machine influence a society that lives largely to the senses and to vices unspeakable. Grim and gray, Gibson's future Earth and its surrounds makes "Bladerunner" look like Disneyworld.

Into this necrotic world comes Case, a self-styled cyber-"cowboy" whose hacking ability extends to entering computer systems with his mind and cracking their security. He works for anyone with the right wad of cash. Now with his skills burned out by a group seeking retribution against his crimes, he wanders through the back streets of an Asian cesspool doing minor drug deals, all the while knowing that he's one step away from becoming a casualty of his lifestyle.

Enter a secretive benefactor who offers to restore Case's ability to "jack in" and manipulate computer systems, and a sleek assassin with knives implanted in her finger tips. Together, they put together a team bent on attacking an Artificial Intelligence module that may contain secrets that will vindicate the benefactor. Case revels in the opportunity only then to learn his restored abilities, like the tapes on "Mission Impossible," are set to self-destruct. Complete the mission and he can keep his skills. Fail, and....

"Neuromancer" lurches from Earth to space and weaves a tale so frayed around the edges most readers will be scratching their heads as to what is really happening. And this is a shame since the book truly is prophetic (even if parts of those prophecies are lifted from other sources, mostly.) With hard to follow events, a jangle of locations, purposefully cryptic references, and a coolness factor that proved that this reader was simply not as cool as the material, Gibson's multi-award-winning novel comes off as little more than an exercise in style. While reading the book, I decided at one point to just jump around the narrative, skipping ahead pages, then jumping back. The outcome? The story made just about as much sense read in scattershot form as read serially, one page at a time.

I started reading Gibson with his latest book, "Pattern Recognition," which I thought was atrocious. Willing to give the benefit of the doubt, I jumped back in time to this one. While "Neuromancer" has a slightly more satisfying ending, time has shown that Gibson is an acquired taste, and that only to precious few. Despite having spawned the genre that gave us the movie "The Matrix" (and you'll be shocked at how much of "Neuromancer" was lifted for that film), great ideas cannot make up for a slapdash plot and one-dimensional characterizations. People still like to read good stories and this book simply does not deliver.

Rating:
Summary: cyberpunk........i think.
Review: Perhaps the only thing worse than reading a bad book is reading a book that has the blaring potential to be great, but somehow falls short.

"Neuromancer" is filled with thoughts, images, and scenes which are nothing short of brilliant and ground-breaking. Written in 1984, Gibson's ability to imagine the future of technology amazes me. He doesn't craft "Star Trek" worlds--idealized, raceless, places where everybody gets along (although we all love Star Trek, one must admit that its character interaction is a little less than realistic). Neither does Gibson let his technology get out of hand--people can't travel faster than light, nobody mates with aliens, or has an epiphany about the nature of the universe. It's Earth, plain and simple (although it's obvious he wrote it in the middle of the Decade of Excess--mirrored surgical optical insets? ick.). The man who coined the term "Cyberspace" creates a complex future which is ultimately believable.

Unfortunately--and this is where the rating part comes in-- as I was reading, I found myself stopping every page or two, scratching my temple, and going "HUH?" Listen, guys, before you tell me I'm just slamming the novel because it's popular, let's put it into perspective. I'm an experienced reader. I've been able to read Kerouac, Murakami, Vonnegut, and other notoriously confusing writers' works without a hitch. For a few identifiable and probably a few more unidentifiable reasons, "Neuromancer" gave me problems.

I realize it's a matter of style more than anything; Gibson wants to set an atmosphere by using particular words, sentence structures, and chronology techniques. However, the effect is something like that of a dress produced for a fashion show--what looks great on the runway is not necessarily practical or feasible for everyday life. For short bursts, Gibson's prose is lucid, vivid, and startling. However, taken in chunks much longer than a page, the gaps in action frustrate even a patient reader. There were times when I absolutely, positively could not follow what was going on, even after stopping and rereading several times. The experience was similar to trying to solve a puzzle with a hundred pieces missing. The prose, or lack thereof, probably cut my enjoyment of the novel in half.

"Neuromancer", however, is still a ground-breaking book, with so much insight and so many redeeming qualities that I'd still reccomend any SF fan read it. I just wish that Gibson had had a better understanding of prose and literary technique to make his ideas and images _really_ shine.