Rating: 
Summary: Like his other books
Review: Pesimistic, lots of scene changes, nothing new compared with his other works. OK the ideas here are reworked again. A book for the fans.
Rating: 
Summary: Very good book.
Review: I enjoyed this book. At first I was completely confused. While I heard many of these words before and understood their practical meaning, I was lost in the first 4 chapters of the book. I would find it very hard to read this book in the 80's. I can't imagine being able to understand all of his nuisances in the meanings. I thought his choice of companies to represent what will be big in the future was fun. He also makes great future characters way ahead of his time. Being able to genetically engineer your features or clone your family to run your empire. While his future is way out there, it is amazing how these things are appearing. We are so close to cataloging the human genome, in 1984 that was a pipe dream. The book was really hard to start. After about page 60 I got into it. This was because of all of the characters and all of the confusion of what was actually happening. After that it was an easy read. I was a little disappointed by the quick ending and the loose ends. 3Jane was an interesting villain, if you call her that. He was so good at describing the future world, I was hoping that he would expalin a little more on what the new AI Wintermute was. He should have used his visionary writing he used to describe Chiba city and Straylight. Overall, it was very good.
Rating:
Summary: A fun, readable book
Review: I'm only an occasional reader of science fiction, and I've read even less cyberpunk - perhaps that's why I can't go along with all the reviews either calling this the greatest novel ever written, or a terrible hack job...they seem to be taking things within the context of the current cyberpunk scene, a scene I'm only vaguely familiar with. I enjoyed the book the way one might enjoy a big Hollywood movie. The characterizations and plot were shallow and taken directly from noir and pulp fictions, no doubt about it. However, for all the times I've seen noir plots, I still enjoy them. I think the author made things fun, and kept the story going along smoothly. The ending did fall a little flat, but cyberpunk as a genre seems to flop the endings, and this was at least decent. Also, I think it's easy to appreciate the futuristic setting of the book. True, it's a largely outdated view of the future, but it's an interesting world, and it's fun to see just how much Gibson got right back in 1984. I read this when I stayed live in post-bubble Osaka, and the book's view of the fringes of an efficient high-tech society struck a chord with me.
Rating: 
Summary: just to clarify..
Review: Consider this part three of the "what the hell is wrong with you people" triolgy of Neuromancer reviews (parts 1 and 2 below). It's true that much of Gibson's lingo and technology is not clearly defined or explained. This is because Gibson wants the book to read like a novel, not a VCR instruction manual. Any less exposition would be incomprehensible, but any more would be terribly condescending, making the reader feel like a tourist in Gibson's future rather than a participant. Just read it, assume that you're filling the blanks in correctly, and have a wonderful time with an author who hasn't yet lost all faith in intelligent life on earth.
Rating:
Summary: A pioneering Cyberpunk work
Review: It's this simple. Anyone who didn't enjoy this book didn't put any effort into it. They might have started with a pre-conceived notion (like our "literary" reviewers), or they might simply not be capable of the level of imagination that this book commands. My advice is to turn off the video game (that likely owes at least a passing nod to Gibson's imagery), turn off your "Matrix" video (ditto) and PAY ATTENTION! You will be rewarded by a stunning, viseral read. Calling Neuromancer cliched is like saying B.B King's music is cliched. It's because he defined the style. If you enjoy the work of Rucker, Dick, Brunner, etc., you owe it to yourself to delve into Neuromancer. You won't be sorry.
Rating:
Summary: He does not write for such ninnies as cannot read
Review: The many negative reviews of this unparalleled work all have the same complaints: the book is confusing, they can't follow the story, it's boring, and so on, and so on. These are the complaints of all the dimwits in freshman English about the accepted classics of English literature. The conclusion is inescapable: the negative reviewers are just too damn dumb to understand what Gibson has accomplished.
Rating: 
Summary: Awful.
Review: If you want to know how seriously this book should be taken, you have only to look at the kind of people who give it rave reviews. I'm afraid that an endless series of techno-jargon does not a novel make, and the fact that the jargon is never explained confirms the book's pretentiousness. When a new item of tech-terminology is introduced and not elaborated on, the reader can only conclude either that the author is being lazy or that he is hoping a simple-minded readership will assume that he knows better than them. The whole novel is suffused with the sensation of the author chancing his arm. Neuromancer is an uninteresting, unimaginative and ultimately daft book whose inexplicable popularity is just further evidence that the tendency to mistake opacity for profundity is becoming as common in fiction as it is in literary criticism. Truly dreadful.
Rating:
Summary: Not a great as some say but read it anyway.
Review: A good book. The incredible, bleak future that Gibson has created is--well, like I said, incredible! The story is also solid, but the writing is often unnecessarily confusing and the ending just didn't sit right with me. I've been told this book is better the second time and I can believe it. But I've only read it once, so all I can say is it's good, but not great. Yet, I still highly recomend you read this book. It shaped the entire cyberpunk genre, and its a great book to talk about with others.
Rating:
Summary: When Will We Learn? ---Never
Review: Yes,Neuromancer is pessimistic, but perhaps the targeted Ubermensches and Uberfraus could benefit from this classic. Perhaps that sounds elitest, but really, a novel of this caliber would not make "Oprah's Picks." What do we do with this moral fable? What did we do with Mary Shelley's fable--stay the same. Humans will be humans. Our Death Instinct is in tact, and no amount of moralizing will ever change humanity's collective consciousness. The reality between Thanatos and Eros cannot extinguish itself. Wintermute and Neuromancer merged, but at our expense. Our insecurities and hatred will always spawn what we sow. Thanks Mr. Gibson for giving us the dose of reality that your readers need. Coca-Cola, GM, GE, Disney, and Microsoft have replaced the Vatican---welcome to the future, Neuromancer is here.
Rating:
Summary: So sick of this being compared to Snow Crash.
Review: Neuromancer is a bit of brilliance. Gibson's got such a strong mastery of the language that his words can focus like a laser and bludgeon like an airhammer, often at the same time. Stephenson is a pretty good writer too, but he's not at all on par with Gibson, whose ideas Neal fed off of and whose abilities Neal can't hope to match. Neuromancer really does get better with every reading. And Snow Crash? Well, after the first time, you start noticing all those sentences that Neal should have either added to, taken awayfrom, or left out entirely. Sure, Stephenson is more friendly to the MTV generation and all of those "JAVA is God" people, but for great writing and prophetic utterances, look to Neuromancer. Not to mention Molly, THE coolest character from any book ever written, plays a key role in NM.
|
