Neuromancer

Rating:
Summary: If you know what you're reading, you will not be sorry!
Review: One reviewer complained about how this book is like a "jigsaw" puzzle, another complains that it has weak characterization, I haven't read everyone, but I'm sure many will point to the text as dystopian.

The truth is a bit different. When I first read this book back in High School, I walked away with the standard impression: characters who seem somewhat static, a plot that starts strong and gets messy at the end, but a cool setting with neat gizmos.

Now, after eight years, it looks even more appealing. Case is a character straight out of Raymond Chandler, or (for the more alert out there) William S Burroughs. This book is far more Burroughs than Asimov.

Read the interview with Gibson in "Chaos & Cyberculture", and you will get a remarkably different view of this book. The character "Finn" is a reference to a certain Joyce book... the street prophets are a great extrapolation on where the religious right of today will end up, and the drug culture is not looked upon as a bad thing as it is in the real world, but merely another aspect of the constantly fragmenting and diverging counter cultures that exist in the text.

All great books have some degree of character growth, and this is no exception. But Case has his growth quietly, in a pretty subtle manner during ... with a certain female in the text, as he comes to accept his own flesh (since many "cowboys" look on their bodies with disdain).

This book is about more than a grungy future with cool gizmos. You just have to take the time to see it all.

Rating:
Summary: Truly Classic
Review: This is a great work of sci-fi. It is enjoyable and interesting. A must read for any SF fan.

Rating:
Summary: Cyberspace, Future, Now
Review: Neuromancer is special because of its density of ideas. This very density can sometimes make the book difficult reading, but in the end, the reader finds it worth the effort. "Cyberspace" was barely in its infancy when Gibson wrote this book, and I wonder how he would have written the book differently if he wrote it today. What would a book like Neuromancer be like if written 30 years from now? As the pace of technology increases, it's amazing that this book still displays a stark freshness.

Rating:
Summary: a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces...
Review: ...P>Firstly, I expect any novel to have some degree of characterizations coherent prose, and a meaningful story. These attributes also apply to science fiction. True, a book like Neuromancer tries to "push the envelope" by diving into a story where reality as we know it is spun on its head. But I expect the author to help ease the reader into understanding his alternate reality. Mr Gibson seemingly chose not to do this, ... Reading Neuromancer is akin to completing a jigsaw puzzle without a completed picture to guide you, and in the end one discovers several pieces are missing. I assume Mr Gibson understands the complete picture. ... But I suspect many of them simply think that reading a 300 page novel full of AI/cyberspace/holographic gibberish is, by definition, "way cool". However I don't feel this way.

Bottom line: I think I wasted several hours of my life reading Neuromancer. Not recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Tight plot, classic characters - a cyberpunk masterpiece
Review: The classic that kick-started the cyberpunk genre, this is a must read for science fiction fans, with its hard-driving plot, fresh characters, and dizzying vision of a world where technology is out of control. This book is much tighter and faster-moving than Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, although not nearly as funny, and the virtual universe, while perhaps first conceptualized here, is not so painstakingly well-defined, but the elaborate mystery-and-caper plot still packs a powerful punch that makes this book worth re-reading. There's plenty of action, tension,...and far-out sci-fi extrapolation, but in the long run, it's those quirky characters who bring the story to life. Revolutionary at the time, they're now pretty much stock characters for the whole subgenre. Case is the permanently out of work web jockey who wholly immersed himself in the rarified air of cyberspace until he made the mistake of trying to cross the wrong people. After destroying his ability to enter the metaverse, Case becomes the typical dropout from straight society, living on the fringes, and daring the world to finish him altogether. A reluctant hero, Case is ready to do whatever needs to be done when a mysterious stranger offers him the chance to return to the virtual world he's been ousted from. His teammate Molly, rather than being the helpless baggage that clutters so many novels in the name of femininity, is instead the team's muscle - a tough-minded, hard-bodied mercenary who uses her womanly wiles as just another weapon. Leading the team is the inscrutable Armitage, a combat veteran whose hopelessly mangled remains have been reassembled with the help of radical technology - but is he really the one calling the shots? And how far can Case and Molly really trust him? A quick-reading thriller that is not to be missed.

Rating:
Summary: Plot driven ... not character driven
Review: I did like this book but I have to give it only 3 stars because I tend to enjoy books where I can get a little more intimate with the characters. I found myself indifferent towards the characters. If Case (the protagonist) would have died, lived, succeeded or failed, I wouldn't have been... affected. That is precisely what bothered me about this book. This is classic Cyber Punk and the world William Gibson creates is astounding and mind-bending, but if you tend to enjoy books that are more character driven than plot driven, Neuromancer may disappoint.

Rating:
Summary: Best book I've ever read.
Review: Now, let me first say that although this is my favorite book, I realize it is clearly not for everyone. Gibson's style is unique...and you either love it or you hate it.

That said, I still think this is the single best book written in the last 50 years. Possibly even longer.

Yes, I've heard complaints. Gibson's writing is thick, sometimes blurry, his plot isn't "unique," his story isn't flashy and exciting. This is, of course, all subjective, but I can see where people are coming from. Gibson's writing IS very dense; you can see it in his short stories, his other novels, even in his essays. His strength is his intense description of the world his characters live in. Given, he doesn't hand everything to you on a silver platter (or microchip). Someone who is simply looking for a fast, easy read will find him frustrating like that.

I've also heard that the mood is quite heavy. That's because this is very noir. That's how cyberpunk is. Cyberpunk is not and should no be considered science fiction, at least, not what the pulpwriters want you to think science fiction is. This isn't Star Wars. This is Blade Runner. The good guys aren't good. There aren't even any real bad guys.

Which is why the book is so great.

Gibson deals with ideas. Big ideas, many of which are long before his time. He discusses the problems of megacorporations (zaibatsus in Neuromancer) which we are just beginning to see in today's world. He dabbles in the posthuman, the role of gender in a world where informaion is power, not physical prowess. He looks at it all from the underground, which everyone knows about but no one in our culture seems to want to think about. He deals with the human body in a post-biological world, where people can alter their body in any way they want, and its effects on society and people. And of course, he discusses cyberspace.

Now, finally, for all of you who stand there and say that the whole thing reminded you of matrix, remember, this was written in 1984. Matrix is, if anything, a rip-off of this book (along with the rest of the series, some short stories by Harlan Ellison, and some Phil K. Dick stuff, and finally Alice in Wonderland). Matrix is an action thriller...Neuromancer is a mind-warper. Matrix is not itself cyberpunk; it is a result of the media frenzy following the release of this book.

But really, your enjoyment of this book depends on your aims. If you're looking for a fun little story about kids messing around online, you're in the wrong place. If you're looking for a jaunt around in the future with exciting battles and neat-o cool aliens, this is not the book for you. If you don't get a real kick out of imagery as thick and dark as the La Brea tarpits, you're reading the wrong book. But if you like ideas, thickly textured worlds, commentary on society, philosophy, technology, and what it means to be human, you should read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Arguably the first science fiction novel of the 21st century
Review: There is little doubt that William Gibson's "Neuromancer" is a significant novel in the history of science fiction, but that is an entirely different issue from whether it is a great science fiction novel. Readers are immersed in a complex world and if the depth we reach is relatively shallow the breadth of the created universe is astounding, especially to someone as cyber-illiterate as myself. However, I can still recognize that Gibson did a pretty good job of prediction the shape of things to come, which is why ultimately "Neuromancer" reminds me of the writings of Jules Verne and H. G. Wells, except Gibson is doing his forecasting for the 21st century.

While Case, the hero of the tale, jacks in and out of cyberspace with speed and ease, it is hard for those of us living in the real world to catch up. The density of Gibson's world is so great that the telling details tend to get lost in the onslaught. Gibson races through the action at the speed of light with the result that time and time again I had to go back and reread paragraphs to make sure I was keeping up with what was going on. Of course, since Case is at least a step behind with the complex machinations at the heart of this novel, what chance do the rest of us have? The characters are iconic, which is a polite way of saying stereotypical, despite the little futuristic aspects that Gibson's works in to flesh them out (so to speak).

I am considering using "Neuromancer" in my Science Fiction course as the last novel. The writing assignment would not focus on the novel per se as much as it would on its impact on the field, which reflects my initial position as established above. Without saying whether the new face of Science Fiction as represented by "Neuromancer" cinematic clones such as "The Matrix" and "The Cell" is a good thing or a bad thing, I think we can all agree it is the current thing. Perhaps the fact that my examples come from movies rather than novels only serves to further underscore than this was perhaps not the best medium for Gibson to tell his story. Then again, technological options were so much more limited way back in 1984.

Rating:
Summary: Groundbreaking concepts ahead of its time, but weak story
Review: The concepts about cyberspace are what set this book apart when it first came out. The characters and plot kind of just plod along though. I kept expecting the pace to pick up, but instead it just kind of meandered around Case, the usual stereotypical bad boy who isn't really all that bad just mischevious and kind of criminal. It's the whole cyberpunk story complete with a conspiracy situation and our hero's one final chance for redemption! Where have you not heard that one before? Nonetheless, Gibson deserves a great deal of credit for being prophetic though. Personally, my favorite cyberpunk novel remains the underrated and underappreciated "When Gravity Fails" by George Alec Effinger, but that's just my taste. Check out at your library, but paying for it might be asking a bit much.

Rating:
Summary: overrated
Review: I'm going to commit the unforgivable crime of a critique, not actually finishing the book. I admit I couldn't. I struggled with the horrendous style until page 80 (of 240), and then I couldn't any more. Maybe there is some magnificent plot and terrific character development from page 81 and onwards, but somehow I doubt it. The book is badly written, and no novelty of ideas could cover that up. It may have had its merit during the time it was written, and it may have an historic value of sorts, but it is not worth reading as a novel now. The style is not just annoying, it is almost infantile, sort of like a baby saying partial sentences, omitting verbs and other parts of the sentence. Maybe that's how he intended people to talk, but the descriptive parts are equally bad. And above all, it's a boring book. In short, a collection of ideas doesn't make a good SF novel, and certainly doesn't make it a classic (which apparently it has become.