A review by melaninny
Neuromancer by William Gibson
3.0
2.5 rounded up because I can recognize that this is a decent book that just really wasn't the bee in my bonnet. Excited to explore my feelings about it in my book-journal, here.
--
That this book is a masterclass in style is unmistakable. Gibson writes Neuromancer with a superb consistency of style that is challenging to pull off. The problem with this style is that it is simultaneously complex and incomprehensible, while also managing to give very little idea of what the world actually looks like, and failing to bring any clarity to the action. An example from a random page:
"With his deck waiting, back in the loft, an Odo-Sendai Cyberspace 7. They'd left the place littered with abstract white forms of the foam packing units, with crumpled plastic film and hundreds of tiny foam beads. The Ono-Sendai; next year's most expensive Hosaka computer; a Sony monitor; a dozen disks of corporate-grade ice; a Braun coffeemaker. Armitage had only waited for Case's approval of each piece." (pg. 46)
Can I parse all of this? Yes. Is it descriptive? Yes. Does it really mean anything, does it paint any sort of actual picture of the world? Not really. Is the halting, broken style with interspersed technobabble constant and inescapable? Yes. Did I ever adjust to it? No. Could some people? Clearly, yes.
To me, the entire book read as if it was meant to be a script. I think Neuromancer would make a superb movie (which, coincidentally, is coming out this year, apparently?) The cyberpunk vibes, the constant jargon, the exaggerated caricatures it calls characters, would all lend themselves to film well, and were painful in book form. It took me two months to read this book. I would tote it around my apartment while in quarantine, hoping that its proximity could entice me to read it. I would pick it up, read a sentence, and immediately lose interest. At about 45% the plot poked through enough for me to continue with some amount of interest, but I still found myself skimming through so many passages, with only a vague notion of what was going on. I never read books this way, but it's the only way I could get through it.
I'm also skeptical of the historical significance of Neuromancer, considering that Bladerunner came out two years before this book and was based on a 70s novel. But that it inspired a lot of dupes is unquestionable.
I'm glad it treats all of its characters like set-pieces, but I do want to note that Gibson makes unapologetic use of other cultures simply for style, and the Asian characters that exist all appear to be cloned ninjas; and all of the main characters appear to be white, despite the story seeming to take place entirely in Asian countries in the future. It's uh, not the greatest look when reading in 2020. I didn't hate the treatment of the female characters, at least, so that's something (but there is, of course, sexual assault backstory and fridging).
--
That this book is a masterclass in style is unmistakable. Gibson writes Neuromancer with a superb consistency of style that is challenging to pull off. The problem with this style is that it is simultaneously complex and incomprehensible, while also managing to give very little idea of what the world actually looks like, and failing to bring any clarity to the action. An example from a random page:
"With his deck waiting, back in the loft, an Odo-Sendai Cyberspace 7. They'd left the place littered with abstract white forms of the foam packing units, with crumpled plastic film and hundreds of tiny foam beads. The Ono-Sendai; next year's most expensive Hosaka computer; a Sony monitor; a dozen disks of corporate-grade ice; a Braun coffeemaker. Armitage had only waited for Case's approval of each piece." (pg. 46)
Can I parse all of this? Yes. Is it descriptive? Yes. Does it really mean anything, does it paint any sort of actual picture of the world? Not really. Is the halting, broken style with interspersed technobabble constant and inescapable? Yes. Did I ever adjust to it? No. Could some people? Clearly, yes.
To me, the entire book read as if it was meant to be a script. I think Neuromancer would make a superb movie (which, coincidentally, is coming out this year, apparently?) The cyberpunk vibes, the constant jargon, the exaggerated caricatures it calls characters, would all lend themselves to film well, and were painful in book form. It took me two months to read this book. I would tote it around my apartment while in quarantine, hoping that its proximity could entice me to read it. I would pick it up, read a sentence, and immediately lose interest. At about 45% the plot poked through enough for me to continue with some amount of interest, but I still found myself skimming through so many passages, with only a vague notion of what was going on. I never read books this way, but it's the only way I could get through it.
I'm also skeptical of the historical significance of Neuromancer, considering that Bladerunner came out two years before this book and was based on a 70s novel. But that it inspired a lot of dupes is unquestionable.
I'm glad it treats all of its characters like set-pieces, but I do want to note that Gibson makes unapologetic use of other cultures simply for style, and the Asian characters that exist all appear to be cloned ninjas; and all of the main characters appear to be white, despite the story seeming to take place entirely in Asian countries in the future. It's uh, not the greatest look when reading in 2020. I didn't hate the treatment of the female characters, at least, so that's something (but there is, of course, sexual assault backstory and fridging).