What's Yea Forums's opinion of Neuromancer and the other books related from Gibson...

i agree, the description for the environments and setting are easily the selling points, though the characters are definitely written with their pieces of dialogue in this archaic 80s style conversational tone.

i havent read his new stuff, only beginning with neuromancer, pretty disheartening to hear that. what would be the cut-off point you think for his content?

Attached: 1546269946045.jpg (600x913, 146K)

▲
▲▲

Everything I like about this book turned out to be his ignorance and failings as a genre writer. Unfortunately he became a 'better' genre writer after it instead of developing those things that kept Neuromancer from being just another scifi book. As far as genre fiction goes, I enjoy much of his other work but the first books of his trilogies are the best, the second and third books tend to rely too much on the first and fall into fairly straight forward story telling.

>writes like a lobotomized Burroughs
>doesn't understand ram, rom or how to boot a computer
>DUB MJOOZIK AY AN AY BE DA ZION LION MAAANNNNN
>last half of the book is a repetition of idiotic deus ex machina

I feel like I would have enjoyed this more if I knew more about cyberpunk going into it.

>hough the characters are definitely written with their pieces of dialogue in this archaic 80s style conversational tone.
While this is true, the archaic nature of the character interactions is muted and subtle enough to not take away from immersion. I still think the Sprawl trilogy is timeless.

For me, the literary beauty in Gibson's earlier works is the dominance of the universe over the character set. The characters are helpless against the current and waves of the universe and are dragged along the narrative often being cast far out from the metaphorical shore by the end. Gibson lets the universe and larger power elements that encompass it control the characters and push outcome as opposed to making the plot center around typical protagonists that can will their way out of anything and are pulling off deus ex machina stunts.
>what would be the cut-off point you think for his content?
When I say new, I mean anything in the new era of his writing. I didn't enjoy the Peripheral for many reasons and have stopped caring what garbage he's putting out now.
It's the abstract element of Gibson's works that I enjoyed the most, and I feel that has been lost. An author should know when to stop.
Agree, any of Gibson's works are hard to digest without having an understanding of cyberpunk as a genre. Gibson's works are after all mostly about the setting.

Doing an honours thesis on that era of scifi, its good, they are really hit or miss but gibson was one of the good ones

I honestly had no idea what I had read and I vaguely liked it.

It's one of those books that were a fight to get through. The experience was like reading Chung Kuo for that matter.

gibson's ideas got lesser as his writing improved. sprawl and bridge are very good, later era gibson is hit and miss.

he gets too much credit from sci-fi and not enough from literature

I would argue that familiarity with the genre is a prereq for any Gibson book. You wouldn't know what the hell you're reading otherwise.
I never thought about it from that angle but you're right. The Peripheral has clear writing but junk level plot elements. Bridge/Sprawl is the inverse. Although if the key characteristic of Gibson's early badly written works is lack of flow then I can't say I dislike it alltogether. It's more interesting than annoying when the flow gets interrupted to sprinkle in other equivalently interesting elements

I think there is a novelty to the mindspace Gibson was writing in. He was basically making an edgy 70's crime novel that had an accelerated culture and technology. It's sort of cute that his idea of a future bar is a sleazy bartender with a robot arm. And his fascination of Japanese martial weaponry is funny too