Live data from Hacker News

Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

skmurphy.com

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

#61

Read the book for the first time last year. I heard from some people that it hadn't aged too well—that it should be viewed as more of a precursor to things like Snowcrash —but I really loved it. In particular, the language used to describe drug states and events in cyberspace (such as the Kuang virus) was just so vivid and disorienting. (Or I guess "hypnagogic", to use a Gibsonian word.) A less talented author would…

I agree strongly. His description of what cyberspace looks like is absolutely perfect:

"Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts... A graphic representation of data abstracted from banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding..."

I've never seen a visual depiction in any cyberpunk-inspired that came even close to getting it right. They mostly all seem to want giant structures made out of neon blocks.

Re: Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

#62
post #11

Gibson's language is so heavy, it was almost physically hard to read the book as a non-native speaker. Also he was obviously not really into IT (at least when he wrote the book), which added to the negative perception even more, and left me with very mixed feelings afterwards.

You're missing the point focusing on the inaccurate descriptions of tech. The point, and greatest strength, of the book is in how people interact with the tech, and how it shapes society. Gibson has always been very good at articulating how technology shapes society, and the human response to technology, especially how people always find their own, unexpected ways to utilize technology (as in the famous line from his short story "Burning Chrome", "the street finds its own uses for things").

Frankly, an "accurate" description of tech would almost certainly just badly date it (e.g., "an unbelievable 500MB of RAM!")

Re: Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

#63
post #11

Gibson's language is so heavy, it was almost physically hard to read the book as a non-native speaker. Also he was obviously not really into IT (at least when he wrote the book), which added to the negative perception even more, and left me with very mixed feelings afterwards.

He was inventing a lot of technology that didn't exist back then. I think not understanding computers was a strength of his, not a weakness. Someone more up on how they worked would never have come up with cyberspace, or with Wintermute. He made the usual "artificial intelligence tries to take over the world and exterminate humans" sound really trite.

I read an interview with Gibson way back in the 80s that was very telling. He had never touched a computer when he wrote Neuromancer. He wrote it on a mechanical typewriter, because word processors weren't even a thing then. With the money he made from the novel, he felt as a science fiction writer, he should own a computer. So he went and bought an Apple II, state of the art at the time. He took it home and turned it on, and it made whirring, grinding noises, which freaked him out. He had no idea computers should be anything but silent! He opened the case and looked at the disc drive... a Victorian clockwork mechanism of gears, belts, levers, and pulleys. That's like the most Gibson thing ever.

Re: Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

#64
> The Neuromancer AI made a copy of Case to keep its copy of dead Linda company:

A small detail - while it's left ambiguous, FWIW I always thought that was Dixie, not a copy of Case.

That's why Case hears Dixie's laughter at the very end; earlier Dixie disappears and Neuromancer says he got more than his wish; later, Case asks where Dixie is and Wintermute/Neuromancer says its kind of hard to explain.

This makes the ending a little darker.

Re: Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

#65
post #2

Neuromancer, William Gibson’s first novel, was published in 1984. It helped to establish the cyberpunk genre of science fiction: a dark future where computing, communication, and artificial intelligence technologies were dominant, complemented by significant medical advances, large inhabited satellites in Earth orbit, and considerable drug use. I recently re-read it and was struck by how things have turned out differ…

> Neuromancer, William Gibson’s first novel, was published in 1984. It helped to establish the cyberpunk genre of science fiction Cyberpunk dates at least a decade before Neuromancer -- Brunner's Shockwave Rider form 1974 comes to mind (and is a pretty interesting and strangely timely read, given that it is almost 50 years old).

>Cyberpunk dates at least a decade before Neuromancer

No, it doesn't. Proto-cyberpunk ideas existed, certainly (and more than 10 years before Neuromancer; you can trace the roots back to 60s New Wave SF), but the word itself only predates the book by a year. Neuromancer was very much a crystallization of ideas that had been floating around the zeitgeist.

Or 3 years, depending on how you consider it. The word was coined by Bruce Bethke for his short story Cyberpunk, which was written in 1980 but not published until 1983. Gibson began writing Neuromancer in 1981, though it wasn't published until 1984.

Re: Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

#66

Read the book for the first time last year. I heard from some people that it hadn't aged too well—that it should be viewed as more of a precursor to things like Snowcrash —but I really loved it. In particular, the language used to describe drug states and events in cyberspace (such as the Kuang virus) was just so vivid and disorienting. (Or I guess "hypnagogic", to use a Gibsonian word.) A less talented author would…

I think Neuromancer aged better than a lot of sci fi. Gibson didn't go into technical details, which is a blessing when you deal with early 80s computer tech.

Incidentally a lot of cyberpunk feels off in 2018. Nobody seemed to forecast the rise of China.

Re: Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

#67

I just finished the audiobook of Neuromancer a week ago, and I didn't really enjoy it. I'm not sure if I would have enjoyed it more if I'd read it. I love other what I think of as similar books like Snowcrash and Diamond Age. I had high hopes for Neuromancer, which maybe that was part of it, but I just didn't enjoy it. It kind of turned into a slog and I nearly gave up at around 90%, but just pushed through because I…

No, I really was put off by the low quality and the dumb accents that Gibson did (which I'm guessing is the version you listened to).

Just checked the wiki and supposedly there are two other versions out there which I guess I'll have to find now.

Re: Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

#68
post #58

The book "Void Star" by Zachary Mason was published last year. A high concept pitch for it is "Neuromancer, but all the 80s stuff is replaced with 2018 stuff". I hope the author wouldn't be offended by that -- the book is quite original but the influence is obvious. It's worth reading. I would basically be okay with somebody doing this again in another 30 years.

Read it recently, had some ideas, but seemed to be either a conscious crib of Gibson's cyberpunk oeuvre or just so derivative of it that I kept comparing scenes/characters in it to similar ones in Neuromancer. And Gibson is the better writer.

Re: Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

#69
post #2

Neuromancer, William Gibson’s first novel, was published in 1984. It helped to establish the cyberpunk genre of science fiction: a dark future where computing, communication, and artificial intelligence technologies were dominant, complemented by significant medical advances, large inhabited satellites in Earth orbit, and considerable drug use. I recently re-read it and was struck by how things have turned out differ…

> I recently re-read it and was struck by how things have turned out differently.

Oddly, I get the exact opposite feeling.

> a dark future where computing, communication, and artificial intelligence technologies were dominant, complemented by significant medical advances, large inhabited satellites in Earth orbit, and considerable drug use.

Are not computing and communications technologies dominant now? Are not the advances in AI (having recently beaten the GO world champion) and the influence of AI in our society (Cambridge Analytica, Google, ect) becoming more pronounced? Aren't we making staggering advaces in medicine (even if these medical advances can only be afforded by an elite few - another cyberpunk theme) ? Aren't the Chinese in the process of establishing a moon base with several "megacorps" planning the colonization of Mars in the near future? Isn't drug use extremely widespread (both illicit and "legally" prescribed drugs virtually ubiqituous)?

I would suggest that if you look at where society was in 1984, and look where we are today, we are well down the path towards a future that looks similar to Gibson's vision in many ways - we just aren't there yet.

Re: Revisting Neuromancer After Three Decades

#70

To me, Ted Nelson's Zigzag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZigZag_(software) - is a similiar view to Neuromancer's virtual reality. It's a shame it's not more popular. Gzz is an excellent version of it.

Ted Nelson is the Nikola Tesla of computing. He came up with so much brilliant stuff that we will be kicking ourselves for not adopting wholeheartedly later on.
Post reply on HN