This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For's Reviews > Neuromancer

Neuromancer by William Gibson
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
834216
Context. Sometimes the key to understanding something is context. And never is that more the case than with the book Neuromancer. Neuromancer is a very famous, genre creating/changing book, winner of many awards. I’m reading Neuromancer for the first time; while not quite done, I find the story to be decent and the writing to be ok. As just a book that I am reading, I would call it fair. But that is an evaluation without context.

Under what context does my evaluation change? Well, one of the first things I noticed when I picked it up is that it was originally published nearly 25 years ago, in 1984. And it is at that point that the context suddenly clicks and becomes crucial. Neuromancer is a book about, in large part, individuals exploring and exploiting cyberspace and, to a lesser extent, about artificial intelligence. When this book was written, the vast majority of people did not own a computer; it was just around the time when the idea of a family buying one started to become prevalent, and the computer they could buy did not have a hard drive and probably had no more than 64kb of RAM (the Apple IIe my family got in 1985 was “expandable” to 128kb of RAM…more than almost any program we would want to run could possibly need). Pretty much no one had heard of the internet and email was virtually unknown. The World Wide Web and webpages as we think of them today were still about 8 years away (I was reasonably plugged in at the time and I first heard about WWW and html around ‘92/93…prior to that the internet for most people was email, independent bulletin boards [anyone remember CompuServe?:], anonymous FTP, and Gopher). When one considers what the world was like, what fiction about computers was like, at the time it was written, Neuromancer must have been absolutely stunning. The innovation and direction were ground-breaking in a way that little other fiction has likely been during our lifetime.

An analogy would be the movie Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is considered by many to be the greatest movie ever made. Sit down and watch it with someone who enjoys movies but has never seen it. Citizen Kane is a decent film with a decent story, but is hardly a stunning, blow the mind away movie, in any sense. I’m not sure it has aged particularly well, and I suspect a lot of people today find it a rather boring film. But again, that is if we view it without context. Contextually, Citizen Kane is one of the most influential movies ever made. Many have said, rightfully so, that it not only taught Hollywood how to make movies, it taught the audience how to watch movies. Citizen Kane uses nonlinear plot and flashbacks. It uses unique camera angles and closeups and shadow, all in ways that were completely innovative and unheard of for the time. Today, we watch Citizen Kane and it seems sort of ho-hum, because generations of movie makers (and watchers) have been influenced by it. At the time Citizen Kane was revolutionary, and it is in that context that its importance and influence are judged.

While everything is created in some context, the context is not always critical. Some works are timeless and stand fairly well on their own: I think a book like The Count of Monte Cristo or The Hobbit can largely be enjoyed (or disliked) by someone without appreciation of when and under what circumstances it was written (others will disagree). Other works are best appreciated with respect to context. The Jazz Singer is a rather poor film, but as the first “talkie” it killed the silent picture and changed Hollywood. Citizen Kane was arguably even more revolutionary, although in somewhat subtler ways. And it is with a consideration of context, that the importance and value of Neuromancer can be judged.

I'm not trying to claim that Neuromancer is as important or ground breaking as Citizen Kane. Neuormancer was likely not the first novel to explore the themes and concepts that it did, but it popularized a way of thinking about the role and future of computers and computer networks like no other novel has since. The word “cyberspace” was popularized by this novel (although original coined by Gibson in an earlier short story) and Neuromancer has had both direct and indirect influence on all social cybernetworks and games (e.g., World of Warcraft or Second Life). I suspect the book is much easier to read now then it was when written, because so many terms and concepts which were new at the time are now just part of our current culture.

If you newly read Neuromancer, you may or may not enjoy it (as I already stated, I’m finding it to be rather middle-of-the-road overall), but you certainly will not understand its importance or influence (for better or worse), without some consideration of context.
202 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Neuromancer.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

May 4, 2008 – Shelved
May 4, 2008 – Shelved as: science-fiction
May 4, 2008 – Shelved as: fiction
Started Reading
December 6, 2008 – Finished Reading
May 9, 2009 – Shelved as: hugo-award
May 9, 2009 – Shelved as: nebula-award
May 12, 2009 – Shelved as: cyberpunk

Comments Showing 1-9 of 9 (9 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by rivka (new)

rivka I remember Compuserve! That was the service my DAD was on. ;) I was on Prodigy and GEnie, and considered Delphi. And it was extremely exciting when you were first able to email people on one of the other services, not just within your own.

I tried reading this book back in about '90, and it wasn't my cup of tea at all. But ground-breaking it definitely was. It essentially defined the "cyberpunk" genre!


message 2: by Lisa (last edited Dec 05, 2008 05:26PM) (new) - added it

Lisa Vegan I remember Compuserve too! And the ones you mentioned too Rivka. Great review Michael.

Oh, and I've been meaning to watch Citizen Kane for years.


message 3: by Jim (last edited Aug 09, 2014 01:26PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jim Well done comment on context. And one definition of classic is that it's value endures for later generations.

In film, I'll offer the early MArx Bros films - leaving aside the filler - the scenes with the boys still kill.


LionCubTeaParty This is a severely insightful review. After reading a thread where people had raved about this book, I decided to pick it up—knowing nothing about its "context" as you put it. I didn't even know when it had been written.

As I started to read, I found myself slightly underwhelmed: the writing itself is somewhat disjointed, and the author has an idiosyncratic way of expressing things.

But, given the context of it being written 30 years ago now, it makes much more sense why this was recommended. Since, even with its flaws, it was still absolutely groundbreaking.

Thank you!


message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

I would claim Neuromancer is as influential as Citizen Kane, on its own way.

It is convoluted, made to be dated, has a weird language in some spots (and I love stuff like nadsat!), but it gave us The Matrix, Ghost in the Shell, Hackers and many others.


Brian It always makes me smile when I think about the Hitachi his junkie girlfriend stole from him. I think it was a 3 MEGABYTE!!! Lol


Maree Kimberley Excellent review. I'm about halfway through it at the moment and am simultaneously blown away by the thought that he wrote this in 1984 & a little underwhelmed by the story as it stands. When it comes to this novel, context is everything. In the 80s no one knew what the Matrix was (for example) - now all readers have an instant point of reference,


message 8: by Liz (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liz I think "Neuromancer" nowadays has to be read as an alternate history, set in a parallel universe where the '80s never ended. And you can't just shove people into Gibson with "He's the best! Just trust me!" You have to let them know what they're getting into. I worship the ground WG walks on but he's not for everybody.


message 9: by Jim (last edited Jun 15, 2017 11:28AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jim Not Michael wrote:

The word “cyberspace” was popularized by this novel and coined by Gibson

Shortly before the turn-of-the-century I first read this term used for the world wide web. While this is apt in a strict sense, it still strikes me as a diminishment. "Jacking in" and indirectly perceiving the internet as "construct" (bypassing the usual five senses) is other-worldly enough to make our current internet interactions seem very primitive. At best that was an unfortunate, seriously premature appropriation.


Neuromancer must have been absolutely stunning (in 1984)

I think it still is in a number of respects. For starters, see above the "construct". Gibson's near-future medicine is pretty wonderous. The Sprawl is a faintly dystopic extrapolation of the "megalopolis" - a term I first read in the early 70s - referring to the "extreme" urbanization of the northeastern seaboard. More an SF commonplace is the well-developed low-orbit infrastructure portrayed in Gibson's World. Did Neuromancer have ballistic, hyper-sonic transport (?), which is acheivable now - though costly - but which fits in with the extreme wealth portrayed in all the Sprawl novels. FWIW, that wealth and the idea of essentially independent Corporations and their extra-legal machinations, implies an anti-dystopic extrapolation of capitalism's success over recent centuries (whatever the dystopic "atmosphere" in his world-building).

In all three of the Sprawl novels I recall no mention whatever of government - no analogs to our federal agencies, no government services, not even cops or spooks. All the conflict is between powerful private concerns. Yet, it is clear that order pervades this future civilization, and the "wars" are strictly limited. In itself, this is interesting, and gives the novel a timeless quality.


I suspect the book is much easier to read now then it was when written

For hard-science-fiction-fans this novel's near-future technological-extrapolations were not hard to understand in the mid-80s. Gibson's prose, with little exposition, much implication, and descriptively dense, forces the reader to slow down - skimming is not allowed. In that sense, the novel is a literary challenge of sorts - which may make it currently harder to understand if literary sensibilities are less common thirty years later.

(Neuromancer is) rather middle-of-the-road overall

I'd like to see this idea fleshed out - in what way is Neuromancer "middle-of-the-road"?


back to top