Sign in with Facebook
K's Reviews > Neuromancer
Neuromancer (Sprawl, #1)
by
by
True Confessions
1. I am a nerd.
(I know this is a shocking revelation from someone who spends most of her free time reading and writing book reviews for pleasure).
My overall personality, compounded by my sheltered religious background (as in, I spent most of my life going to school, marrying and having kids early, and being a homemaker with periodic stints in the workplace), makes it difficult for me to relate to characters who frequent bars, regularly use drugs, sleep around, and pepper their dialogue with lots of confusing futuristic slang and cursing. I’m aware that this is my limitation, although I can’t help thinking that some of it is the author’s as well. After all, I didn’t feel this alienated when I read about Humbert Humbert.
2. I had to look up the definition of “cyberpunk” on Wikipedia.
And then, that explained my difficulty getting this book. I can read academic articles. I can read in a foreign language (Hebrew). But much of this book was impenetrable to me. Witness the following randomly chosen paragraph (I simply copied this from the first page I opened up to):
“Cowboys didn’t get into simstim, he thought, because it was basically a meat toy. He knew that the trodes he used and the little plastic tiara dangling from a simstim deck were basically the same, and that the cyberspace matrix was actually a drastic simplification of the human sensorium, at least in terms of presentation, but simstim itself struck him as a gratuitous multiplication of flesh input.”
Do you get this? It didn’t make any more sense to me in context than it does out of context, because the entire context was more or less written this way. I suppose that’s expected for this genre, but I’m just not a fan of this type of writing.
3. I never finished the book, because writing this review was more fun (see #1 above).
And that was when I knew, around p. 55, that it was time to stop reading.
1. I am a nerd.
(I know this is a shocking revelation from someone who spends most of her free time reading and writing book reviews for pleasure).
My overall personality, compounded by my sheltered religious background (as in, I spent most of my life going to school, marrying and having kids early, and being a homemaker with periodic stints in the workplace), makes it difficult for me to relate to characters who frequent bars, regularly use drugs, sleep around, and pepper their dialogue with lots of confusing futuristic slang and cursing. I’m aware that this is my limitation, although I can’t help thinking that some of it is the author’s as well. After all, I didn’t feel this alienated when I read about Humbert Humbert.
2. I had to look up the definition of “cyberpunk” on Wikipedia.
And then, that explained my difficulty getting this book. I can read academic articles. I can read in a foreign language (Hebrew). But much of this book was impenetrable to me. Witness the following randomly chosen paragraph (I simply copied this from the first page I opened up to):
“Cowboys didn’t get into simstim, he thought, because it was basically a meat toy. He knew that the trodes he used and the little plastic tiara dangling from a simstim deck were basically the same, and that the cyberspace matrix was actually a drastic simplification of the human sensorium, at least in terms of presentation, but simstim itself struck him as a gratuitous multiplication of flesh input.”
Do you get this? It didn’t make any more sense to me in context than it does out of context, because the entire context was more or less written this way. I suppose that’s expected for this genre, but I’m just not a fan of this type of writing.
3. I never finished the book, because writing this review was more fun (see #1 above).
And that was when I knew, around p. 55, that it was time to stop reading.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Neuromancer.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
October 21, 2009
– Shelved
October 21, 2009
– Shelved as:
scifi-fantasy-magicrealism
February 6, 2016
– Shelved as:
couldntfinish
Comments Showing 1-50 of 70 (70 new)
Thanks, Skylar! I did try "A Clockwork Orange" many years ago, possibly in high school, and had the same issue. I guess I'm a lazy reader in this way, but I just don't want to work that hard to understand someone's made-up slang.
I didn't have as many problems reading the book as you did... because I was young enough to think it was my fault I didn't understand all of it. :D But even with my current IT background I don't think I'd understand more of it. I have to reread it just to see how much gibberish really is in it.
Interesting point, Radu. I struggled with whether to blame myself or the author for my difficulty understanding the book. I wonder whether your IT background would help, given that the book was originally published in 1984 before much of the information we have now came out. The book got high ratings, so I guess many readers had a higher tolerance than I had. I think I'm just not a sci-fi person.
Someone has to have influenced all the gibberish that is right now in IT!I know this was before most of the IT boom, but it was not before most of the ideas flourished. I'm constantly amazed by how many of today's "new" concepts are actually implementations of really old ideas that at the time were impossible to run simply because of lack of computing power. It is possible that Gibson was influenced by whatever IT knowledge had been slipping into popular culture at the time, especially among SF writers. Then again it's possible that most of the ghetto-like talk *was* actually ghetto talk with pretensions of IT...
Khaya wrote: "I think I'm just not a sci-fi person."I am, and I still can't read this muck. ;)
(Also, Khaya, that's Radu; Radu, Khaya.)
Nice to meet you, Radu! I appreciate your comments. I think it's interesting that much of the technology we have today was (I think) envisioned by early sci-fi writers; concepts like e-mail and handheld palm devices remind me of science fiction I read long ago before these dreams became a reality.
Yup. My flip phone looks a lot like Jim Kirk's communicator. Only smaller. ;)
That just goes to show how far out of the sci-fi world I am -- who is Jim Kirk? Is that Captain Kirk?
*grin* Yes. Captain James T. Kirk, to be precise.
*sheepish shrug* Oh, well. The star trek thing just passed me by.
To boldly go where no man has gone before?
Oh, boy, all these literary allusions going over my head. At least goodreads is a forgiving community. Sometimes, anyway.
Well asfter reading your comment twice I did understand all the words but for simstim? Nevertheless it made me all the more determined not to attempt to read this book.
I felt the same way reading the first of Harry Potter but towards the end got into it. Still Im not one for torturing myself I like to think reading is purely for enjoyment if it earns me an education and improves my English then fine..
Even the Bible in Hebrew is more pleasureable from someone whom has grown up unsheltered and become a nerd...
Wow -- I'm really impressed that you understood all the words! Truth is, lots of people liked the book and it's considered something of a sci-fi classic, so if you're gifted enough to be able to decipher the lingo, you might actually enjoy it. I do agree with you, though, that reading is for pleasure. I get pleasure from learning things from books too, sometimes, but not if the language is too inaccessible for me. And I agree that Hebrew is easier than that technical lingo!
Simstim is likely invented anyway. :)The words aren't really the problem for me either. And I can understand the whole paragraph after rereading it a couple of times. The problem is I don't want to have to reread paragraphs to understand what it's all about! Granted, in some books you'll find hidden nuances on second/third reading. But that's not what's happening in this one.
I'm with you on that one, Radu. Rereading to pick up the nuances is one thing; rereading for the sake of basic comprehension is definitely more effort than I want to put in.
Radu wrote: "The problem is I don't want to have to reread paragraphs to understand what it's all about!"Not unless I'm getting paid to do it!
Too bad there isn't much of a market for "Neuromancer" readers!
Heh. I was actually making reference to the fact that I do sometimes have to read paragraphs multiple times to decode as part of my job. ;)
Yeah, me too. Student papers. Sigh.
Those too, come to think of it. Although not nearly as often as I have to decode government regs or the like.
Oh, boy. Even worse. My condolences.
Reading through the comments here reminds me how diverse the world(s) of readers is(are). A nice lady invited me to Good Reads and I joined. I checked out her luke-warm ratings on some of my five-star favorites (most are classics in their genres), and was educated in a way.
I'm still sheltered, much like Khaya, and to find out that many just don't grok* the classics, was a revelation.
*Grok - yet another not-so-obscure allusion to Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land
Welcome to goodreads, Jim! For me, a lot of the fun of this website is the diversity of reactions to books.
So here is the answer to what it means.... Cowboys = Hackers
SimStims = control device for interfacing
Thinks fo the cowboys as the top dogs of interfacing with the web. They pride themselves on being the best. So they get the best hardware, the best training and the best jobs. They wont settle for using inferior products to do there jobs. The Simstim is an inferior device. Most cowboys us direct interface, which means the have an implant that takes the data and streams it in their heads. Now Case (or protagonist) his interface got burned out. He uses a device that fits over the head like a halo from when you have to immobilize the head after and accident. So if directly jacking into your brian gives you fastest and most reliable connection then the "halo" gives you poor reception and unreliable connect at times. Its like the difference between and iPod and Tape Player from the 80's. The Ipod holds more music and better interface and control. The tape player is clunky, less control.
I know this novel was not for you... It is a hard and difficult read. Trust me it took me a few reads to fully understand it. If you are inclined I would try either of his next series. The Bridge Trilogy or the Bigend Trilogy.
Thanks for that explanation! I think I would need a lot more background in order to approach this book. I know it's a worthwhile read, even though unfortunately I did not find it accessible. Thanks for the recommendations. If I come across those other books, I might give them a try if I'm feeling brave.
I would also recommend Robert J Swayer. I find his writings a bit more digestible and he does take the time to explain the science. Check out the WWW: series. Neal Stephenson is also a cyberpunk novelist that writes in a more reader friendly way. (Snow Crash)
It sounds like I have to break into the genre gradually. I live in Israel and don't have access to a wide selection of English books, but I will definitely take your recommendations under advisement and will be on the lookout for those titles. Thanks!
Sorry but anyone who had to look up cyberpunk isn't a nerd. A nerd would know what that was even in 1990...
Michelle wrote: "Sorry but anyone who had to look up cyberpunk isn't a nerd. A nerd would know what that was even in 1990..."I disagree. They probably wouldn't get to keep their geek cred, but I think they still qualify as a nerd.
So, via the logic of your review, Finnegan's wake is also a terrible novel?
Um. I didn't read Finnegan's Wake. I didn't say this was a terrible novel. So I don't really get your comment.
One more comment, Khaya:You have actually done a service to potential readers (and avoiders). By citing that dense little piece of prose, you have offered the uninitiated a useful glimpse of Gibson.
(though, I'd say you trolled around a bit to find a passage tough-to-penetrate)
Gibson wrote for sci-fi fans. As one who read lot of SF as a teen and pre-teen I found it fairly simple to make the necessary inferences much later in my 30's.
I see, too, that some commenters found "Clockwork" to be difficult - as did I at age 13-14. But, my "ear" acclimated and the latter half went smoothly.
Well, Jim, I actually did not troll around for that passage -- I was being truthful when I stated that I opened the book to that page randomly. In fact, I found all of what I read in the book similarly impenetrable and felt that that passage I flipped to and quoted was representative, not unusually obscure. I agree that I wasn't the audience for this book. Although I sometimes find it rewarding to leave my reading comfort zone, this wasn't one of those times. But you never know unless you try. I found "Clockwork" a lot easier to get into than this book.
Cowboy: A frontier worker admired for his skill. In this case, completing difficult missions using the internet through a direct brain connection.simstim: A recording played through a direct brain connection. Non-interactive and thus no source of achievements to brag about. It also reminds ascetic cowboys that they have real life flesh, which is uncool in a world of cybernetic improvements and limitless intellect.
Thanks. That does make the passage clearer. I would never have figured that out from context though. If I need a glossary while I'm reading then it's not a book for me.
Page 5 and 6 of the Penguin paperback explain the future cowboy and how Case was awesome online but fell into the prison of his own flesh."Simulated stimulation" and "electrodes" mean exactly the same as they do now.
Cees wrote: ""Simulated stimulation" and "electrodes" mean exactly the same as they do now."But neither of those appears in the paragraph Khaya quoted. Deliberately different (and confusingly ambiguous) shortenings do. I realize that many people love this book. But trying to convince someone who doesn't that the language isn't complex or confusing is probably a waste of time.
(Your review implies that you like this book because it's better than Stephenson. To which I say: low bar.)
Thanks, Rivka. I know this book worked for a lot of people, but it didn't work for me. I don't remember the explanation on pages 5-6, if I even had the Penguin edition -- I read the book ages ago. It's tricky to write a novel in obscure slang (and it was obscure to me, even if it wasn't to others). In A Clockwork Orange I was able to get past it and enjoy the book. In Neuromancer I wasn't. If the problem is me rather than the book, I can accept that. But since I'm the one writing the review, the review is going to reflect my honest reaction.
Feeling the need to relate to a character to appreciate a book is the pinnacle of human narcissism in the arts. That attitude will only hold you back.
Wow. If it's narcissistic to want to relate to a book character, what word would you use to describe someone who posts a critical and personally attacking comment on the review of someone they've never met? And thanks for your concern, but I actually don't feel held back in the least.
A very entertaining review.
Have you read A Clockwork Orange? I didn't get very far into it because I could not understand it, and I didn't really want to make the effort to try, but inventing one's own slang and writing a good portion of one's book in it was, I think, from that moment on considered to be cool and intelligent. I imagine A Clockwork Orange pulls it off much better, and I couldn't even manage that.