William Gibson, greatest of the sci fi writers?

[Connavar]

Specific ideas and such don't have much to do with Gibson's writing. The thing is, he's not just a SF writer. He's a really find creator of contemporary literature. There is little point in comparing him to Dick. He's an wonderful stylist--he's about using language. He's also a social prophet at the personal, not technologica level.

I never understood the term "cyberpunk" being applied to him. What the hell is punk about this stuff?

Who is social prophet ? Gibson ?


I havent read his famous book yet but reading the synopsis it sounds like typical Cyberpunk. There is nothing punkish about the subgenre its just the name for the genre. The Virtual reality thing is something that is expected to find in cyberpunk books.


K.Reihl compared him to Dick cause Dick books had many cyberpunk elements. Any SF writer who write cyberpunk like stories with social themes is likely to be compared to Dick who was famous for social themed dystopians with cyberpunk elements. Ever heard of Blade Runner ?

 

[ap0ckalypse]

I wouldn't necessarily call him THE best, that's an honor I reserve for Gene Wolfe.

But he's a damn good writer. Nueromancer was visionary, and it's only fitting that - with Pattern Recognition - Gibson should be the one to tell us "...we're almost there." I also thought Cayce was one of the most interesting protagonists we've had in a while.

I haven't read Spook Country yet, but I will very, very soon.

 

[Urien]

I loved Neuromancer. It broke new ground for me and opened me up to the possibilities of small scale science. In that, it was visionary. Human development has gone in the refinement and creation of the small over the last forty or so years. It seems a long time since we have made a significant macro innovation; by that I mean flight, power, space travel.

 

[gil]

The basis for my enthusiasm for Gibson is hard for me to pin down. It's a combination of interesting language and excellent ideas. He is very astute in predicting trends, though he confessed that he completely missed the mobile phone revolution, and Neuromancer is without cellphones!

I agree that there is a certain amount of wheelspin when you are getting into his books, particularly the novels. Reading Burning Chrome - the short stories - is a good way of getting into Gibson mode. In their day, Dick and Delaney were considered difficult.

 

[lin robinson]

Dick didn't write "Bladerunner", actually. And he is nothing like "cyberpunk" or "punk" or any such. And nowhere NEAR similar to Gibson. Which you might find out if you actually read some of his books.

I realize this is an SF board, but there are other ways of looking at Gibson which transcend the genre. As I say, he's a really great writer.

 

[Connavar]

Dick didn't write "Bladerunner", actually. And he is nothing like "cyberpunk" or "punk" or any such. And nowhere NEAR similar to Gibson. Which you might find out if you actually read some of his books.

I realize this is an SF board, but there are other ways of looking at Gibson which transcend the genre. As I say, he's a really great writer.

You havent read much PKD if you think that.

Many of his books have cyberpunk elements that is the norm now and that you can see in many cyberpunk books. Alot of people claim he is one of the forfathers of the subgenre.

Just cause the subgenre didnt exist when he wrote most of his work doesnt mean he wasnt cyberpunk like. He just didnt focus only on those elements.


I havent read him yet so i dont know if he is similar to PKD. I doubt that anyway since PKD is so different than most SF writers.

I havent read him yet and was wondering what you thought of Spook Country ? Is a spy story as it sounds ? Not action spy but John Le Carre type spy.

Also have you read Johnny Mnemonic story? Is it good ? I liked the movie and would like to read the story.

 

[lin robinson]

You havent read much PKD if you think that.

I read all of them. Most as soon as they were published.

There is very little similarity between Dick and Gibson. If there is a label that encompasses them both, far out.

Gibson is head and shoulders a better writer, so far as actual writing goes. I'm a fan of both, but they aren't similar. It's like comparing a Jeep with a Ferrari.

 

[Connavar]

I read all of them. Most as soon as they were published.

There is very little similarity between Dick and Gibson. If there is a label that encompasses them both, far out.

Gibson is head and shoulders a better writer, so far as actual writing goes. I'm a fan of both, but they aren't similar. It's like comparing a Jeep with a Ferrari.

I dont really care if you think Gibson is better writer i was just saying its very clear PKD had cyberpunk elements in his books. Cyberpunk isnt only about virtual reality or internet like things....


How about the books i asked about ? How about helping out someone who havent read him yet ? So i can see if he is to my taste.

 

[lin robinson]

Well, I don't hear you explaining what it is. My point was not "better writer", it was that it's hard to imagine a category or style that encompassed two such radically different writers.

All Gibson's books are great. If I were you I'd start with Neuromancer trilogy.

 

[Connavar]

I could try Neuromancer anytime i wanted it since everyone recommends it first of his books .

I was thinking about trying Spook Country cause of type of story it is. I feel for a spy like story than a book like Neuromancer right now. Thats why i asked what you thought about Spook Country.

 

[Bikewer]

I'm a big fan of Gibson as well, and I recently read Spook Country. Highly recommended. This is the second of his present-time stories, and better than Pattern Recognition, to my mind.
PR took plot elements from some of his own stories, at least IMO.

This one was quite good; you think you know what's going on, then it turns out to be something quite different.

Hehe- I'm currently out of new books, so I'm re-reading All Tomorrow's Parties for about the 4th time....

 

[D_Davis]

My last read through of Neuromancer was frustrating to the point that I couldn't even finish it. What was once fascinating, in the early 1990s when I was in high school, playing Shadowrun every weekend, I found to be barely more than techno-babble and jargon, with nary a hint of humanity or characterization.

I am not a huge fan of "cyber-punk" for these reasons, although I do still dabble.

I still think the best example of the genre is Bester's The Stars My Destination. By not relying on near-future tech, and by focusing on Gully Foyle, one of the most fully fleshed-out and three-dimensional characters in the realms of science fiction, Bester's book remains timeless, while Gibson's book feels more like an interesting experiment locked in a time capsule. It is so of its time that I just can't find any relevance in it any more.

Bester's book is also punk-effing-rock. I mean, this thing just blazes along with anger, tearing a path of destruction with each and every page. If you could somehow capture the pure essence of punk rock and turn it into a sci-fi novel, Bester's book would be it.

Like Bester, Dick also dabbled in the genesis of the cyber-punk sub-genre, and also like Bester, he was more concerned with the characters, their pathos, and their humanity, rather than jargon and tech. There are definitely traces of CP to be found in Dick's writing, but he was definitely not a writer of CP. I think he just helped to spread the spore of ideas into the zeitgeist.

And I thoroughly disagree that Gibson is a better writer than Dick. I might concede that he is more consistent, Dick's prose was wildly unpredictable and ran the gamut from poor to astounding, but, IMO, his best work is nigh untouchable.

I haven't read any of Gibson's later stuff, and I need to, because I know he has shirked many (most? all?) of the shackles often associated with the cyber-punk sub-genre. I would love to read something by him as good as The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, or The Transmigration of Timothy Archer, or UBIK, and perhaps someday I will.

Personally, when it comes to cyber-punk, I've always admired Rudy Rucker the most, even though a lot of his stuff is more math-punk. But his Real/Hard/Wet/Software books are pretty incredible. What I like most about Rucker is his incredible sense of humor, and his totally gonzo, balls-out style. I also really like Bruce Bethke's Headcrash. It's so typical of the genre, but it reads really well, and is endlessly entertaining. I recently picked up Shirley's City Come A-Walkin', and I am really looking forward to reading it - I have never read Shirley.

I will probably get to Gibson's Pattern Recognition in the near future. I am greatly anticipating this book, and I will be sure to post my thoughts on it here.

 

[lin robinson]

It's a great book, with some totally peculiar environments.

In a way it echoes a theme found in his earlier books: the artist or investigator drawn to solve a massive puzzle which in the end resolves to something totally idiosyncratic.

I read an interview with Gibson before I read any of his books. One thing that stuck in my mind was his comment, "It's like the ozone layer thing. Turns out it's because of the little foam cups from McDonalds."

This comparison between Gibson and Dick is an odd one. But as a fan of both, I'd say that Dick shines through concepts, but is by no means a powerful or skilled prose stylist. His voice is functional, like a waiting room. Gibson is a wonderful user of words and evoker of complex emotions.

This is why I drew the distinction between SF writer and literatist. His work has a human appeal and literate quality that reward the reader after the whizz-bang of gimmicks and attitude have worn off.

 

[D_Davis]

I'd say that Dick shines through concepts, but is by no means a powerful or skilled prose stylist.

I cannot disagree with this. Even as my favorite author, Dick's prose is shaky, and his style is blue collar, although still unique; it's phildickian. Gibson is a stylist, for sure, I just don't often dig his style. I think this can be a problem with stylists - more often than not, I just want a well told story that touches upon humanity. Dick's grasp of character, and what makes his characters tick, was extraordinary. And his ideas! His absurd ideas! The way he mashes them altogether to create a unique environment is incredible.

I wouldn't compare Dick and Gibson, they are different writers with different egendas. However, I will say that Dick's work did help to lay the foundation of Gibson's and of other cyber-punk authors. There is just no denying it. I mean, when you go back and read Do Androids..., or UBIK, or Bester's The Stars My Destination, the genesis of the cyber-punk movement is abundantly clear. There is definitely a connection between the two authors, people have been making it since the mid '80s. I am sure Gibson got tired of it, because he really is his own author. He is not a Dick jr. like some people think. But I don't think this connection would have ever been made had it not been readily apparent.

I will definitely read Pattern Recognition soon - it sounds fascinating.

 

[lin robinson]

I have a REALLY hard time thinking of Dick as "cyberpunk". For one thing there is very little "cyber" about his work. He pretty much located himself in the central perception systems. I think of UBIX as his really definitive book: the surrealism of paranoia/perception that Dali would have loved.

My guess is that once the cyberpunk tag was applied--and I think it might have been Gibson who coined the term, (perhaps Sterling?) people rushed to find antecidents and prototypes. As critics always do. And those relationship might or might not be actual influences--much less causes--rather than just hindsight. (Were beatniks really proto-hippies? Does existentialism, once named, really go back to Jaspers or Kant or whoever? Etc.)

By the way, I think you will find that Pattern Recognition also moves the focus from the cyber world into the human head...in a nicely different way.

 

[brsrkrkomdy]

Philip K. Dick didn't write the script for Blade Runner but he did write "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" which is the basis for the film. There are some "cyberpunk" sensibilities in his stories like "Second Variety" which also became a basis for another movie "Screamers".
William Gibson is light years apart from PKD. Writing style's different. There are some paranoia in his stories just like PKD's. However, they're not the same.
I think it's unfair to call it "Neuromancer trilogy". "Sprawl" series make a lot more sense to be called that. I don't think he writes sequels per se. Just tales that happened to be in the area called "Sprawl" where cowboys and joeboys and cybernetic mercs go hand in hand in that dump.
I personally don't find Gibson's writings hard to follow. No more than Ray Bradbury would be hard to follow. They aren't.

 

[lin robinson]

He didn't write anything called "Bladerunner", which is what I said.

UNFAIR???? That's what most people call it. It's what people tend to call any series that folows an impactive book. Gorky Park Trilogy, "The Increasingly Misnamed Hitchiker's Guide Trilogy" etc. What does fair have to do with this?

By the way, those "Sprawl" books aren't just independent books set in the same construct. They have common characters, and story arcs that follow from one to the other. As many Trilogies do. Then again, some trilogies and quartets and such don't.

I find the mention of Bradbury much more sensible than evoking Dick. One thing in common: they transcended SF to become free-standing mainstream literature.

 

[brsrkrkomdy]

Actually, William Burroughs did invent the term, "Bladerunner". And he wrote a short book with that title. I know 'cuz I have that book and read it.

In terms of prose, sure Bradbury did influence that of Gibson. Also, you have to remember that PKD did create worlds that are decayed, ramshackle, and ghettoized. That's very prominant in cyberpunk stories. However, besides PKD, Roger Zelazny wrote "Damnation Alley" which could very well be "pre-cyberpunk" so to speak. Same with "Deathworld" novels by Harry Harrison. Even Harlan Ellison's no exception with some of his stories.

Whether it's "Neuromancer" trilogy or not. I'd called them "Sprawl" series. Every story or novel of that place stands on their own. So I wouldn't call them "sequels" per se.

 

[lin robinson]

Yeah, I read the Bladerunner book, as well. And that is definitely where the title of the movie was obtained. I never thought it was a good idea...but you can understand them not wanting to put the original title on the marquee.

I saw a Bladerunner novel once. Take as short, make it into a movie, then write a novel based on the movie. Interesting evolution.

Your last lines are interesting. I once put a friend on to Gibson and told him it did make any difference which order he read those three books in. (At that point they were the only three Gibson novels) He got back to me pissed off because he felt he's really lost a lot by not reading Neuromancer first. So go figure.

 

[ap0ckalypse]

Yeah, but saying PKD didn't write Blade Runner is semantics - whether or not it was called "Blade Runner" is irrelevant. The film Blade Runner is an adaptation of PKD's novel.