Skip to content
Advertisements

Book #22: Neuromancer

The creepy cover returns.

I really wanted to like this book.

That’s probably a bad way to start a review, right? I mean, it probably communicates, right away, that Neuromancer didn’t meet my expectations. I’m saying right away that that something about the novel excited me but, for some reason, Neuromancer fell short.

Is that what I’m saying?

Yep. That’s exactly what I’m saying.

If you’ve been following this blog, you know it takes a lot for me to negatively review a book. All the books on the Time list are excellent, well-reviewed novels, and I try to keep that in mind as I read each one. So that makes it difficult for me and, sometimes, unsettling to go against the flow, as I also did with Mrs. Dalloway.

But I’ll start with the positive aspects of Neuromancer.

I’ve mentioned in earlier posts that the book is groundbreaking. To think that William Gibson was writing about “cyberspace,” “computer viruses,” and “artificial intelligence” in 1984 is mind-boggling.

I don’t think my first dip into the science fiction world could’ve been with a more revolutionary novel. The accuracy of Gibson’s vision for the future is frightening in many ways. Whether or not you like the book, you really have to appreciate that.

Now, what about the negative?

First, I found Gibson’s writing style to be dry and mechanical. Sure, that’s an issue of personal taste, but it’s an issue I couldn’t overlook. The style matched the tone of the novel well. But, for this reader, I simply couldn’t focus on the story because Gibson’s writing lulled me to sleep–literally on a couple of occasions.

Also, the dialogue in Neuromancer annoyed me. The dialogue, at times, had the feel of a 1980s cheesy buddy cop movie. Here’s an example:

“Hey, Case,” she said, barely voicing the words, “you listening? Tell you a story….Had me this boy once. You kinda remind me…” She turned and surveyed the corridor. “Johnny, his name was. … My Johnny, see, he was smart, real flash boy. Started out as a stash on Memory Lane, chips in his head and people paid to hide data there.”

And on and on.

Meh. The dialogue in Neuromancer reminds me of my favorite line in Infinite Jest when Hal Incandenza says, “I do things like get in a taxi and say, ‘The library, and step on it.’” I love that line because of its irony–no one talks that way, cheesy, forced, something out of a movie.

The difference is that David Foster Wallace wrote with irony. Gibson doesn’t–unless I’m totally missing something here. I couldn’t get over the fact that I felt like I was reading a movie script.

Another reason this novel was so difficult for me: the imagery. Or lack of it. Don’t misunderstand: Gibson is a visual writer. He focuses a lot on imagery and environment, almost to his detriment.

But when you’re being dropped into the middle of an unknown world, you need something you can relate to, something you can visualize. If I’ve never heard of lions and tigers, then the author of a book about a safari better be good at describing and casting a vision of the African plains and the animals that inhabit them.

With Neuromancer, the reader is thrown into some foreign, sterile, computer-enhanced world, and Gibson’s descriptors do little in the way of providing some type of context, at least for the casual reader who isn’t down with technical jargon and science fiction lingo.

Punching his way into the sphere, chill blue neon vault above him starless and smooth as frosted glass, he triggered a subprogram that effected certain alterations in the core custodial commands.

Or this one:

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 the 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.

William Gibson. (Source: Gonzo Bonzo/Wikimedia Commons)

That’s the third or fourth time I’ve read those quotes, and I still can’t get a visual grasp of what’s going on. Maybe I’m just stupid.

One last thing. I didn’t care about these characters. Had they all died in a cyberspace virus attack, I wouldn’t have cared. Had they all been relocated to The Death Star and forced to serve as Darth Vader’s slaves, I wouldn’t have cared.

Gibson didn’t really make me care about Case, Molly, and the rest of the cast of characters. I honestly can hardly remember their names.

I’m sure that readers more inclined toward science fiction would appreciate this novel much more than I did. Or maybe readers with a better sense of technical, computer verbiage. Or maybe Bono.

But Neuromancer lost me. I tried and tried. I focused, concentrated, re-read chapters, and I could never get into this book or care about its characters.

Science Fiction: 1. Robert: 0.

Other Stuff

The Opening Line: “The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel.”

The Meaning: “Neuromancer” is a blend of words. Gibson describes it as, “Neuro from the nerves, the silver paths. Romancer. Necromancer. I call up the dead.”

Highlights: Described above. I was blown away by Gibson’s vision for the future, his foresight. Kinda scary how accurate it was.

Lowlights: Out of the several things I mentioned as negatives in the review, I’ve got to say the dialogue was the low point for me. Cheesy. Over-the-top. Kept picturing Bruce Willis in Die Hard. The dialogue didn’t fit Gibson’s writing style.

Memorable Line: Gibson’s version of cyberspace: “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.”

Final Thoughts: I’m not a fan of Neuromancer. I can appreciate Gibson’s vision and execution of this story, but he just lulled me to sleep with this one. The cheesy dialogue. The dry writing style. The flat characters. The bland and vague visuals. If you’re into science fiction, maybe you’ll have a different experience. But I’ll leave this one on the shelf.

Advertisements
72 Comments Post a comment
  1. In reading sci-fi (and stories in general, I guess), I’ve come to realize there are two different types of story: concept-driven and character-driven. I’ve never read Neuromancer, but from your description, it seems to be purely a concept-driven story. And the only reason the characters are there is, well, because someone needs to experience the concept–but you get the impression the author would do away with the characters if he could.

    “The Light of Other Days” by Clarke and Baxter (two big names in sci-fi) was the same way. I barely finished that book, and that was only because I found the concept interesting–the characters, though, were all horrible stereotypes who felt like they were reading from bad scripts.

    I doubt he’s on your list, but Orson Scott Card is a sci-fi writer who writes some great character-driven stories–esp. Ender’s Game

    Incidentally, this is why I think LOST was such a hit. The writers of that show made it about characters first, and concept second.

    Like

    July 27, 2011
    • Great thoughts, Ben. I totally agree. It was definitely concept-driven, which resulted in the characters coming across flat and uninteresting.

      Ender’s Game is not on the list, but I have heard good things about it. And I loved LOST, and I wish I would’ve thought about it more as sci-fi while reading this book. Some good posts in there. Maybe next time.

      Like

      July 27, 2011
      • I haven’t read Neuromancer yet, but I just recently finished Children of the Mind, which is the fourth book of the Ender’s Game series. Ender’s Game is an amazing book, Speaker for the Dead (2nd is the series) is brilliant on multiple levels, Xenocide and Children of the Mind (books 3 & 4) were originally meant to be one book and should be read that way, and they were wonderful as well. I know you have 70 some books left, but Ender’s Game would be an excellent series to read after you finish your current list.

        Like

        July 27, 2011
      • I think then you might not enjoy the Robot / Foundation series as well. Have you read these series? I found them interesting but in a very detached way. Probably, that was a style of writing science fiction…

        i recently finished reading Brave New World and while it was amazing concept wise, I have to admit I didn’t care too much about either the characters or the story. Still worth reading, and I got a lot out of it.

        Like

        August 3, 2011
      • Patti #

        I agree totally with Ben – science fiction is at its best when it serves as a surprising and unusual background that highlights human emotions and struggles and triumphs – love, hate, loyalty, ambition.

        Like

        August 9, 2011
  2. I had been planning on reading Neuromancer, but made the mistake of reading one of Gibson’s short stories first. Gibson thrusts you into a highly technical world without really explaining anything. While the world is well-build, he doesn’t give readers enough of a way to contextualize that world, leaving us feeling alienated and lost.

    Like

    July 27, 2011
    • Exactly. I felt like I needed more background, more explanation–like I mention above….the reader doesn’t know what lions and tigers are and the author is writing about a safari.

      Like

      July 27, 2011
  3. *well-built

    Like

    July 27, 2011
  4. Pamela Scott #

    This doesn’t sound like my cup of tea. I’m very iffy about sci-fi. I have a feeling many sci-fi writers fall into the trap Gibson appears to have – using technobable to make it the book sound better than it actually is. Concept driven novels are awful. The only sci-fi books I can stand are by John Wyndham – his books are set in an ordinary world touched by events from other worlds such as alien invasion. My fav is ‘Day of the Triffids’. I really can’t stomach sci-fi novels set on other dimensions or worlds because the writers don’t often give the reader enough to get a full picture.

    Like

    July 27, 2011
  5. Teresa #

    I relate to your comment about not caring if the characters had been relocated to the Death Star. In fact, I thought they might have earned it.

    Like

    July 27, 2011
    • I think Case should be cleaning toilets on the Death Star.

      Like

      July 27, 2011
  6. You’ve run into one of the challenges/problems for people who don’t read SF coming into an SF story. Many times the author doesn’t explain terms, concepts, devices, images, etc., right away. Sometimes they get around to it eventually. Sometimes you have to get the meaning from context. Sometimes even that doesn’t help. Those of us who read and write SF are comfortable with that; it can even be part of the pleasure of the reading. But if you’ve never experienced that before, or you’re not comfortable with it, it’s a problem. And if you end up being turned off to the whole genre because of that, that’s too bad.

    Flat characters, now, that’s a real problem, no matter where they show up.

    In my more cynical moments, I think literary critics are too easily influenced by certain things, and technobabble buzzwords that sound way-cool can go on that list. Add, too, things they don’t understand. Combine the two and the author must be a genius. (In a different genre, see T.S. Eliot.)

    Like

    July 27, 2011
    • As a sci-fi reader, what did you think of this book? I’m just trying to gauge whether it was my “newbiness” that caused me to dislike it? The points you make are good. I did feel like I was dropped into some type of club with a bunch of lingo and inside jokes I knew nothing about.

      Like

      July 28, 2011
      • Alas, I haven’t read Neuromancer. Heard a lot about it and Gibson’s other work but none of his books have ever found their way into my hands. Maybe I should pick up a copy and give it a look (along with the milion-and-one other things I’m doing! Oy!).

        Like

        July 28, 2011
  7. This is one of my favorite of your book reviews. And yeah, the science fiction lingo in those quotes do nothing for me either.

    Like

    July 28, 2011
  8. I’ve read most of William Gibson’s work. My understanding is that one writer who greatly influenced him was William Burroughs, who worked in a gritty, film-noir sensibility that is meant to portray an underground social mentality. The characters in William Gibson’s books are often described as high-minded low life, smart with technology but driven by less than noble purposes. So I don’t think we are supposed to sympathize with them. They both embody and represent the world they live in, a dystopian, multinational corporate ruled world that is less than friendly, driven by hollow dreams and high technology. In that sense, the characters fulfill their role in showing us an extreme version of the multinational and criminal underworld as it was imagined and might exist in places most people don’t care to visit. And the imagery is pretty cool if one can imagine what people thought the cyber world ‘was going’ to look like, with images of worlds resembling fractal geometry that one can walk into and experience. maybe it’s the hardened nature of the language that turns people off sometimes, but once over that, I think “Neuromancer” is important literature, for even more than it’s conceptually advanced theme.

    Like

    July 28, 2011
    • I didn’t think I was supposed to necessarily sympathize with them. I just didn’t care either way. Didn’t like them. Didn’t hate them. Just indifferent.

      And I agree that it’s an important book. No argument there.

      Like

      July 29, 2011
  9. Well, he created a genre, and a literal cult following: this book is on the Temple of Set’s suggested reading list, and embraced by many Chaos magicians. Cyber-pulp – he hooks onto the techno-tribe stuff that had been promoted through industrial music for sometime (actually read a reference to this novel in someone’s thesis about same), and now evidences itself as a fad w/body piercing and so on. Sounds a bit like William Burroughs , Nova Police film technique etc. made palatable (no not a reference to “Naked Lunch” )

    Like

    August 2, 2011
  10. Neuromancer is the only book I’ve given up on so far. I started it almost two years ago, made it about 20 pages and quit. So I totally understand where you’re coming from! I will read it of course, but I’m going to leave it for some time in the 80’s I think…

    Like

    August 15, 2011
    • It’s rough. Really rough. I can’t remember if you’ve read Snow Crash? Someone told me I would like it much better.

      Like

      August 15, 2011
      • DigitalRain #

        I’m in the process of reading Neuromancer now. It drove me crazy at first, but I’m 50 pages in and starting to get pretty into it. I think I’m going to put in on hiatus to read some of his short stories that take place in the Sprawl before Neuromancer was written. The prose is definitely denser than Snow Crash, and it’s far less accessible, in large part because of the criticisms outlined in the review above. I tried reading Neuromancer when I was 10 (because I liked the game on my Commdore 64), a monumental task for a boy untouched even by YA novels whose most challenging read up to the point had probably been L Frank Baum. Naturally, I gave up after 5 pages or so.

        Prior to my starting Neuromancer this weekend, I reade Margart Atwood’s Oryx and the Crake followed by its companion/sequel Year of the Flood, which I recommend as must reads for fans of dystopian literature, cyberpunk, or biopunk, as well as to anybody to the left of (p)Rick Santorum who likes a good read (social reactionary nimrods are better off just slitting their wrists). I’m finding Neuromancer a much more challenging read than either of those books, which is odd because Atwood is generally considered to be a more literary author than Gibson. To be fair, the aforementioned Atwood works are quite thematically complex, more so than the far denser Handmaid’s Tale, in my opinion. They’re just stylistically far less dense than Neuromancer, which makes them easier to read during downtime at work.

        Speaking of Atwood, why the fuck is Gibson not treated as part of Canada’s literary tradition? He’s a very accomplished writer, both critically and commercially, and he does have Canadian citizenship.

        Like

        February 17, 2013
  11. So I started with your review of The Sound and the Fury and then, because I’m something of a sci-fi fan, moved here. Neither of these reviews provide any sensibility or insight that I would consider original in the least. Admittedly, I’m not a literary critic, but it’s patently clear that neither are you. I sometimes wonder why people bother with certain things…Your marathon metaphor seems apt. Exhausting, damaging to one’s health, and often fairly pointless except as a conversation starter. This whole project seems an attempt to do something because you should, a reflection of our whole efficiency-oriented list-checking society. There’s no passion and limited insight in what you say about these books. You essentially reflect most of the received wisdoms, at least as far I can see. I admittedly haven’t read all your reviews, and I don’t think I will…

    Why bother? Because someone told you this was an important list? Why share? Because you think it’s some sort of badge of honor? You’re like all those people who go to the Louvre, rushing past many perfectly beautiful works, in order to get over and see the Mona Lisa.

    I’ll say this — your blog is a lovely testament…To the death of art and taste and meaning.

    You should stick to running…

    Like

    October 8, 2011
    • Thanks for the incredible insight, Number Six!

      I hate that you won’t read all my reviews. It makes me SO sad.

      Best wishes!

      Like

      October 9, 2011
      • Perfect. As if to prove my point. “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.” I think that’s a quote from one of the 101 books you haven’t read yet…

        Like

        October 9, 2011
      • Which episode of Sesame Street did you sponsor, Number Six? Can’t remember.

        You’re actually great at writing hate mail. It’s the best I’ve read yet. The bitterness really oozes through your writing. Keep it coming, Number Six. It’s fun to read.

        Like

        October 9, 2011
    • Number One #

      So’s your face

      Like

      October 10, 2011
  12. “Which episode of Sesame Street did you sponsor, Number Six?”

    See, now that’s funny!

    I’m not bitter, I’m elitist. I think your blog is a perfect example of how the internet is killing culture. Have you ever read (or know of) Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture? He’s a culture maven too, and not a “professional”, but I take his point. What expertise do you have to be writing reviews of these books, and why should we care about your banal opinions? Every book on your list has been written about ad infinitum; there are whole libraries devoted to discussing and analyzing these great works. Why do you think you have something to add to that? And why should we care? Why do people think that just because they can bash a few words out on a keyboard that entitles them to be arbiters of taste or critics? What the f$%k do most people know about anything, really? We’ve got all this access to information giving us this illusory sense that this has also democratized knowledge. But, sadly, it really hasn’t…

    If I’m bitter about anything it’s that the toneless technocrats at WordPress have decided to actually promote your blog, as if it’s some insightful contribution to knowledge. Ridiculous.

    OK, going back into my garbage can now…

    Like

    October 10, 2011
    • They’ve actually promoted it three times since February. Can you believe it? What are those toneless technocrats thinking? Oh, I forgot, they’re toneless.

      I tell you what, Number Six. I’ll stop contributing to the death of art, taste, and meaning itself (I mean, dude, I never meant to kill the existence of meaning with a simple book blog) if you do one thing for me: Go outside. Take a breath. Watch a bird fly. Make strawberry smoothies with a lady friend. Just quit taking yourself so seriously.

      Granted, you’ve admitted to being an elitist. And, it’s shocking to me that you’ve labeled yourself as such because elitists are always so much fun to be around–the life of the party, if you will. Who doesn’t love an elitist? Maybe you’re just the grumpy kind. Anyway, you’re always welcome here at 101 Books, Number Six.

      I can’t promise you that I’ll stop killing art and taste. But I’ll do my best to go easy on meaning. Deal?

      Like

      October 10, 2011
    • Cameron L. #

      Number Six,

      I don’t understand why you had to come here and act like such a prig. Who made you the arbiter of art, taste, and meaning? What makes you so elite? Care to share your qualifications, or should we just go by your entirely unoriginal, vacuous blog? (FYI, some friends and I recently shared a pack of beer with six word stories on the label of each bottle–not exactly a “fresh” concept, if you ask me.)

      As for this site, it seems you’re the only person that’s missing the point: this isn’t meant to be a space for artful literary criticism, but the journal of one guy’s experiences of 101 highly regarded books. That’s it. You might have noticed, had you been able to look past yourself for a moment.

      You accuse Robert’s sense of obligation to societal values as the impetus for this project. But, honestly, it seems you’re the one who’s enslaved to the ideas of other men. Do ever actually enjoy something, or are you so hung up on the preferences you’ve received from others that criticism is the only response you’re capable of?

      Like

      October 10, 2011
    • DigitalRain #

      Fuck you. Aristotle said thousands of years ago that the bazaar is as equipped to critique works of art as the cathedral. So long as their tastes are not being manipulated by marketers and spin doctors, I consider his argument to retain considerable truth to this day. I’m sure the printing press also killed culture when it made the Bible and other works of literature available to people other than arrogant princes and self-absorbed, overly-contemplative monks and clerics.

      Like

      February 17, 2013
  13. Robert & Cameron: I take both your points. Robert’s particularly. Perhaps this is just a reflection on the state of things (and my state of mind) that has no place here. This just became a focal point for my ire. Arguably a totally inappropriate one.

    Sad you find my blog vacuous and unoriginal Cameron…It’s not the concept, it’s how you execute it. Despite your opinion, I plan to continue (as I’m sure Robert does in spite of my spite…). I’ve been blogging for half a decade, under another alias (cf. “The Necromancer”), but decided to try my hand at expression in a tighter format. I have a PhD (I’m a historian and philosopher of medicine and science) and have been reading and writing all my life, but the qualifications are really irrelevant. Like you say, it’s a matter of personal reflection. I guess we all feel entitled to express ourselves these days, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    But as a result, it definitely means that art is, well, pretty dead. And that’s sad…

    Like

    October 10, 2011
    • Absolutely nothing wrong with expressing yourself. And, as I said, you’re always welcome at the blog–and I’m not being sarcastic about that! I love a little back and forth.

      Good luck with your new blog format.

      Like

      October 11, 2011
  14. Cameron L. #

    Number Six,

    I admit I was feeling a bit incredulous at your previous posts, and my own response was more heated than it needed to be. I also didn’t need to say your blog is vacuous, even if I don’t find your experiment there particularly meaningful myself. I apologize.

    I wonder: Why do you think art is so definitively dead? Isn’t it rather the case that there has always been folk art and high art? The fact that folk art–and we might put certain blogs under that banner– is much more accessible and, thanks to the Internet, no longer confined to the communities from which it springs, to me, doesn’t signal the end of the higher form.

    There are probably just as many artists of all kinds working today on the highest level as there has always been. The difference is not that great works are no longer shining beacons, but that there’s a lot more obstruction to their radiance. What’s challenging is to realize that perhaps the greater public has never cared quite so much about fine art as the educated elite and the form’s practitioners wished they would.

    Perhaps today’s technology simply gives voice to a reality that always was, even if history books and criticism don’t acknowledge it. Mediocrity has always been there; now it simply has a broader platform. I understand the frustration that brings, as it makes discovering those beacons more difficult. But does it make art dead? I don’t think so.

    Like

    October 11, 2011
    • “Mediocrity has always been there; now it simply has a broader platform”. This is the essence of it, I think. Nicely expressed. There may be elements of “folk art” that have found expression in this new medium, but I wonder. It’s a numbers thing. Does the sheer vastness of material and information overwhelm the capacity to find quality and define taste? There is a parallel here with other realms — the information produced in science currently transcends anybody’s capacity to actually use it. In both cases, we have reached a point where there is more desire to express (whether for vanity or social advancement) ideas than to appreciate them. Everybody is clamoring to be heard and nobody listens. This becomes the challenge for science and culture (i.e. “art”). Call it the “death of the audience”…

      Like

      October 11, 2011
  15. It doesn’t seem like you guys are discussing this book any more but I’m going to post my comments anyway 🙂 I didn’t like this book. I’m not a big fan of science fiction…that is probably why. I think out of the 13 books I’ve read from the list, this one was my least favorite.

    Like

    October 19, 2011
  16. Aw, it is a shame you didn’t enjoy this book, it is one of my all time favourites! I particularly enjoy that Gibson thrusts you into the world with nothing to stand on, finding my way around was my fave part. I chalk the dialogue up to noir-ish fun. On the other hand, you may find you like his more recent work, it is a bit easier to stand on. (Pattern Recognition, for example).

    Otherwise, Snow Crash is a lot if fun, if kinda verbose and endless, but really enjoyable as well. I really liked it. I read them back to back some years ago.

    Like

    November 12, 2011
  17. I haven’t read Neuromancer yet, but I do have a copy of it sitting in my bookshelf waiting to be read as the book was the inspiration for The Matrix and I figured I would give it a go. I also agree with other suggestions to read Ender’s Game, as it is a very character driven science fiction, but seeing as it is not on your list it might take a while for you to pick up!

    Like

    January 22, 2012
  18. Oh also forgot to mention two more things:
    1 – the book cover image is covering a bit of your review.
    2 – your review was very well written and I really liked your adding a memorable quote and the first line from the book at the end of your review, I write book reviews on my blog as well and might do something similar for mine!

    Like

    January 22, 2012
  19. Loved your review.

    I am not a fan of the sci-fi genre, as such, I was ambivalent about the book when I read it. Decades on, I still have ‘steppin’ razor’ and Villa Straylight, and “leaning into a deck” stuck in my head for some reason. Its one of those books that unconsciously defines the way you think. I recently read Gibson’s nonfiction ‘Distrust That Particular Flavor’ and really came to enjoy his somewhat understated writing style.

    Like

    April 14, 2012
  20. Faiza Khimji #

    Wow I’m shocked that so few seemed to enjoy this novel. I loved it the first time I read it, and have been meaning to get back to it ever since. You described what I loved most: the astonishing foresight Gibson displays in terms of the overarching connectivity of cyberspace and how integral it is to our society. In fact, it seems to me that Gibson shaped our modern view of cyberspace: the Matrix certainly took a page, or twenty, out of this book. In terms of your objections to the humanity or the likeability of the characters, I would argue that that is the point. The characters have become mechanized, just like the world they inhabit. They almost aren’t even real, just like the the world they prefer to the actual world around them. The quote you included talks about a guy with flash drives embedded in his skull; in fact, many of the characters have mechanical devices added to their bodies, a literal manifestation of their mechanization. A point was made in a previous post that this isn’t a character-based story, and I would agree, but that doesn’t make it a story without a powerful message. We can lose our humanity (in our physical appearance as well as our outlook and behavior) when we absorb ourselves so fully into technology, particularly a technology that appears to increase our connectivity, but in fact undermines real human connections.

    Like

    October 24, 2012
    • DigitalRain #

      I started it this weekend and I’m quite enjoying it now at 29, but I didn’t enjoy this book at the age of 10. I lacked either the cultural literacy or the prose comprehension necessary to appreciate what Gibson had to offer. I had just so happened to putter around in some old videogame called Neuromancer that the Xers and Boomers all seem to laud, so I figured I’d take out the book from the library. I gave up after like 5 pages (my parents would be grateful) and probably decided to read The Hobbit or something.

      Like

      February 17, 2013
  21. I completely agree! I started to read this book for my degree and couldn’t get past the first chapter! I skipped the lecture and the seminar for good measure too 😉 I found it really flat and the scientific vocab baffling.

    Like

    March 8, 2013
  22. I’ve been telling myself I should read this, but I think I’ll leave it a little bit more to the end of my list.

    I know what you mean about going against the flow when you read a book and don’t like as much as everyone else… that’s how I feel about “On the road”…. I mean, I liked it, in the begining but by the end I was so tired of it, I just wanted to be done and not have to read it again.

    Like

    December 8, 2013
  23. Disappointing book, in my opinion. I like science fiction a lot, and I got bored reading Neuromancer.

    Like

    December 23, 2013

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Book #23: The French Lieutenant’s Woman | 101 Books
  2. A “Follow Friday” to Fellow Bloggers and Friends | 101 Books
  3. Q&A With Lev Grossman from Time: Part 1 | 101 Books
  4. Do You Know What Lurks In Your Spam Filter? | 101 Books
  5. The Art of Reading While Watching Football | 101 Books
  6. Ranking The First 25 Books | 101 Books
  7. Guest Post: Maybe Neuromancer Wasn’t So Bad After All? | 101 Books
  8. 101 Books FAQ | 101 Books
  9. Book #36: The Power And The Glory | 101 Books
  10. John Steinbeck’s 6 Writing Tips | 101 Books
  11. How Fictional Characters Might Actually Look | 101 Books
  12. The First 40: A Look Back | 101 Books
  13. Can Books and Video Games Coexist? | 101 Books
  14. 15 Rejected Marketing Blurbs From Famous Novels | 101 Books
  15. Book #45: The Bridge Of San Luis Rey | 101 Books
  16. John Steinbeck On Writing | 101 Books
  17. On Stir-Bugs, Skitters, and Truck Skinners | 101 Books
  18. Creepy Literary Dolls? No, Thank You. | 101 Books
  19. 101 Books At The Halfway Point | 101 Books
  20. Next Up: Snow Crash | 101 Books
  21. Snow Crash’s Influence On The Internet & Gaming | 101 Books
  22. Book #53: Snow Crash | 101 Books
  23. In Defense Of Science Fiction | 101 Books
  24. The Crying Of Lot 49 In Pop Culture | 101 Books
  25. The First 60: A Look Back | 101 Books
  26. Book #64: Ubik | 101 Books
  27. 101 Books Mailbag #1 | 101 Books
  28. What’s Your Favorite Sci-Fi Novel? | 101 Books

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: