Neuromancer (William Gibson)

24 February 1999


Average Rating:

Phil Rodger (29 April 2003 15:35)

Overcomplicated and tough to follow, this book may have invented the cyberpunk genre but it's still pants!

Fraser Graham (13 March 2003 23:58)

It was better than you think it was! It was his first book and so his style is a little (a lot?) rough around the edges. It wasn't nearly as cliched when it was written as it might seem now. Still his other books are better.

I liked it, but I'm not going to waste precious time arguing for it, it's not worth that much effort!

Baz McAlister (6 March 2003 22:52)

Well, I didn't really like this much. The characterisation was my biggest problem with it - there wasn't any. But I guess it's a cliche full of cliched protagonists because it was there first and has been much imitated (and also lovingly near-parodied by Neal Stephenson).

Graham MacDonald (5 March 2003 18:47)

Obviously at the time it came out this was a revolutionary piece. The grandaddy of cyberpunk. The book suffers, however, from horrendous characterisation and a totally mundane plot which would merrit any other book one star. I'll give it two though for the sake of it's importance in spawning a genre that I really enjoy.

Would have worked much better as a technical paper. For a decent book in the same style see Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.