Neuromancer - William Gibson --------------- 2 Stars

So, I realized that my dad recommended Arthur Clarke's Childhood's End to me almost seven years ago. Besides being an incredible book, it was one of only a few ever to receive 5 stars on this blog.  If you have not read, I would check out as soon as possible. As I was talking to him recently about how much I enjoyed, he said I had to check out Neuromancer, another class science fiction novel. Unfortunately, I didn't find nearly as much enjoyment with this suggestion.

So, this book is, like, for real, science fiction. I say that only as a descriptor to understand that, compared to Childhood's End (CE), this stuff is much more "out there."  I think I liked CE so much because it seemed in the realm of possibility. This book, not so much. It was written about 30 years ago and took a view of the future that is very different than we are currently experiencing. (Though, the positive reviews of this book, and there are MANY, (this is regarded as one of the best science fiction books of all time) explain how, actually, much of what we have experienced in the past 20 years of new technology was described in this book. Some argue, in fact, that the Internet was something that was written about in this book (which seems accurate)).

The books plot is not straightforward at all. But, I think, it's about a data thief guy, who has some health issues, who gets hired by a powerful guy to break into some data software. There's much more than that, but it's got a Matrix type feel; again, this was 30 years ago when written. The plot is actually pretty interesting but I got so bogged down in trying to understand what was happening I really couldn't appreciate. The characters are very well described and you understand, for the most part, the motivations of the individuals in the book, but keeping up with details of the plot was a challenge.

I guess why I disliked this book so much was sort of alluded to in the last paragraph; I really couldn't understand it.  Perhaps worst, I couldn't picture it. What's so nice about most books of fiction is the visual you have in your head of the characters and events taking place and watching them take place through your own versions in your brain. With the complexity of what Gibson is describing, that was impossible for me for much of the book. And without the pictures, it's really hard to follow what's going on.

I was trying to think about how to be describe how I felt reading it, and I think the best way I can equate is to try to imagine someone describing art to you in words but not being able to see it. They would be saying things like, "Picture a blank canvas and lots of colors on it in different ways, and there is shading, and different hues, and things like that." Now, this may be easy for us to picture since we've seen it, but if you've never seen a piece of art before, it would be very challenging. That's what reading Neuromancer was for me. Gibson really is an artist and his canvas are the words he is writing from his imagination of the future. While reading it, you could feel that he was on another plane from others, which, I believe, is why this book is so beloved, but if you aren't the type of person who can visualize the art he is describing, it's a a frustrating experience.

With all that being said, I do recommend others read the book. While I did not feel entertained, was lost for much, and did not really look forward to reading each night (hence, 2 star rating), I am happy I read it and appreciate the importance of Gibson's work.