OK, so you worked it through until no one was talking about the original post. Good job. Wouldn't want anything upsetting your idolization of the hack (small h).

To clarify for the slow ones:
"futurist hack" is henceforth defined as 'one who can not write about the future.'

Let me explain a common misconception. Cyberspace does not exist nor will it ever. The web page you are looking at is on your computer. You didn't actually surf anywhere. You simply downloaded a piece of information from someone else's computer. There is no cyber-space.

I state this as this is one of the most quoted coined terms of all time. You'd think Gibson invented the Internet.

Now, let's clarify something else. If you think that sci-fi is a writer writing about whatever crazy crap he could think up and it doesn't matter to you whether it realistic or not, then stop reading this. You feel free to read all the Gibson you want. Enjoy.

On the other hand, if you think sci-fi is about actually inventing the future, then I would suggest not reading any more of Gibson's novels. It will only confuse you. I feel sci-fi is really about accurately designing the future so that other people can realize it in actuality. We only went to the moon because authors wrote about going to the moon. It’s not that I feel there is no room for fun. But let’s call fun for what it is and true futurism for what it is.

To continue:
The phrase "Pat Reg is just the first time he has admitted this!" means simply that, before PR Gibson wrote futurist pulp. I've read it all. I've liked some of it. I've underlined things for future reference. This does not change the fact that it is pulp. Gibson couldn't come up with a novel idea for his own breakfast tomorrow. There's a reason why his first book was called Neuromancer and why the term 'romantic' has been used often to describe his work. Its mellow dramatic pulp. Perhaps you like that. It can be fun. I openly admit reading it myself. But that doesn't change the fact that it is pulp. Unfortunately, PR is not going to save him from the has-been pulp writer category.

OK, you’re going for 2,000 dollars now with this question:
Who was the author that invented the concept of Cyberspace?

By the way, for the youngins, Romance novels are not exactly what I mean by 'romantic'. Traveling to a space station full of potheads, now that's pretty romantic.

To close, I recently finished PR and it wasn't bad. A few rough spots, but a lot better than the last book. Oh my god did that suck. He's just not a very good writer. It doesn't have anything to do with whether he can write sci-fi or not. He just got lucky with Neuromancer and they kept publishing anything he could manage to cough up. There are millions of writers out there right now just as untalented as Gibson. They just didn't happen to be at the right place at the right time. I thought I was going to feel that PR vindicated him as a writer, but unfortunately, when you take away all the usual Gibson BS, you’re not left with much. I found PR very formulaic and plain dull at times.

Troll?
"And now it's late, close to wolfing hour of soul-lack. But she knows, lying curled here, behind her troll, in the darkness under this small bridge, with the somehow liquid background sounds of Paris, that hers has returned, at least for the meantime, reeled entirely in on its silver thread and warmly socketed.

She kisses the troll's sleeping back and falls asleep."

The combination of a strong cast and a line burdened with a heavy bait has shattered the surface, alerting the fish.

All that remain now are ripples.

Cheer up, I hear fishing takes patience.

---
Made from an extremely authentic tough shiny blue nylon, every detail is matched to the original spec. The real mouton sheepskin collar is just sumptuous, and their reproduction of the Crown zipper is stunning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pongboy:
OK, so you worked it through until no one was talking about the original post. Good job. Wouldn't want anything upsetting your idolization of the hack (small h).

---

Stifling dissent, a sure sign of fanaticism.

quote:

---

To clarify for the slow ones:
"futurist hack" is henceforth defined as 'one who can not write about the future.'

---

You've got some good thoughts here, but I'll be surprised if your second try is any more successful than the first; I don't think they can hear it.

s/n:r

"I feel sci-fi is really about accurately designing the future so that other people can realize it in actuality".
That sounds more like Popular Mechanics!
So if I read some 40s hard SF I can build a rocket in my backyard?
The zoning board will love it!
P.S. If someone "realizes" the future of, say, Starship Troopers we will be in deep trouble.
Hey! Wait a second! I'ts already happening! Damn!

quote:

---

There is no cyber-space.

---

I am in Sydney. Some other dude is in New York. I ring NY dude. NY dude and I have conversation.

I am in Sydney. NY dude is in New York. Conversation is where?

Conversation is in cyberspace.

Just because something doesn't exist "physically" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. E.g. stupidity, Fauvism, regret, Catholicism, boredom, the definition of "boredom", the Kyoto treaty, Amnesty International, Homer Simpson's desire for pork &c &c &c. Cyberspace is a concept that predates cyberpunk and speculation about VR, but wg first gave it a name.

I was going to include a fulminating spray (luckily the board crashed when I tried posting the first time so y'all were spared it) about the difference between - as I put it recently - Lucian satire and tripe I don't read, but RUR makes my point more than adequately.

SF is a literary subgenre, mes amis, the only criterion of value is how well it is written. And wg write good.

That's when I go to the opera high as a kite.

You're looking for 'melodramatic' there, champ.

If there's one aphorism more should live by, it's to hesitate to criticize another's writing until checking for chinks in one's own armor.

--
Drive, damn you. Just drive.

quote:

---

I am in Sydney. Some other dude is in New York. I ring NY dude. NY dude and I have conversation.

I am in Sydney. NY dude is in New York. Conversation is where?

Conversation is in cyberspace.

---

What the hell does that mean? I'm as much a defender of WG as the next guy, and I'll posit that cyberspace actually exists. However, I've never heard a worse dictum for the 'where' of cyberspace.

Consider:

If I'm talking to someone in the same room, where exactly is the conversation?

Better yet, if I've got two cups on either end of a fifty foot thread, and I'm talking to someone, where then is the conversation?

--
Drive, damn you. Just drive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caltrop:
That's when I go to the opera high as a kite.

You're looking for 'melodramatic' there, champ.

---

Say something about his ideas, not his spelling.

s/n:r

quote:

---

If I'm talking to someone in the same room, where exactly is the conversation?

---

The conversation is in the physical area bounded by the two rooms, in which soundwaves are moving through the atmosphere between the two of you. If simultaneous direct physical manipulation of the environment is available to the pair of you, you're in the same physical space.

quote:

---

Better yet, if I've got two cups on either end of a fifty foot thread, and I'm talking to someone, where then is the conversation?

---

More dodgy. Arguably cyberspace per my phone conversation analogy. Or maybe the string (ho ho).

Cyberspace is a metaphor for the technological mediation of communication between conversants not in the same physical space (sorry, George - let's try "two separated talkers speaking to each other through the use of tools that allow them to do so despite being separated"). The Matrix of Neuromancer, the Multiverse of Snow Crash are exaggerated versions of this mediation that utilise VR and hence, by creating an illusion of a physical space in which people are talking, underlie the "space" aspects of what is - more technically - a process. So it's a metaphor, an analogy, a verbal shorthand. It only describes something "that doesn't exist" if you forget what the analogy means, or if you're being tiresomely literal-minded. Which given your views on cyborgs, you wouldn't be - would you, Mr C.

Sure, liable to sloppy interpretation. But unless saying "cyberspace" blocks understanding more than it facilitates talking about the process, it's still a useful addition to language. Which is where the real debate starts.

How about this: you write a letter to A. Mail service delivers it. A writes a response. Mail delivers it. Repeat. Where is that conversation taking place?

Okay. Let's have a crack at pongboy's post.

As I understand it, he's saying:

• Cyberspace doesn't exist, it's just people using their computers
• Science Fiction involves the accurate prediction of the future
• WG's work to date has been pulp, without new ideas
• WG doesn't write well

Did I miss anything?

Cyberspace is a useful concept. It doesn't exist in the way that the Brooklyn Bridge exists, it exists in the way that the market for futures exists. I agree with RobW - if it adds to meaning rather than obscuring it, let's keep using it.

If you define science fiction as work that accurately predicts future developments, you're taking a pretty narrow view of things. Would you say that "War of the Worlds" wasn't SF because the Martians haven't invaded yet? And isn't one purpose of this genre of fiction to broaden the reader's mental horizons? Surely that's a legitimate endeavour, even if the events described don't come to pass. Is "2001" somehow a lesser work because we haven't made it to Jupiter yet and we don't know of too many black monoliths on the moon?

Has WG's work to date been pulp, and short on ideas? Good question. His solo writing pre-PR certainly doesn't break any genre boundaries. And I don't think Neuromancer gives us many new insights into the human psyche, for instance. It's mainstream SF with lots of hooks.
But it's not "writing-by-numbers" by any stretch of the imagination. Definitely not pulp in the 50's sense of "dashing spaceship captain saves beautiful girl from fate-worse-than-death at hands of tentacled alien".

The more recent Gibson's work, the further it gets from SF, and the greater the humanity of his characters in my view.

I can't see his writing as short on ideas in any respect, to be honest. And I don't just mean gadgets and gizmos. But I'd welcome any examples you can offer.

Does he write well? A very subjective thing, of course, and you're unlikely to find many people here who agree with your contention that he doesn't. I think WG's writing style is lucid and elegant, which I admire in an author. I don't think any of his works is perfect however, and I'm not particularly inclined to cast aside my critical faculties and indulge in hero-worship. My own yardstick of whether someone writes well is whether I want to revisit their work, and whether I continue to enjoy the work if I do. My copies of WG's books are well-worn, which says something about me if not about him.

So. That's my 2 cents' worth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gromit:
+ Cyberspace doesn't exist, it's just people using their computers.

---

Imaginary numbers don't exist either but can you imagine maths without them? 0 (zero) some would argue doesn't exist...Altruism, good and evil, should I go on?

---> Gromit: just adding a few common non-existent concepts

William Gibson may not be dead on with the path of techno-evolution. Perhaps the "futures" of His novels do not acuratley portray the comming 20-50 years. However Gibson's "speculations" are alot more on the mark then they first appear.

Example. Think Burning Chrome or Neuromancer. Now think about our cultures relationship with hackers, and our paranioa (or lack there of) when it comes to digital security. Half of the scientists currently involved in AI research are nervous about the lack of good will of thier possible future creations. (Wintermute)

Sure maybe by the time Neuromancer's time line comes around, we wont have molly's razors, Tallys Ishams eyes, or software with Swiss citizenship. But the world of media, information, communincation, and pop culture will look ALOT more like a William Gibson novel then you'd think.

Hell...It already does.

"Look close, listen close, think hard. After all, I've got eight eyes and a whole five and a half pounds of brain."

Hi folks, well I didn't plan on staying, but the board is more complex and interesting then it first appeared.

There's been some good insights posted even to my Pongboy tripe. I thought I'd get a rise out of the group, but alas only a few reactionaries took the bait. I stated that I had read all WGs books and underlined passages? I thought it would be more obvious that it was Devil's Advocate proding. Not that I can't just be an ass sometimes.

Just wanted to say thanks to the calmer minds that actually tried to find reason in my posts. I'll post more on the topics of WGs writing and his forsight into the future, which are ripe for discussion.

Pongboy
end of line

/sarcasm on

Oh, thank you for gracing us with your wisdom. Our humbles selves are delighted to have met with your approval

/sarcasm off

@ $ $ |-| 0 |_ 3

Damn you, Gromit, stop plagiarising things I haven't said yet.

Incomplete list of "futurist hacks" we should know better than hold in high regard, since they're not interested in predicting the future:

Harlan Ellison
J G Ballard
Brian Aldiss
Ray Bradbury
Jeff Noon
Michael Swanwick
Paul Di Filippo
Philip K. Dick
Michael Moorcock

Incomplete list of hack SF texts (don't predict future / not intended to):

Gulliver's Travels
Frankenstein
The Invisible Man
Brave New World*
1984*
Fahrenheit 451
Slaughterhouse 5
The Man in the High Castle
A Canticle for Leibowitz
Jack Faust

How refreshing it is to be still having this discussion twenty years after Cyberpunk, and forty years after the New Wave.

quote:

---

sarcasm on

---

Now, now - no need for that. I for one am more than grateful to have the scales stripped from my eyes. Now perhaps I'll stop trying to put my coffee cup on the Windows desktop - you know there's not really a desk in there?!

Welcome aboard, Ping. Looking forward to postings from the "real you".

*please don't make me explain why these works don't predict the future.

quote:

---

The Matrix of Neuromancer, the Multiverse of Snow Crash are exaggerated versions of this mediation that utilise VR and hence, by creating an illusion of a physical space in which people are talking, underlie the "space" aspects of what is - more technically - a process.

---

That's a doozy of a sentence, but I have to disagree. I, for one, have never felt any illusion of sharing space with my fellow conversant while on the telephone. I remained fully cognizant of the notion of separated space. It doesn't follow that our conversation--if "whereness" can even be attributed to the concept--can inhabit the space between, metaphorical or not. I'm not trying to be too literal minded, but the notion of cyberspace being anything other than a cute term for the evolving global network is jejune, if not outright naive.

quote:

---

How about this: you write a letter to A. Mail service delivers it. A writes a response. Mail delivers it. Repeat. Where is that conversation taking place?

---

The conversation exists nowhere. One has a conversation in the same way one takes a breath. There aren't a bunch of "breaths" sitting around any more than there are conversations occupying a space.

--
Look at me! I know things!

hahaha.
well as I said to robw in another thread. it was good to get a lively, passionate discussion going, and it made me go back and read WG's works to find passages to prove 'you' wrong, well, mislead.

I found this on the existance of cyberspace:
'there is no 'there' there.' well obviously, the space is virtual, which is kinda the point isn't it? I like this discussion on the nature of this shared virtual space. see my 'point to the net' thread.

From Burning Chrome:

'The Matrix is an abstract representation of the relationships between data systems'

'Trying to remind myself that this place and the gulfs beyond are only representations, that we aren't 'in' Chrome's computer, but interfaced with it, while the matrix simulator in Bobby's loft generates this illusion.'

Written in 1981. Most of the world didn't even know what a MOdulator/DEMmodulator is. Let alone the 'space' between networking computers.

On 'cheezy Johnny Mnemonic type characters'

'Bobby read his future in women; his girls are omens, changes in the weather, and he'd sit all night in the Gentleman Loser, waiting for the season to lay a new face down in front of him like a card.'

'I was telling myself that it wasn't Rikki who was getting to me, but what Bobby was doing to her. I'd known him for a long time, since the end of the war, and I knew he used women as counters in a game, Bobby Quine versus fortune, versus time and the night of cities.'

His characters are always, to me, these complex creatures of desperation, tragedy and optimism, giving off a delicate balance between wanting to sympathise with them and wanting to hate them. Well, the cannon fodders anyway, the little side-lives. But even the 'heroes' like Laney in Idoru and All Tommorow's Parties or even Case in Neuromancer was flawed. None of them are stereotypical.

Stay. As I said in your other troll thread, it has been a cathartic experience.

Peace out.


I am Otaku Lite™

Caltrop:

Although Ping raised the "cyberspace" issue here, I suspect this thread, if it's going to continue, will be more about wg's skills as a writer - wouldn't want to go "off topic" again.

My reply to your post, such as it is, is here. Sorry to be such a thread-fascist.

As RobW infers, the title of this thread is "futurist as in futurist hack" and I did start it to address WGs sci-fi futurist skills - if a bit tongue in check.

Therefore, why not truly analyze WGs futurist prognostication.

I'll kick it off again with this:

Gibson freely admits that he knew nothing of computers, and even seems proud that he knew nothing of computers, when he wrote Neuromancer.

Article

Although he now actually has an email address, he still seems nearly computer illiterate. At least to the point that he no longer tries to pretend that he understands computers at a fundamental level. Sure he's a *user* and writes about a *user*. But with PR, I feel WG has turned his back on true cyber-oriented fiction. I feel that the average reader of WG knows more about Cyerculture than he does and he simply could not compete with his own fans. He had to start anew.

He was never a true explorer, adventurer, or surveyor. He was a tourist that stumbled upon a little known country and made maps from overheard memories. The kind of guy that would draw up a map of North America and assume that California was an island, even though nobody ever sailed all the way up the inside of Baja to get confirmation. Just a guy like most guys: out for look-see and a chance to chat up the girls.

Now I understand the desire to keep the fiction flowing, and to avoid knowing anything that would cramp your style, after all reality is just a state of mind. And writing is often all about getting your mind into another reality. Namely one where the book is magically finished and you're receiving a big check. And if you're writing about a future, you certainly don't want to be burdened by mundane facts that would stand in your way.

But that said, I personally find that to be a cop out. It tells me that WG is incapable of understanding computers and extrapolating their future. He is not a futurist, he is a futurist hack. He is not so much a sci-fi writer, as a poser who found the genre interesting and opportunistically advantageous.
It tells me that WG, more often then not, has stolen ideas about technology to enhance his fiction without understanding those ideas.
It tells me that although he has a talent for juxtaposing detail, that in fact he is not concerned with the accuracy of those details. At least it is not a top priority.

And quite honestly, that's fine. WG can write whatever he wants and research the things he sees fit to research and just work in ideas that fit the technological suit. But that don't mean I gutta like it. I want more.

I find it very annoying when I'm reading a novel and the author botches an idea and I fall out of the novel.

I'm paying for the fantasy. I'm paying for a self consistent virtual reality. I'm an expert novel user, a well traveled tourist into WGs virtual landscapes. I don't want to be a novel hack, I don't want to wing my way through the pages and say it was good enough. I am the end user and I must be satisfied.

I think WG can do better and I demand it. Capitalism in action.

[That all being said. My girlfriend says that I’ve been having way too much fun on this site and that I have definitely gotten my $26 worth of entertainment out of the book. I would have to agree, I never knew boards could be such fun.]

Personally, WG's definition of cyberspace as "consensual hallucination" works for me perfectly.

/\/\ike