Very briefly, please note following false equations:

Good SF = Good futurism

Good futurism = Good technical knowledge


Until tomorrow...

Is Neuromancer about computers? I don't think so.

Thinking back over the book, which admittedly I read last several years ago, I think the computers in the book are so distantly removed from todays computers as to be unrecognizable. This is appropriate, given that the book takes place in a fairly distant future (about 30-50 years from now, maybe more).

The main thing that I think you are missing, Ping, is something that you almost hit on yourself in the first post. The Cyberspace in Neuromancer is not the Cyberspace of today. It is not even particularly closely related.

Yes, I agree that this is a common misconception, because the word Cyberspace has come to be applied to web sites and places like this forum. WG didn't envision these. I don't think that is a major failing of his.

In Neuromancer WG did what a lot of good SF authors do. He took a couple of interesting fictional ideas and extrapolated from them. Knowledge of, or even more than a passing interest in, current computer technology is not an issue.

The main fiction behind Neuromancer's Cyberspace is that by correctly providing a direct interface between the mind and data, and applying algorithmic translations (which may, indeed, never exist) you can create a hallucinatory space made entirely of data. Some people, such as Case, have peculiar talents in this realm that have little or nothing to do with knowledge, and a lot to do with the quirks of neural wiring.

That is the Cyberspace of Neuromancer. It has very little to do with VR and nothing to do with web pages. (Remember that the internet was an academic toy, and the web non-existant, when the book was written.)

The idea is that the brain, when directly exposed to data in that way, can work with it in subconscious ways which are faster and more effective than mousing and typing could ever be. This is a fiction. It does not exist and it may never (though I do not share your apparent conviction that it is completely impossible). The intent was not to say "where will today's technology be in 50 years." That part is not futurism. It is, however, perfectly good SF.

When WG is called a futurist it is usually for different aspects of his work. Aspects that extrapolate instead of simply making something up. He did, for example, notice the importance of information networks. But remember, of course, that the networks in his book are built on a fundamentally different underlying technology. He also took on the impact of globalism and multi-national corporations (corporatism).

Still, I don't think he was really trying to be a futurist. I think he was trying to write an entertaining book.

Was he just jumping on some interesting 'hot' topic? Perhaps. An author has to write about something, why not what he finds interesting?

Ne? Ne!

So it seems that the original theme of this post - and quite a brave one, I might add, considering the milieu, was to put forth two things:

A) Ping thinks that WG can't predict the future with the science of his 'pulp'.
B) Ping does not like WG's hacking.

As I see it WG does not put forth technology in his book as a precursor to actual tech - rather it is a vehicle for his characters which I see to be the main focus of his stories. By using memes he brought PR into our lives and - aside from having to mentally sigh everytime Tommy Hilfiger, et al. fashion was mentioned - made it translucent to our experience. In his earlier works it was his vision - not the actual tech - that gave us these worlds to enjoy. While, indeed, there may never be an actual cyberspace - the "no there there" aspect of can seem more real to those who use it - eg. EverCrack, et al. Concentual hallucenation indeed! In other words, IMHO, WG does not provide us with tech porn for it's own sake - look to other authors to provide us with 'real' visions of future tech (ie. Stephenson's fax wars) - rather WG takes conceptualizations and wraps STORY around them letting the literalists to argue over the there of there.

As to him being a hack - to each his own, but his prose (I do not say words for a reason) creates mood and image like few other authors I have come across.

That's not to say I didn't find myself re-reading PR in spots trying to decide if he put in that section as a joke or a bet.

So, Ping, do his works ellicit such feelings or is it your feelings towards the sheep who like his works simply because they are hip or fringe?

--Never underestimate the power of uneducated people in large groups.

how about a benchmark?

If I had invested $1000 in 1984 based on the emergence of the technologies WG envisioned in Neuromancer (computers, databases, tailored pharma), I would be relaxing in hot tub full of Guiness watching midgets peform hallucinations for me.

Now, if I took the same approach with the technologies more traditional SF was concerned with, I would have invested in aerospace and experimentation with particle physics. No Guiness for me.

The street finds it's own uses for things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ping:
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.

---

Bingo. He's a tourist, writing tourguides for other tourists who don't know any better. This is the crux of my problem with him. No matter how hard he tries, it comes out sounding like he's never actually been there. I like to think I've got an ear for authenticity, especially for matters concerning cyberspace (a "place" I've been inhabiting since before he wrote Neuromancer). When I read his books, his writing grates across my mind as inauthentic. I don't expect anybody to agree with me & I know my opinion will probably bring the house down around me, but it's mine & I'm sticking to it.

s/n:r

quote:

---

Originally posted by snr:

---

I'll be away from my computer for the next week or two, so don't hold your breath waiting for a response. I'll check the thread & see if there's anything I need to add when I'm back.

s/n:r

Thank you Ping and SNR for making this forum a more interesting place.
The spice must flow ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by snr:

---

I'll be away from my computer for the next week or two, so don't hold your breath waiting for a response. I'll check the thread & see if there's anything I need to add when I'm back.
[/QUOTE]

We shall await your return! We will press on; endure - we shall overcome!

Not that we give two wits about your feelings towards WG or his works, but the arrogance of your response to your response was quite fun and begged comment . You may now proceed with your regularly scheduled fwee.

You fail to underestimate the seriousness of the situation...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeOS:
Not that we give two wits about your feelings towards WG or his works, but the arrogance of your response to your response was quite fun and begged comment.

---

And here I thought I was being helpful. Ah well, can't please everyone.

s/n:r

Why would you want to?

Have fun wherever you're going. Don't get lost.

Bones?

Well said snr, well said.

Perhaps I'm asking too much from WG to be authentic.

I saw this cheesy sci-fi tv show 5-10 years back. As I recall it was about a video game and its inventor. Somehow his plane ends up crashing on an island where he uses this gun that is the same gun as in the video game. The gun is this advanced weapon and he ends up saving the day as I recall. A fellow passanger is amazed that the gun actually works just like the gun in the game. And I mean this is one hell of a gun. EM pulse type of thing.

The inventor, a dashing nerd, states that "the end users would complain if it didn't really work".

Now that authenticity. That's what I want from WG. Its not that I think he is a crappy writer. I just want more. I want real cyberpunk. Not just soap operas with a cyber skin. I don't want to notice that once again he is writing something about computers and it is obvious that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Is that so wrong?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ping:
Just a guy like most guys: out for look-see and a chance to chat up the girls.

---

That is just one of the many reasons why I enjoy WG so much!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ping:
Is that so wrong?

---

Not necessarily, but, for me, WG is not about the tech. It's about his writing style, his prose. So, I think snr did hit the nail on the head when he told us ya can't please everyone. I think his (WG) writing would probably suffer if he did try to infuse too much tech. He admits he's not ultra-savvy when it comes to that stuff. For me, that's what sets his writing apart from (don't everyone groan at once) Neal Stephenson. Neal does tech and story, but he doesn't set a mood like Mr. Gibson - his writing lacks the poetry that Gibson forms. That's not to say it's better or worse, just different - I like both, but for different reasons, kinda like Macaroni and Cheese and an Ice Cream Soda.

In otherwords, your views, while valid, aren't right or wrong, but they are yours so hold them high!

"There's what's right, and there's what's right, and never the twain shall meet." H.I.McDunnough

Bones?

quote:

---

kinda like Macaroni and Cheese and an Ice Cream Soda.

---

-TeOS

? Is William the Mac and Cheese and Neal the Ice Cream Soda, or vis versa?

Such as the food analogies go, I totally agree that you can't please everyone, but I'm trying to stir up some shit here TeOS.

Think of what the term PING means. Essentially, to see if anybody is home.

So, moving on.


futurist as in futurist hack:

To answer TeOS' point that Neal does tech and that William does mood:

I'm not saying that WG needs to be writing reams about algorithmic processes like Neal, I'm speaking to the point of using computers as a mood enhancement without know whatof one speaks. Its like me writing about England despite the fact that I've never been there.

A writer should know their limits and perhaps bring in a specialist to provided appropriate "tech" for the book where needed. I'm reminded of Star Trek - the writers leave blanks in the text that just say "tech", and specialist consultants dream up things like 'nano-probes'.

Alls I'm saying, is that if romantic mood lighting is your thing then great, I like that too, but WG should stop writing about things that he obviously doesn't care enough about to learn. Or he could get someone to assist him with his handicap.

A few days ago I was considering putting up a post about WG collaborating with this entire board to write his next novel. I figure that together we could produce his best novel to date in about two months. His publishers would freak. Only two months? Can we get the board on retainer? ...

To quote myself from my first post:

quote:

---

He didn't know anything about computers in the 80's and he doesn't know anything about them now. Pat Reg is the first time he has admitted to himself that he can't write sci fi. And I applaud him for this pattern recognition!

---

I would offer the suggestion that WG not even try to write another cyberpunk novel. I feel that his movement away from anything to do with computers can only enhance his status.

Unless that is, he consults with this board of experts. We could keep him on the collective path to the future. Afterall, the future isn't a place, its a path that the group is wearing into the universe one story at a time.

Got yer name metaphor way back.

Obvious yer trying to stir up shit - yer posting anti-WG on a WG board fer pity's sake.

To be honest I don't know how much he writes about where he's never been (and don't really care) - I've never been to Russia and have no desire to tromp across a field full of titanium oxide (which miraculously caused no issues to either Cayce or Parkaboy), but he brought me there kinda. His visions of the future also brought me THERE kinda. One hopes that with his ability to travel he'll tighten things up for his more discriminating readers (Charles Shaw Cab with Baby Backs? ).

Don't stop stirring the pot; makes life and threads more interesting.

Look at it this way - at least stuff gets done in his books. Ever read Jordan? Ick - 800 pages and nothing gets done.

Bones?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ping:
I'm speaking to the point of using computers as a mood enhancement without know whatof one speaks. Its like me writing about England despite the fact that I've never been there.

---

I wonder if you could give me a particularly jarring example of this from WG's writing. I may have mentioned it before, but I don't get this grinding feeling of inauthenticity that you and snr do. I'd like to see what you are talking about. Perhaps I have simply forgotten (or forgiven) it.

It actually occurs to me that PR is the first book in which computers are even close to front and center, given how much of PR is about relationships mediated by computers.

quote:

---

A writer should know their limits and perhaps bring in a specialist to provided appropriate "tech" for the book where needed. I'm reminded of Star Trek - the writers leave blanks in the text that just say "tech", and specialist consultants dream up things like 'nano-probes'.

---

Well... I wouldn't use Star Trek as an example too much. The writers just write 'tech' and the monkeys in the back room spout junk like "minus 300 degrees celsius."

Ne? Ne!

good idea Ping
Cheers

So, robert heinlein doesn't write science fiction? Vonnegut?

Frankly, your definition of science fiction is weak. Go read technical manuals. But there are those of us who believe that science fiction can be used as a marvelous tool, to really get at ideas, images and themes. We write LITERATURE, in the robes of scifi. If this is all too creative for you, again, go read a technical manual.

Look back at the history of science fiction. None of it was ever based on any real understanding of science. Hugo Gernsback? They named an award after him, you know. PKD? His fiction was based more on drugs than technical knowledge.

What you are referring to is hard sci fi, and it is flawed. It's word games for engineers. When people refer to the ghettoization of science fiction, this is what they are talking about. You're killing the industry, man.

A science fiction writer in the 50s couldn't have imagined our 90s. No matter how much we think of ourselves, nothing we extrapolate today about our 40s will be accurate. Not even remotely. Something drastic and mindnumbing will occur, and everything will change, and nothing written will be accurate or even appropriate.

Science fiction is about freedom. The freedom to play with ideas, with themes, with settings, without being tied down to the way things actually are. The second you start saying idiotic stuff like "but that's not how a router works" well, maybe you should be playing with routers instead of critiquing literature.

quote:

---

The second you start saying idiotic stuff like "but that's not how a router works" well, maybe you should be playing with routers instead of critiquing literature.

---

Gotta disagree with you on one little point there Shadoth. This is, after all, just a web forum. We're just, y'know, talking. I wouldn't elevate it to the level of "critique".

Given that, I think I can put up with a certain amount of whining. (Shades of Star Trek again... "But the transporter wouldn't work that way!")

Me, I think WG is quite good at avoiding hard-SF engineering handbook crap writing while still having that techno-fetishistic feel. Thus my previous question to Ping.

Ne? Ne!