I kind of wish that I had not known PR was by Gibson before I read it. I would have liked to have just been handed a printout of the the book, with no makers marks on it. With it's present day setting, I wonder if I would have known that it was Gibson?

I'm about halfway through the book now, and would like to think that I would have known. However in some ways it is too obviously Gibson, which might have thrown me. The themes that I (imho) feel are implicit in his previous books are made explicit (culture shock, consumer repurposing, the "post-modern" use of older buildings/technology); The re-use of Portobello Road (which in many ways embodies those themes); And finally the chapter headings (I find that I will have fogotten the chapter heading by the end of the chapter, and will browse the chapter again to spot it in the text). The almost Uber-Gibson feel to the book might have misdirected me into thinking it was written by someone else, making a very good job of using Gibson's themes.

Aside from the themes, I think the prose is what really marks it as Gibson. No other writer can evoke the feelings I get when I read Gibson, whether it is something new to me, or re-reading Neuromancer for the umpteenth time. It always seems somehow verbose, and yet clipped. As someone else on the boards has said about lighters, by describing just one aspect of a location or a person he can create in the mind of the reader a feel for the place or character that other writers might spend pages on. He manages to pick out the salient features and leaves the reader to fill in the gaps. I often find myself staring into space, digesting a paragraph after I have read it (this can be embarassing when reading on the Tube, since the space I stare into can often belong to someone else).

I spotted a couple of kettle glitches in the story - in one chapter Damien's kettle is described as an Italian electric model, and describes the switches on the kettle, plug and socket. I'm not aware of any appliance in the UK that has a switch on the plug (and UK appliances are sold with a plug attached by law). Cayce must have been more jet lagged than she thought, since subsequent reading seems to show that she put the electric kettle on the stove to heat the water

nice post, Kradlum. No retinal scan required.
Seriously, Bill's the only author I can think of that knows the location of all those neural triggers that set off the synaptic napalm, refreshing the Holy Fire fountains of the likes of Bruce Sterling; occasioned by the fire engine of that other Texan guy: Roky.

"O sages standing in God's holy fire
As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing-masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity..."
http://www.geocities.com/aurian_eire/yeats.html

You should go to the UK..virtually every plug I've ever seen there has a switch on the actual wall-plug

I am in the UK Every socket does have a switch, but I've never seen one on the plug

Just finished it, now I can revel in reading/catching up on all the posts here without worrying about spoilers of every persuasion.
I most definitely would have known it was him, because of his unique writing style, but also because of the 'threes'. Has anyone else noticed this throughout Gibson's writings? His use of trios. Very very interesting.
Some of us at work were thinking how cool it would have been to study this book back in university. Very bold, very real, very engrossing book...and IMHO his best work since Neuromancer -- knocked Count Zero out of my number two spot.

LOVED it! LOVED! IT!

~~~~
Mohss

Of course you would know. You're clearly an avid, thoughful fan of the writer, you would recognize his style.

When I heard that the Richard Bachman books were probably Stephen King, I had to read one. Knew by page 20 it was Stephen King. Which probably still begs the question, would I have known had I read it blind? Hmmmm...I either would have suspected or thought the writer was cribbing King's style bigtime.

How would I have been certain PR was Gibson? You're right, the loving attention to gadgets - the lighters, computers, would have been a giveaway. His prose style is very distinctive because it's so spare and focused - the partial sentences when characters are thinking, frinstance. The female protagonist might have thrown me, but I don't think for long. 8^)

Re: the kettle plug switch - you've answered your own question, it's an Italian electric kettle. Is yours? Can I defend putting the electric kettle on the burner? Well, I have known folks who had multiple coffee/tea makers and Goddess forbid you should make tea in the coffee maker, or vice versa, but this isn't that and Damien does not sound like the kinda guy to have more than one kettle, so, point taken and wow! well-observed.

Okay, Mohss, what about Gibson's use of trios? Examples, please.

“I would have liked to have just been handed a printout of the book, with no makers marks on it.” Kradlum

Your question brings up and interesting question central to Pattern Recognition. (I don’t like calling it PR) How important is authorship? The power of the footage is the way in which the audience is denied anything but the artwork itself. It’s the closest we can get to stripe our prejudices and assumptions.

A lot of artists want their work to be judged strictly on pure merits. Without hype or preconceived notions of the makers track record. Ideally the artists want to know what you think of the art, not what do you think of the artist.

Ah, but we have different sockets to the Italians, so any electric appliance in the UK would have a UK plug.

Is there a word for fictional kettle lead fetishists? Or at least a board?

It's clear that we all agree that Gibson's writing style can be undeniably seen all through 'Pattern Recognittion' (although I'm mighty glad he dropped the shifting point of view narrative and constant cliffhangers from previous novels, since it tended to get on my nerves).

However, that's all we can ascertain from where we stand. This is not to imply that some highly skilled writer might have been hired to mimic Gibson's style and write a novel for him, but even in the case that such a far fetched theory might be true, we wouldn't be able to notice the difference if this imaginary hired writer had done a good job. So I think Kradlum might have a point there.

It would play, I suppose, just as any other of the miriads of simulacra around us nowadays. But would that make any difference in the end? If you are unable to tell the original from the copy, how could your reaction to each of them be different?

It's like postmodern semiotics and deconstructivism denying the possibility of really knowing the meaning of any sign at all, each sign relying on its relation to other signs to have such meaning, and at the same time those other signs relying on that one for the same thing.

In the end there are only patterns, I guess, by which signs are arranged in order to acquire some degree of meaning, and out of which signs are just void, lifeless.

Everything referring to some other thing, as Gibson writes in 'Pattern Recognition'. Real meaning ultimately out of reach.

In that sense, I think, Gibson himself is out of our reach, just as would be any imaginary writer who did a good job imitating his writing style.

I would add, as a closing remark, that by saying this, again, I don't mean to imply that Gibson himself might be a fiction. This is just a reflection on how fragile illusion of knowledge might be.

As many of you have posted (here and elsewhere in the forum), PR is indeed truly Gibson at his best. I actually find this book is better than all his previous work: the prose is tight, narrative is fast but most of all time and place are very very real and with his typical laconic style, very well felt. Having been to most places described in the book, I never ceased (during the entire book) to be amazed at how well he captures the way a traveller can perceive time, place, self... Also the fact that PR is embedded in a present that has come a lot closer to the cyberspace future of previous books makes it all the more enjoyeable.

just finished PR... it's simply wonderful, wholly unexpected lines of development - mostly credible! - and a degree of engagement with culture and modern times that just drags you along. AND there's a darkness there down in the deep levels of the thing that leaves unease in its wake...

Jack D.

I very much enjoyed Pattern Recognition (PR) and plan on purchasing a copy for my library. Would I have known that this is a Gibson novel had his name been removed? I don't know. I think so. He has a very distinct style.

Defend putting the electric kettle on the burner

Having returned PR to the library (it has a very long wait list - I'm glad that others continue to read), I'm unable to reference the kettle detail. Unless the oven was turned on, I don't think this is an issue. I often use the stove top for electric appliances and hot items, such as a coffee press. It's entertaining to discuss such a small detail.

yeah, it's Gibson. or, just a chance in a million, it's louise bagshawe, smartened tenfold in some uncanny way, "doing a gibson".
ok, it's my problem, but due to translating a novel by forementioned silly c*** my immunity system got seriously disturbed. now any kind of exaggerated who-wears-what thingy affects me the same way bibendum affected cayce...

quote:

---

Truly Gibson... but better somehow

---

- RidetheLightening

I'm sure this is old news to many, but I thought some might find the definition helpful.

SIMULACRUM (simulacra): Something that replaces reality with its representation. Jean Baudrillard in "The Precession of Simulacra" defines this term as follows: "Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.... It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real" (1-2). His primary examples are psychosomatic illness, Disneyland, and Watergate. Fredric Jameson provides a similar definition: the simulacrum's "peculiar function lies in what Sartre would have called the derealization of the whole surrounding world of everyday reality" (34). - http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/postmodernism/terms/simulacrum.html

I found RidetheLightening's comment spark this concept.

Gibson is his own Simulacra. He has replaced himself with someone strikingly similar "but better somehow"

That's a quote for the paperback edition.

Characteristically Gibson? Yes. I think so, and too good to just be a Gigson imitator.

<B>Larry</B>

I think so. He has a stylistic prose that is like no other I've read. Now that's not to put him on a pedestal - there are other writers whose works I've had the pleasure of reading that I also believe I would know if read un-named. Suffice to say that he has a definitive style.

Bones?

He's lurking and around every corner in this forum - I assure you..

quote:

---

Gibson is his own Simulacra. He has replaced himself with someone strikingly similar "but better somehow"

---

I like this...personally, if I hadn't known that PR had been written by Gibson, whoever I thought had written it would have bumped Gibson down a notch on my "favorite authors" list.

--
F:.R:.

In the starting post of this thread, Kradlum said, "I often find myself staring into space, digesting a paragraph after I have read it..."

I did exactly that after reading the opening paragraph of chapter one of PR. After rereading it a second and third time, turning it over in my mind and marveling at how perfect it was, I then realized that I would have recognized that style anywhere. Gibson's unique ability to hit a half dozen of my emotional buttons in a single paragraph is one I rarely find in any other of my most favored authors.

Yes, this story is a significant departure from his previous cyber-punkish stories, but his delicious descriptive style is unmistakable. In my case, it's not like he describes a scene hoping it will strike a resonant chord in my psyche, it's more like he reaches in and plucks the precise chords with his own deft literary fingers.

Gibson's are the only books I've ever read more than twice, sometimes thrice. PR will be no execption.

Kradlum your description of your admiration of Gibson described my own feelings precisely. I wish I could have said it that way first <grin>.

Cheers,

--Sebastian

It's not unusual for my favorite authors to write completely different types of stories, even in completely different genres, yet I can recognize their unmistakable style. Neal Stephenson (Snow Crash, Diamond Age, etc.) for example. No two books of his are alike, yet the style is instantly recognizable to me.

In other cases, I've read new books from favorite authors and found myself saying, "This is not him/her." Stephen King is a perfect example. There is no convincing me that Stephen King has personally written all of the novels bearing his name. You can radically change subjects, even genres, but you imho can't radically change your unique artistic voice. In my opinion, an artist's voice is as unique as his fingerprints. No two are alike. But that's just me .

Cheers,

--Sebastian

I threw up blood this morning. Don't worry, it wasn't mine.