...this is the first WG book that has caused me some problems. To be fair not big ones, and not all the way through, but...

Firstly, this seemed a bit weak as a follow up to PR; loved to see Bigend and Pamela back, but Hollis was far too similar to Cayce and had, for me, too little to differentiate her from the latter. I also expected some kind of big payoff whereby the old man might turn out to be - not Win, as others have posted, but rather Hobbs (though it did become clear the old man was just too 'together' to be Hobbs. Matbe his brother?). And what really irritated was how darn often WG used "some" in the same context; characters were always thinking of how the sky is "some colour" other than, or a thing was "some way different than" something or having "some feeling like fear but not". It really jumped out at me, in some (sorry) places every para uses the same construction - his editor should have picked that up.

All that said, I liked the overall plot arc, and smiled when the target of Ollie's gun was revealed; it's kind of playfully serious as an objective, a bit like something from Fight Club. I loved the bits of protocol and systema, like the use of old book pages to forge documents, and of course the little gadgets and so on that WG inserts - the gas gun, the use of iPods for data - are great, though even less sci fi of course now we're in the present (pst, technically, of course). I also liked the atmosphere of New York he conjures - dull, post-9/11, rainy - which convinced far more than LA. And ending up in Vancouver?? Has he softened too far?

It perhaps needs a second read, but I do have a small concern at whether he has lost a tiny bit of his mojo, and thus whether the inevitable final book of the not-trilogy will be even less good. Just my opinion, of course.

Yeah, you'd better get that second read underway.

I say: the man is an author, not an assembly line.

He recently commenced an etnirely new revolution, one that went over with more of a whimper than a bang, precisely because it happened in a much larger echo space: mainstream literature. Still, he is pioneering new ground using the very difficult medium of very old ground.

I was thinking of ot today:

his second novel Count Zero, was actually quite thin compared to what he's writing now. But back then, he made sure to pack his novels with whizbangs: slamhounds, tissue regeneration, practical resurrection, all on the first half-page, and not a whit of it nerdish.

Solid heavy-duty pulp writing, lots of tres cool stuff, but... It wasn't really until Mona Lisa that he really (sez moi) got a handle on his essential elegance and grace and began crafting deeply heart-tugging beauty amid all the bleak noir future dystopian wonder.

So: my bet is on his third novel along his new path.

I also hold no expectation for him to necessarily continue this way.

The old undistributed future is beginning to ramp up new potential future themes sufficiently distant to lend enchantment.

I have always thought that the middle books in the trilogies were a kind spelunking period, to find te depths of the dieas and then take them home.

In this manner they are, perhaps, less assured then the ends.

quote:

Originally posted by Vexille1:
It perhaps needs a second read, but I do have a small concern at whether he has lost a tiny bit of his mojo, and thus whether the inevitable final book of the not-trilogy will be even less good. Just my opinion, of course.

My own opinion is that this book has an overt rather than an oblique agenda, unlike previous books. There is a message he wants to transmit. That disturbed his usual creative processes. Most of the disturbance lies on the Milgrim/Brown thread, but touches all three. That is why Milgrim is the most unexpected part of the book, Gibson's idea of the unconcerned observer.

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
I have always thought that the middle books in the trilogies were a kind spelunking period, to find te depths of the dieas and then take them home.

In this manner they are, perhaps, less assured then the ends.

I see what you mean, but I found no slack, per my satisfaction, in Idoru. Stylistically, at least, it is perhaps my fave of the two triptychs.

quote:

In this manner they are, perhaps, less assured then the ends.

Omigod, forgive me for what I am about to say:

but do the ends assure the means?

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

quote:

In this manner they are, perhaps, less assured then the ends.

Omigod, forgive me for what I am about to say:

but do the ends assure the means?

They do, except in cases of hysteron proteron

"And what really irritated was how darn often WG used "some" in the same context; characters were always thinking of how the sky is "some colour" other than, or a thing was "some way different than" something or having "some feeling like fear but not"".
Maybe it has to do with the ambigous tenor of the times we are living through. Most of the characters seem very ambivalent about things.
Only the old man seems to have his act togheter, and we dont get much description of his thoughts/feelings about things, only actions.

I think that "SC" has many parallels with "Ronin" (1998 by John Frankenheimer with Robert De Niro and Jean Reno).

Many criticized the movie as a "linear blood spilling movie without a clear plot". Well, that's not a complete truth: the plot is linear, but despite the "mystery" around the content of the box, it is perfectly clear. And the movie reflected the perplexity an the fears that followed the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

The same with SC where we have the "old WG" writing interlaced stories using some old characters and some "standard characters". If I was coding I could refer to Hollis like:

FemaleHeroin subclass: #Hollis
     instanceVariableNames: 'characterId characterBehaviourAndCapabilities characterStatus goals'
     classVariableNames: ''
     poolDictionaries: ''
     category: 'WG Female Heroins'
!!
comment: "This is a constructor for Hollis... much the same as for Caice"
!!
... (methods follow) ...

But the value of SC is far from being deprecated by some "standardized" characters. WG wrote about the end of History, about a time full of "shadow agencies" and "shadow allegiances". And he is not boring, he is not scholar. He didn't try to lecture us about the deep shit we can get in when we allow governments to grow too much and free press shrink in the same step. He wrote a nice romance that will be as up to date 20 years from now as Neuromancer is still up to date.

I am really curious to see what will come after SC... Hope that I won't have to wait for long...

Definitely read it again, the texture is there if you let it happen. It feels like watching the news, or surfing the web, in literature form. The plot mirrors contemporaneity in the same manner that his descriptions of LA and New York in particular mirror or match the reality of those places. WG evokes his chosen urban spaces in a pitch perfect manner, but the pitch is paranoid, gray, and (somehow, lol) flatter than others may choose to describe or experience those same spaces.

Reading this thread made me flash on the humorous aspects of SC. The 'target' is funny, an extremely elaborate practical joke, and there are elements of aburdist comedy in other parts of the plot. I'll have to clarify that statement, I'm sure.

Reading the threads on this site helped focus my second read, maybe that will help inspire you to go back and see some of those deeper connections people here discuss.

quote:

hysteron proteron

yeah! new concept for the day!

res medias in !

quote:

but do the ends assure the means?

quote:

They do, except in cases of hysteron proteron

In which case the means assure the ends? Isn't that rather carting the horse before the put?

I recall sophomore year Film Study class. (high school)

I was already effectively dropped out. I attended class just enough to keep the dilemma suspended. But I attended film study religiously even if I didn't do the homework, and flunked with the most definitive F possible with perfect class attendance.

The teacher, the lovely Miss Annette Hankin, was primarily an English teacher and of an age and temperament to have hung with Ferlinghetti and those guys. Great teacher. (With a Great Rack. I lust to this day.)

I never did homework or in class assignments. They were always, you know:

What was the theme of the movie?

et cetera

But I did produce work for her. More often than not, a movie would inspire me to write some free form something (ooh; I used that 'some' word; spank me!) inspired by these wonderful movies we saw. (The year was '71/'72.)

In so doing I discovered the writer lurking in me. One or two things were exceptional, I felt, and she agreed. (She always apologized for flunking me; she said my extra-curric stuff was always the first stuff she 'graded'.) I think my flunking was the great student success of her class that year?

Which leads me to this: I can imagine how perplexed, even vexed, Gibson must feel when the fans ask him 'What is the theme of XXXXX?'

If I ever When I achieve notable literary success, and am asked that question, I hope I shall then keep my current resolve to always answer: "F. Perfect F."

Sphinx-like, even.