I haven't seen anyone else discussing this, and it's been a coffee morning, so here goes. To qualify this posting, William Gibson is my very favorite author, so my tendency to hold his books in a critical light is low. Having said that, I can't help but notice that a few of his books are starting to feel the same to me. For example, here is a plot summary from one of his books:

Emotionally vulnerable female protagonist with troubled or difficult past searching for a mysterious and enigmatic artist at the behest of a wealthy but suspicious and possibly malevolent employer who places his vast resources at her disposal in order to aid her efforts.

This is one of the plot lines from Count Zero. I didn't mind that in Pattern Recognition the exact same plot was revisited because, after all, creative types recycle ideas with a different twist all the time, and in the case of PR, it worked quite well.

However, now that I'm halfway through Spook Country, and the exact same plot is occurring with the exact same suspicious employer (Bigend and Blue Ant) I'm starting to get hung up. I'm confident the latter half of the book will put my unease to rest (cause I'm a fanboy after all) but I was wondering who else noticed this. I love continuity, really, and perhaps there is some meta-thread of continuity I'm missing because I'm not seeing things in the abstract. Or something. I just, you know, think they are the same. But that's ok. Cause it's William Gibson, after all.

pk

I think rather than recycled plots, they are all simply the same "theme" Gibson likes to work with. He seems to like writing stories about characters who are being manipulated. Often times they don't realize that they are being manipulated, or at least the extent of how much they are being manipulated until the end.

quote:

Originally posted by Clark Nova:
I think rather than recycled plots, they are all simply the same "theme" Gibson likes to work with. He seems to like writing stories about characters who are being manipulated. Often times they don't realize that they are being manipulated, or at least the extent of how much they are being manipulated until the end.

I agree with the theme idea. I find it similar to "road trip" type of novels, and this goes all the way to "Canterbury Tales" at least. There are tons of good books that follow this theme, so I don't let the fact that it's the same basic theme again and again bother me.

quote:

Originally posted by Clark Nova:
I think rather than recycled plots, they are all simply the same "theme" Gibson likes to work with.

Me too!

While the overarching "plot" is the same, what actually happens in the books isn't really all that similar, even between PR and SC. I was slightly disappointed when Bigend and Blue Ant appeared (especially as I didn't feel it really had anything to do with them - although they did get the car ad in the end...) but got over that fairly quickly,

Yes there is a theme going on in the last two books. But really, I don't mind so much that the characters of Hollis and Cayce share similarities. In the end, they are both hired by Bigend to do very similar jobs. And wouldn't it be normal for a guy like Bigend, to look for the same general type of people. He is after all, the same character.
Gibson mentioned that the Character was forcing hiself into the story, and that only after he (Gibson) accepted this, the story started to come toghether nicely.


The similarities between Count Zero and his last two works are indeed interesting. For me it works fine, as Count Zero is playing in such a different universe.

Beside money, what other similarities are between Josef Virek and Bigend?

(I am currently thinking about rereading Count Zero.)

By the way, these are not the only book with strong female characters hunting down some mystery.
In Idoru Chia was travelling to Japan to figure out what happened to Rez. Colin was actually hired to do the same in a different way.
In Virtual Light Chevette first steals the glasses and later tries to find out why everybody is after her.

I guess a mystery is always a good ingredient for a thrilling story. Everybody wants to find out what the buzz is all about.

Couple of years ago, we had a discussion about the common theme of the quest in Gibson's work.

In it I posted about Vladimir Propp's book the Morphology of the Folktale.

Link to old discussion

****************
Your best intelligence is folklore.
- Myth

But Virtual Light totally disproves that:

Emotionally vulnerable female protagonist with troubled or difficult past finds a mysterious and enigmatic artwork and is hunted by wealthy but suspicious and malevolent people who place their vast resources at their disposal in order to stop her efforts.

So does Mona Lisa Overdrive!

Yah, I was only talking about Count Zero, Pattern Recognition, and Spook Country. Not all of his books.

I like what others are saying, about the thematic stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Newromancer:Beside money, what other similarities are between Josef Virek and Bigend?

Both Virek and Bigend are after something intangible, something that Laney would call a "Nodal" point. For Virek it is a kind of immortality that he beilives is possible through his translation to the net, loosed from the vats he currently occupies. For Bigend, I would argue, it's to get at that elusive human factor that moves the species though he wouldn't voice it consciously as such. Both send agents to follow and/or keep tabs on their respective protagonists and despite saying that they hired them for their "intuition" consatnly seem to want updates and press them in directions where intuition might falter. Both protags wind up betraying and or lying to their employers and feel on some level that they have made a Faustian deal.

quote:

Originally posted by Kradlum:
But Virtual Light totally disproves that:

Emotionally vulnerable female protagonist with troubled or difficult past finds a mysterious and enigmatic artwork and is hunted by wealthy but suspicious and malevolent people who place their vast resources at their disposal in order to stop her efforts.

Substitute VL glasses for artwork glasses and you have a similar plot structure.

When Gibson said the world was getting strange enough that he "wouldn't have to reach into the future to tell his story", He really was admitting that he's always retelling the same story.

And it's the same with his male protagonists also. It's in every single book.

Plot, plot, fuckin' plot. As if the plot is all that matters. Many great writers have written the same few books over and over again with much subtler variations than those explored by Gibson. Read a lot of Hemingway? Vonnegut? HAMMETT? I think Hammett had one story in him. And he wrote it a couple hundred times. I still love every one of them.

The beautiful part of reusing that template is that if it's done by a very smart, observant, analytical, [ahem]prescient[/ahem] writer, then you learn something new every time that template is thrown against a different canvas. Who opposes these seemingly harmless quests by these troubled seekers of artists? Why in the world would anyone oppose them? What weird, hidden (or emerging) movement in the world does this opposition show us?

You get that same template in all those books, yes. But you get very different results, and insight into different power structures.

I think that WG works in "cycles". Each cycle carries a theme but it is not the important thing about the work of the artist. I think that WG is trying to perfect a mechanic he started after Neuromancer.

In "Count Zero" he started to work with several threads running as spirals around an axis that advanced in time. So the romance looked like a cone where its vertex would be its conclusion. If I am not mistaken (and I may really be mistaken), in C0 we had 2 threads and in Monalisa Override we had 3 threads.

The same thing happened in Idoru... and then, again, in All Tomorrow Parties and PR.

Now he is working with 3 threads that are spiraling slower than the usual, that's why some people is complaining about the rhythm of the story.

But besides this "mechanical" dynamic experience, WG also works with the idea of perception. Case spent the largest part of his journey trying to figure out what the hell was going on. And the same thing happens to all of his characters. Most notably Cacey, Laney (in Idoru) and then Rydell in ATP...

It seems for me that reality for WG is like an OSI Network Abstraction Model, with several layers. Most of us are at the "application layer", so all we can see are the peer applications. But living at the application layer is not satisfying if you want to know the "why" of the things. Then, there are characters that are able to go one level down, lets say to the "presentation layer" where we get access to standardized data representations... and then down to the "session layer" where the protocols that "bind" things are established etc... all the way down to the "physical layer" where "all real things happen" (what is a real thing anyways???).

This struggle to be able to travel from the virtual to the real (from the "meta-level" to the "implementation level") and vice-versa is the important constant in WG work IMO.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cb4(r2)3t0,

Pattern Recognition was unusual in having only one point of view.

I think the plot, for William Gibson, is secondary to themes and message. But those pesky editors keep asking him for one.

There are common themes in his books (homelessness/rootlessness, lone children, what is art, what is human, what is intelligence) although of course they evolve as he evolves.

And then there are the message he wants to transmit on each book, which varies and is not easy to interpret, except for the last book, where it is openly shown.

I think he switched to present writing rather than Sci-fi because the messages were being ignored or misread. And this time round he has made it as clear and blunt as he can, rather than implicit and elliptic.

Message is probably not the best term, as it cannot be reduced to a simple sentence. He wants to share awareness of a situation, a fact, or an idea. To spread a series of memes around. To share what worries him. Or fascinates him.

I don't see any crossing pattern in any of the three works. For one - Count Zero is set in the future - which was distant in 1987. Second, Pattern Recognition is about Steganography and Large Overarching subcultures in Russia and Japan and England. Third - while there are references to Cuba and China and other places like Afghanistan or Iraq - Spook Country takes place entirely in North America. The outside locations are made to look like an influence of the cultural makeup of the characters - and I think he did a much better job with that in this one than in Pattern Recognition.

Hollis Henry was also not an Independent Thinker. Cayce - while controlled by her work - actually did have conscious thoughts - choices and fears.

Hollis Henry was set up to be a possible Mark for what looked to be on the outset a gigantic lie that could have turned into a piece of death footage. She was the perfectly pliant lamb that Gibson created. She was not a saint by any means - but she was also perfectly compliant in an effort to develop her career - which in any ordinary situation in an ordinary world - not governed by fear - suspicion - and paranoia - could have cost her her life. I think that's what Gibson was really driving at in a way. The drop cloth and the radiation vest made her look like the perfect target for a couple of high impact rounds to the chest on film. Hence the money shot comment I made in an earlier post. She didn't need to go along at any point - yet she kept up her compliance - even to the villainous cuban / chinese mob. And it wasn't a matter of her actually making a decision - it was precisely the danger in the fact that she wasn't making decisions that kept me turning pages from about chapter 50 on.

For the third leading lady - Angie Mitchell - she lived in a world where she could be anyone she wanted to anyone she wanted. She didn't need outside influences. But sometimes people take a fast track to success out of desperation. I believe that was what he was angling at with Count Zero - and I believe that the development of Turner as her rescuer among all of the changes that took place in that book - and Bobby's talking with the Voodoo Gods in everything else that was going on, the dracs and the gangs in his neighborhood that made him take to the matrix the way that he did - they were just things that anyone can relate to as a teenager. The real point of the book was to show off some Firepower - Tensor Grids - and execute a hostage extraction flawlessly. I was a very well orchastrated build despite its brevity in comparison with Neuromancer.

You should stop reading what you want rather than what is actually written. See how the three books present a Quest plot. And the lead in Count Zero is not Angie, who works actually as a McGuffin, but Marly.

It is easy. For leads we get to see the world from their eyes.

Are you sure we are reading the same books?

As Gibson himself said: "Look beyond the shiny toys".

Psychophant - that doesn't relish a response - but I'll give you one. When did you end up a book critic and not someone who actually reads for enjoyment? That's awful sorrowful man. Think of this - Careers can be made or broken on Charisma. You aren't scoring high marks for correcting me on something that is thoroughly based on Opinion. We all have them - we are all entitled to them - and we will all continue to have them. Until the sun explodes. Which will happen say a few million years after you are wiped from existence - as we all are. The only difference is - people tend to like to read things that they actually enjoy. They like to believe that WWII ended in 1943. (or sometime around then). They also like to believe that the Civil War in the United States was over in 1865. They also like to believe that Human Rights are not violated every single day in every part of the world. With these things in perspective - does it really matter if he wrote a brainfart or an epic poem or a classic piece of world literature? Not really. Spook Country is exactly what it says it is. Its a deliberate sell out because Gibson knows this and you don't: It was going to sell if he titled this "This is my shit" Seriously - how hard is it for "the father of cyberpunk" to not be on the New York Times Bestseller list for even scribbling in a blog something that amounts to nothing more than a deliberate attempt not to sell something. Gibson could sell you other people's work and you would buy it. What do you call Wired Magazine. Its a William Gibson platform. A one stop shopping center for all of the usual characters. In todays day and age there is nothing new at all about what he's doing so he's not bothering. He could have my AI regurgitate the Bridge Trilogy in 200 page IRC log and sell it to you - and you would buy it because it was the AI that talked about the Bridge Trilogy. Fortunately at the moment - I haven't discussed that with him - but I'd bet he'd get a laugh out of it. The point you aren't getting is that there is no creativity at all in this style of writing. He signs a contract and puts in his odd hours and makes the customers pay and he does it because there are people out there like you that have to find deeper meaning in the tea leaves. There is nothing deep about it. I didn't enjoy the book or rip it apart based on its structure. Its pointless - its like diagramming a sentence in 7th grade. You can analize a pear and paint a picture of it in a fruit bowl but at the end of the day its still a pear. Its been done and it really doesn't matter what you think of it. Some idiot is going to buy a print of it at an Art Festival and hang it on his bathroom wall next to the toilet paper. So why should Gibson bother with anyone. He doesn't have to - he is clearly bored with his audience - and the only thing that is going to make him change - is by ending the analasis of the structure that you supposedly see that isn't there. Have you counted the chapters in all three books - do they follow the Shakespearean 5 Part Tradgedy. Did Gibson bother with Iambic Pentameter? Did he set the mood with typical Gothic stylings? Was the Mood right - did he make your dick hard? Does it matter. You bought the book and now you are trying to take it apart. And it defies your logic because you think that you can walk in and as some kind of blogger - editor - or the like make some profound statement on why he's just a sham. Consider this. I think you're a sham - you probably spent 7 years drinking your way through a Masters in English and at the end of the day all you get is headaches because you can't figure out why Ella Fitsgerald and her decendants won't sleep with you. Or if they do, they rob you blind in the process. Maybe you're looking for someone a bit skankier - Madame Bovary - whatever your preference - you're not going to find it in these pages - because Gibson has clearly shown you that he doesn't care and he's not going to ever - about how you feel - what you think - or what you presume to know about literature. He's going to keep pumping them out like Crack Vials and people are going to keep buying them - myself included - because i for one like literary crack - it makes me live for days. Right now you are talking to a 36 hour stint and you just pressed the wrong button. Gibson is someone who was an Iconoclast 10 years ago. They don't go out of style. They last until their brand names wear off. In the case of those that change history. They never wear off. Thats the beauty about writing. You can write and write and write and write and write. And every word has about a million more impacts than a spoken word. Because the impressions can be recontextualized. They can be reformatted - The can be reused and they can be scrubbed for errors. Even remixed. Watch this brain fart: My name is Chris is My name Chris? Now I bet I have you wondering. Let me see was I born Chris Bradley or was I born Christopher J. Bradley or Christopher J.A. Bradley. Am I even who I really say I am? You can't know because the printed word on the page means nothing unless you have an opportunity to experience the presence of the person with whom you are conversing. I know for a fact that this dialogue will reach Gibson. And I know why it will reach Gibson - and I know how it will reach Gibson. However you do not - and you will not - and you will go on thinking that the target of your malingering presence here is just some fictitious name out to sell books. I assure you he is not - he won't take kindly to your input - and he will most certainly not praise you for your efforts. And in the meantime - because there is substance in everything I do and say - my work will get to him - and the circuitous paths we take may never actually cross in person until we are sitting down watching my book which he will most delightedly receive premier screening passes for. Because guess what - I wrote it too - I wrote all about the people like you - the deserters - The ones who take everything they are given and give nothing back in return. You are called Sociopaths. Yes we even have a name for you out here in logicville. They are people who prey on other people's trust - confidence - and willpower and they do it in such a secretive and discreet manner as to make them think that it is their fault. There is NOTHING WRONG with SPOOK COUNTRY - COUNT ZERO - or PATTERN RECOGNITION. They are as realistic as they get - they are written from an imaginative mind - and one that likes to occassionally poke fun at the Academy. Since you are from the Academy and you know what it is. Why don't you try refreshing us with some Mozart, Shakespeare, Calculus, Or Maybe Even some Chremistry. How about Latin. You did take that - or weren't you planning to be a doctor or lawyer at some point. No I'll bet you took Comparative Lit and British Literature and spent some months in the British Pub scene to return to a Country that Doesn't want you because you are too smart for them. Then you picked up and took off again - with someone else - ruined a few lives and had a blast. Maybe even snorted a few lines along the way and past some on. Its all there in my diagnosis of you. And you know what - I feel better for saying it. You will not cripple a giant with weak baseless arguments - that have no bearing on the matter at hand. It opened on the NYT at number 6. Still having trouble ranking with it? Oh I forgot - you've been writing the 20 year Joyce Novel with Swiss Spies and Oslo Blend Coffee. Let me tell you something about your Oslo Blend. It has always and will always taste like the bottom of a trash compactor. Not that I know what that tastes like particularly - the experience is purely imagined and highly influenced by George Lucas. But I see your point - I structured this whole thing around one central concept. Its like a pyramid. You write a block and you don't stop until you reach the absolute pinnacle - and then it can't be taken down. I'll sum it up in 5 words. You are logically deducing nothing.

Chris, sorry to disappoint you but I am not answering you, mainly because you keep writing without thinking or reading.

I just make sure your name is not the last name in the thread, or the people that interest me will not post.

If so much people are unwilling to read just a paragraph of your prose, it is no wonder you had to self-publish.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychophant:
I think the plot, for William Gibson, is secondary to themes and message. But those pesky editors keep asking him for one...

There are common themes in his books (homelessness/rootlessness, lone children, what is art, what is human, what is intelligence) although of course they evolve as he evolves...

I think he switched to present writing rather than Sci-fi because the messages were being ignored or misread. And this time round he has made it as clear and blunt as he can, rather than implicit and elliptic...

To share what worries him. Or fascinates him...

Agreed and, as usual, better expressed than I could manage. I think it's his ability to suck me into his own fascinations that keeps pulling me back to his writing. From vat-grown ninja to white-trash troubled cop, to the Brabusian excesses of Bigend, it's that fascination with changing patterns that grabs me. Nobody beats him on that.