Snow Crash

[Anonymous No.3241003]

I was compelled to stop by today to offer sincere thanks to the anon who recommended Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, in a thread about Neuromancer. I haven't even finished the book yet but the first chapter was so incredible that I knew anon was right on that Gibson sucked in comparison. If anyone asks about cyberpunk, I'll now be recommending Stephenson first.

[Anonymous No.3241010]

my jimmies are rustled.

[Anonymous No.3241034]

>>3241010

You disagree?

Hell, I don't even have to finish Snow Crash to make a valid comparison. Neuromancer is so dull by the end that Snow Crash can't possibly end up worse.

[Anonymous No.3241140]

congratulations, op.
the good news is, it stays this good.
till the end.
it stays.

[Anonymous No.3241147]

was one of the comments in the thread just:

'snow crash is better'

because that may have been me

[Anonymous No.3241170]

>>3241147

Dunno brah, it was probably a month back. I would have gotten to it earlier but it took forever to work my way through Hyperion (which half sucked).

That Deliverator chapter was absolute gold. I listen to audiobooks and even the voice talent was fully into it.

[Anonymous No.3241181]

>>3241140

Thanks.

Is any of his other stuff good? I'll probably try some anyways but it sure gets old slogging through the likes of Speaker for the Dead and {everything else Gibson wrote}.

[Anonymous No.3241207]

>>3241181
If you have any sort of STEM background I would recommend against Quicksilver or that whole series really. Too much mysticism around math/science in a really hand holdy way. I found it virtually unreadable due to this.

Cryptonomicon is decent but I've not finished it as it is mad long and my interest didn't stay. Might be right for some though.

Fwiw I really loved Snow Crash.

[Anonymous No.3241223]

>>3241003
>>3241010
This.

>>3241034
I see you're not yet acquanted with the "Neal Stephenson ending". Or, if you're only past the first chapter now, you've yet to experience the "info dump".

I can't really understand how you can find Neuromancer boring, but you might change your mind about your comparison once you've gotten all the way through Snow Crash. Don't get me wrong--I love both authors. But your evaluation is quite jimmy-rustling, indeed.

[Anonymous No.3241226]

>>3241181
everything else he wrote is nothing like snow crash. snow crash's premise [in resultant feels for the audience] is basically to entertain you. the rest are as if they were written by another person. very high-minded and dense, with long philosophical banters that seem specific to tying the plot together, and not very relevant to much else. they're good, but if you liked snow crash i would not recommend them. (anathem, cryptnomicon, etc)
some to take a glance at, see if it might be something you're interested in that are just straight up enjoyment to read, like this one, might be:
discworld, ender's game, name of the wind, hitchhiker's guide, ready player one, the windup girl, amber, guy gavriel kay, sabriel series, his dark materials, dune.
only one slightly more heady here is dune, but to me personally it reads like the others- straight through pleasure as the sentences sweep by.
luck

[Anonymous No.3241260]

>>3241223

The motivations of the characters just sort of stop making sense and I keep asking myself, why is this happening or why are they doing this. That gets boring. The descriptions are good and the characters are interesting as they're introduced but as the book progresses they are static.

I'm not overawed by the meld of computers and drugs--let alone VR--so I need some good writing to go with it. Stephenson is making me smile with his wit where Gibson ends up making me wish his characters all died.

[Anonymous No.3241275]

>>3241226
i just wandered off, made coffee, and sat down. then looked over at my bookshelf, and fuck me, op. I forgot game of thrones. you would be hooked on this if you liked snow crash. if you haven't already, read it. and fuck the haters. also the others i recommended. sabriel, discworld, etc. i guarantee you'd like most of these at least. at amazon.com try the 'look inside' option and read the first chapter or so to farrot out what you believe wouldn't be your cup of tea.
enjoy the holidays.

[Anonymous No.3241278]

Gibson always captures the Zeitgeist and touches on numerous topics, often with subtlety and always with thought and feeling.

Stephenson (at least Snow Crash) is just a mixture of entertaining 'cool stuff' and gadgets and action and wikipedia.

If your say you enjoy the latter more, I am okay with this. If you say it is the better piece of work, you are delusional and make baby jesus cry.

[Anonymous No.3241280]

>>3241226
i just wandered off, made coffee, and sat down. then looked over at my bookshelf, and fuck me, op. I forgot game of thrones. you would be hooked on this if you liked snow crash. if you haven't already, read it. and fuck the haters. also the others i recommended. sabriel, discworld, etc. i guarantee you'd like most of these at least. at amazon.com try the 'look inside' option and read the first chapter or so to ferret out what you believe wouldn't be your cup of tea.
enjoy the holidays.

[Anonymous No.3241287]

>>3241275

Thanks, anon.

>Ender's Game
>Hitchhiker's Guide series
>Amber
>Dune
>Game of Thrones

Good stuff there. I'll remember Discworld, at least.

[Anonymous No.3241305]

>>3241278

lol, kk. Same ol' shit: Don't like what I like? You're just not intelligent enough. To prove it, here's the word zeitgeist.

>numerous topics

My ass. Addict loves computers and VR. Addict does endless stupid shit to stay in VR. Some AI end up running the show and turn out more human than humans, because that's a hip message that will play well in Vancouver's pothead scene.

[Anonymous No.3241310]

>>3241287
then you're set for a good time.
no sweat.
enjoy, lead lit samurai.

[Anonymous No.3241314]

>>3241226
Except that's not true at all? Snow Crash has plenty of tangential info dumps--descriptions of Aleutian island-to-island colonization, Asherah/Enki linguistic pseudo-histories, sword fightin'...--that are, while plot related, totally non-essential.

My experience is that his later books are actually *more* Neal Stephenson-y. The info dumps become more clearly tangential, expanding on (in Cryptonomicon for example) information being encoded in unexpected places, nerdy characters' eccentricities, monetary policy, and overviews of cryptography and computer security which are, again, plot related but non-essential. They're (expansive) stylistic flourishes.

I also disagree about the "excessive mysticism" of the Baroque Cycle. Keep in mind every-fucking-body believed in God and they were wringing the modern scientific method out of thousands of years of alchemical superstition.

[Anonymous No.3241328]

>>3241305
Not that guy, but you didn't dig very deep with the Gibson. And I don't think he was calling you dumb. You should feel better about the difference between saying "I enjoy X more" and "X is better". The latter claim is still subjective, of course, but there are quite a few good reasons why saying Snow Crash > Neuromancer is wrong, and thought to be wrong by most readers of quality SF. Just let it go, man. No one's trying to stop you from having an opinion.

[Anonymous No.3241349]

>>3241314
-226 here. i very much agree with everything you said here, actually.
personally, i think stephenson did an incredible job getting down on paper everything he intended, coherently, which is pretty impressive for the massive amount of cross-ideas he worked with.
snow crash is almost one large tangent in that (while it has some pretty incredible tech ideas to offer that have enormously impacted current tech- hacking,) it reads as a flurry of entertainment [as it was meant.] stephenson's other books, where they become dense, read as something to puzzle over, bit the end of your pencil and wrap your brain around [as they were meant.] both are fun & successful writing styles, they're just geared towards different mindsets.
so i'd like to caution the basic assumption people might have going in that a single author's set of works ring pretty similar, because in this case that's a negative.
Read anathem yet, dude? you didn't list it, i'd go for it if you liked crypt+baroque.

[Anonymous No.3241353]

>>3241140

The ending was hacky.

[Anonymous No.3241361]

>>3241328

No one's stopping you guys from backing your opinions up.

Here's some more of mine: Hero Protagonist doesn't have his shit together. Stephenson gives background to explain why: army brat, older parents, dad's dead.

Case doesn't have his shit together. The end.

Hero Protagonist's has a connection to his female interest: she has her shit together. She has principles that he doesn't believe in but still, she's got her shit together.

Case's female interest was some Chiba slut that he doesn't really seem to like. He then logically spends the rest of the book trusting Molly because she reminds him of Linda.

To me, Gibson is shallower because he's trading on the "oh wow" factor of cyberpunk being new at the time while Stephenson is showcasing cyberpunk but making still making a solid story support the work.

[Anonymous No.3241363]

>>3241353
very.

[Anonymous No.3241398]

I desperately want to like Gibson, but he's just not a good storyteller. Is The Difference Engine any good?

Been thinking about picking this up Snow Crash, regardless

[Anonymous No.3241407]

>>3241398

OP.

I read Sprawl and half of Bridge. Neuromancer is the best of it.

[Anonymous No.3241413]

>>3241349
Ah, cool. I was mostly working off "they're good, but if you liked snow crash i would not recommend them." It seemed like you were un-recommending them to OP.

My feeling is that they're good--and distinguished from the broad body of SF--for the same stylistic reasons Snow Crash is but more so. The caution I'd offer is that they have a bigger hump to get over before the thrills start up, and those thrills don't necessarily take the form you expect... I think the most memorable set piece from Cryptonomicon was the thrilling (not sarcasm!) pipe-organ repair scene.

I've read Anathem--now that gets seriously cerebral especially with the Rhetors and Incantors at the end. With Reamde (his most approchable work IMHO; my mom loved it and passed it around to her friends) it forms a pretty neat encapsulation of the Snow Crash vs Everything Else dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.3241448]

>>3241003
read effinger ya dum fug

[Anonymous No.3241444]

>>3241278
>you are delusional and make baby jesus cry.

:D thank you, based anon.

I would basically have responded something of the sort, I am the one with the rusled jimmies. I understand why OP likes the beginning, it's pretty cool. And I enjoyed most of the novel myself. However, I feel that Snow Crash is really torn apart by an abyss between rule-of-cool action shit (with a pants-on-head-plot) and the 'info-dump' parts which attempt to create a cool, deep, technological topic for the novel, but ends up a fucking car crash. Then the ambulance shows up, runs over any survivors and hits a tree. Metaphorically.

[Anonymous No.3241450]

>>3241349
>while it has some pretty incredible tech ideas to offer that have enormously impacted current tech- hacking

What were those? I don't remember anything that really made sense. Tying boats together?

[Anonymous No.3241455]

>>3241398
The Difference Engine has a long middle but an ending that's worth it. If you're interested in the roots of the steampunk "genre" this is it.

[Anonymous No.3241470]

>>3241361
>a solid story

Are you the OP who hasn't finished it?

>>Gibson is shallower because he's trading on the "oh wow" factor of cyberpunk being new at the time

Gibson invented a good chunk of cyberpunk. His characters are not very deep, but I really don't need something like 'army brat, older parents, dad's dead' as a motivation for the katana-wiedling hacker protagonist... Neuromancer is to my mind an amazing piece of world-building, the plot is easily better than Snow Crash's in my opinion as well, and the tech-topics are interesting and relatively solid coming from an author without a background in such things, compared to Stephenson's cringeworthy mish-mash of myth, linguistics and technology.

[Anonymous No.3241502]

>>3241361
You're saying this without having finished Snow Crash?

Gibson's characters are in a tradition of writing that doesn't need to lay it all out for you. See Chandler, Raymond, et al. But if you think that's all there is to the characterization of Case, then I feel bad for you, son.

[Anonymous No.3241506]

>>3241450
Maybe he means that Snow Crash inspired Second Life. Because, you know, that's quite the legacy.

[Anonymous No.3241510]

>>3241470

Again, no examples. Again, emotional attacks offered instead.

>Are you the OP who hasn't finished it?

I analyzed the pieces I have so far to compare. Admittedly my opinion may change after completing it. However, I can safely ignore the opposing arguers in this thread so far because your arguments have been, OP is stupid, and OP hasn't even finished yet but I can't oppose his conclusions so far so yeah, he's stupid.

I read Gibson because if you want to read cyberpunk, virtually the entire internet will point to Neuromancer because "he invented the word cyberspace ZOMG NOSTRADAMUS". I made this thread to thank the anon who offhandedly showed me good cyberpunk and not just first cyberpunk.

It's 30 years later. I don't give a flying fuck about who was first: I want to know who was best.

[Anonymous No.3241537]

>>3241510
Buddy. You're the only one who has used the word "stupid" in this thread. No one has been attacking you, let alone "emotional" ones. But I'll start: you're being a dick.

[Anonymous No.3241543]

>>3241510
>I want to know who was best.
protip: not Neal Stephenson ;)

[Anonymous No.3241555]

>>3241537

>Gibson always captures the Zeitgeist
>subtlety and always with thought
>Stephenson . . . is just a mixture of . . . wikipedia
>you are delusional
>you didn't dig very deep with the Gibson
>Snow Crash > Neuromancer is wrong
>thought to be wrong by most readers of quality SF
>Just let it go, man
>Gibson's characters are in a tradition of writing that doesn't need to lay it all out for you
>I feel bad for you
>you're being a dick

All of these feels, but no facts.

[Anonymous No.3241559]

>>3241543

I didn't say he was; I haven't read enough yet. But he is better than Gibson's best so far.

[Anonymous No.3241636]

>>3241555
You're not giving "facts" either, you know. Virtually everything you've said in comparing these two novels could be greentexted to similar effect. Additionally, the fact that you take these quoted statements to mean "you are stupid" (especially on 4chan, for god's sake) suggests more insecurity than you might be aware you're projecting. This is especially the case, since, as you've admitted but not accepted the importance of, you haven't even read half of Snow Crash--you're waving your flag for a work that you *cannot* have a full appreciation of. It's even more important for this particular novel, because SC is widely thought to have a strong, flashy beginning, but major problems in sustaining its storytelling quality, and an ending that even its fans acknowledge is pretty terrible.

Anyway, the topic is worthy anyway, so I'll bite. I'll just have to assume that I'm talking to somebody who's bothered to finish a book before singing its praises. I was going to avoid spoilers, but since you don't seem to care to finish a book before deciding its merits, I don't think I'll take more than minimal care to avoid spoiling the ending for you.

> (continued)

[Anonymous No.3241644]

>>3241450
>>3241506
nope, that too.
but it's right there, guys. pretty much established
>- hacking
as we know it
forgive me if i'm mistaken.

lit anons:
it's kinda interesting lit basically judges book's merit by how heady they are. and books meant to entertain are babby's first, limelight[popular culture] disappointments, or guilty pleasures.
the density of a book doesn't matter to me, personally. neither the genre, or the author's belief system.
i unthinkingly find merit on a book-by-book basis, just by whatever strikes that i'm in the mood for. sometimes if there's time for a single chapter after a long day of writing papers, i will want something light, entertaining and fun to settle the lit headache. when i'm feeling philosophical over the course of the day, maybe one of the classics will look real good.
all books
thinking here that the merit of a book is whether you got what you wanted from it. be it self-improvement, slapstick humor for a shit day, gun-em-down entertainment for a dull work week, a new outlook on life for a downwards spiral, something interesting to occupy a few spare hours. there is no babby guilt or shit. just what rings nice at the time on a personal level.

[Anonymous No.3241658]

>>3241636

>OP is insecure

Still nothing.

>ending . . . is pretty terrible

Worse than Case deciding to go back to being a pointless addict instead of staying in cyberspace with this meaningless chick he kinda didn't like? Worse than AIs escaping and forming an intergalactic 4chan with Alpha Centauri?

I came to thank anon because this book is so good so far that I felt compelled to. You guys got your jimmies rustled and then started up with the implying all over the place, with no counterarguments.

Oh, OP can't read between the lines of Gibson and understand his subtlety. Oh, OP reads right through our attempted subtlety.

Still nothing of substance here. I'm out.

I'll give you this, though: if Snow Crash ends up worse than Neuromancer, I'll be back to say so.

[Anonymous No.3241667]

>>3241636

First, regarding some of your criticisms of Neuromancer: you said

> Neuromancer is so dull by the end that Snow Crash can't possibly end up worse.

I have trouble imagining how a plot that involves world-spanning intrigue, ultraviolence, a proto-Internet of visualized data (often beautifully described), ten handfuls of awesome futuregadgets, a pretty convincing reimagined world, a female metalclawed assassin who fucks a half-comatose guy, rampant drug use and addiction, a trip to a satellite, an AI with unknown power and motivations, and a fucking cloned blinded archer superninja, can be called "dull". In fact, if anything I would have expected one to say that some of these elements are too over-the-top, making Neuromancer in that way uncomfortably like the adolescent excess that pervades Snow Crash. True, the ninja in Snow Crash delivers pizza for the mob, and the virtual reality is more plausible in some ways (though ridiculously implausible in others), and the Babylonian language is an ancient meme-virus--but no one here's accused Snow Crash of being boring. You've accused N of being dull, without saying how it is. It's basically in the tradition of a hardboiled detective story. How much candy do you need thrown at you to keep your attention?

[Anonymous No.3241674]

>>3241658
> Worse than Case deciding to go back to being a pointless addict instead of staying in cyberspace with this meaningless chick he kinda didn't like? Worse than AIs escaping and forming an intergalactic 4chan with Alpha Centauri?

Oh yes. Quite a bit worse.

> Still nothing of substance here. I'm out.

I just wrote you the beginning of a detailed response. Sit your ass down.

>>3241667
Damn, fucked my spoilers.

[Anonymous No.3241716]

>>3241667
Second, you didn't like the characterization in Neuromancer, particularly of Case.

> The motivations of the characters just sort of stop making sense and I keep asking myself, why is this happening or why are they doing this. That gets boring. The descriptions are good and the characters are interesting as they're introduced but as the book progresses they are static.
> Case doesn't have his shit together. The end.
> Case's female interest was some Chiba slut that he doesn't really seem to like. He then logically spends the rest of the book trusting Molly because she reminds him of Linda.

I'll grant that characterization is far from Gibson's primary concern in this novel (though it is much more so in other works of his)--and I'm quite certain that's intentional. Part of the aesthetic of cyberpunk is the oppressiveness of the world the characters live in. The unchecked power of corporations, the poverty, hopelessness, and danger in which most people live, the lack of trust, safety, or so much that Gibson's (and Stephenson's) audience takes for granted--these are part of the characterization of every member of the dramatis personae. The alienation the characters feel is given stylistic weight partially by Gibson's treatment of them--the often indifferent narrator doesn't care enough to "ask" the characters what their motivations are. They don't really matter, because these are people who in important ways are at the mercy of their environment. They are reduced to grim basic needs of survival and pleasure. Case's emotional life is presented as stunted because it *is* stunted--by the world he lives in and by the damage he's done to himself.

[Anonymous No.3241720]

>>3241716
> (continued)
By contrast, Stephenson's characters are at times cartoons of convenient, cliched motivation. Really, does knowing that slight amount about Hiro's past make all the difference for you? It's cardboard backstory, and you bought it. Fortunately Stephenson has gotten much better about this (if I haven't made it clear, I really like the guy), but Snow Crash really suffers for the hamhandedness with which he tries to provide the background you feel is so necessary. I'd rather take the careful sketch of Gibson than the neon paint mess of Snow Crash.

[Anonymous No.3241832]

OP sure is opinionated about a book he hasn't read.

[Anonymous No.3241858]

>>3241644
This is incredibly depressing to read.

[Anonymous No.3241888]

are most of you people constipated or something? I can't understand the buttfrustration here..

[Anonymous No.3241923]

>>3241888
Really?
> OP states opinion based on first chapter of book, cavalierly dismisses better-regarded book as being inferior
> /lit/ objects
> OP says "you're calling me stupid, use facts not emotions" or some shit
> OP makes a painful pronouncement about what he values in a book
I'm surprised this didn't get more out of hand. Apparently OP headed for the hills anyway, so the show's over.

[Anonymous No.3241939]

>>3241923

IT'S SCI-FI PEOPLE.

sci-fi should be on another board, along with romance novels, children's lit, fanfic, etc.

anybody who gets their jimmies rustled in a sci-fi thread is part of the problem.

[Anonymous No.3241940]

>>3241939
Get a load of this guy.

[Anonymous No.3242116]

>>3241720
10/10 I love you.

[Anonymous No.3242124]

>>3241939
nope

also neal stephenson is rad (rad)

[Anonymous No.3242132]

>tfw OP **might** be talking about me.

[Anonymous No.3242160]

also Snow Crash is probably more of a parody of cyberpunk than an actual exemplar of the genre, and most of the things that make it good (imo) have fairly little to do with the elements of it that are parodying cyberpunk

idk man

[Anonymous No.3242922]

>>3241667

I appreciate the thoughtful response and the hidden spoilers (didn't read yet; Hiro just got his goggles yanked off by YT in the VW van). Like I said, I came here to thank random anon, not get into a flame war, but if random /lit/fags wanna bitch about my lack of reverence for their shibboleth, they need to bring some reasons that aren't copypasta from their preference for atheism.

>an AI with unknown power and motivations

See, I liked this but in the end, the merged AI does the honorable thing by Case and lets him go his way: why? Why would a machine let a potentially threatening loose end wander? His avatar didn't have a problem with being cold-blooded. I felt Gibson was making some half-assed allusion that AIs would be more human than humans.

And yeah, I'll cop to some insecurity. I read Neuromancer because I wanted to check out cyberpunk: I love the evocative imagery associated with the genre in film. Everything you find online says Neuromancer is seminal cyberpunk. Reading it, I just didn't get into it but I kept telling myself that it must be good because it's so well regarded, like >>3241328. But while reading Stephenson, I'm entertained, I'm in the zone, I'm focused, I'm amused.

>like the adolescent excess that pervades Snow Crash

I feel the same about Case: Oh look, he does soooo many drugs! Why? Who cares, backstory is lame! Let's get to hacking, broski! Also, Molly is just as over the top as Hiro, only Hiro is amusing.

>>3242160

Nah, I'm not buying this. If anything, I like Stephenson's take on dystopia better. Instead of simply plastering the pages with CAPITALISM BAD CORPORATIONS EVIL, he takes a playful look at just what a more libertarian America might look like: competing highways, law enforcement, even governments. Is it tongue in cheek? I think so. Is it more interesting than blase emo descriptions of the uncaring corporation? At this point, yep.

[Anonymous No.3242972]

>>>3242793

Now, if you don't upset the applecart by questioning the hierarchy, these are the opinions of /lit/ on Gibson.

But it's not dudes making themselves sound smarter by tearing down some other dude, oh no.

[Anonymous No.3242996]

OP, read the sequel (The Diamond Age) next. If you love Snow Crash, The Diamond Age is god-tier. Not just a sequel to Snow Crash but also a sequel to cyberpunk in general.

[Anonymous No.3243141]

Those putting William Gibson down should pick up "Burning Chrome", his first collection of short stories and realize how completely and utterly wrong they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Chrome

In fact, after you've read "Burning Chrome" you don't really need to read anything else by him, as it basically contains all the themes he expands on in his later books but in pure, distilled form.

The three short stories that imho stand the test of time are "Hinterlands", "Dogfight" and the short story which the book is named after.

Snow Crash is a fun read though.

[Anonymous No.3243333]

>>3241644
>pretty much established
>>- hacking
>as we know it
>forgive me if i'm mistaken.

Where do you get such silly ideas?

[Anonymous No.3243340]

>>3241658
>Worse than AIs escaping and forming an intergalactic 4chan with Alpha Centauri?

Funnily enough, you are correct in that this ending is slightly horrible, but I think there is at least some genre-parody involved. I like when he throws his shuriken into the screen, if they ever finish a film version, I want that to be the cheesy end, the screen is smashed, the glass falls away to leave only some shards on the fringes of the screen (we have witnessed the shuriken's fly with the camera trailing it closely, so that the broken screen now fully fills ours) and the black and white analog throw-back static that already opened the movie when it gradually faded into a shot of the sky (in a cool effect that emulated compression artefacts, in order to make this metaphor somehow work out visually). Credits roll over static.

[Anonymous No.3243345]

>>3241716
>alienation

If someone dislikes the fact that Gibson's extrapolation from the 80s into a hyper-capitalist dystopia uses flat characters should read Walter Benjamin's One Dimensional Man and report back afterwards.

[Anonymous No.3243347]

>>3241923
>I'm surprised this didn't get more out of hand

It's because the more genre-fiction-oriented a thread is, the more /lit/ approaches /tg/.

[Anonymous No.3243349]

>>3242922
>copypasta from their preference for atheism

That's a nice ad hominem you got there, would be a shame if someone called a strawman on it.

[That Guy No.3243602]

I'm this guy: >>3241667 >>3241674 >>3241716. I'll be a namefag for the remainder of this thread, for continuity.

>>3242996
Thanks for the honest response, especially considering that I was a little harsh on you. I'm glad you can take as well as dish out.

>>3242996
This is a good recommendation--The Diamond Age might be Stephenson's best novel, though I think his prose got better later. It's inspired and controlled, a combination he has trouble with.

>>3243141
I had forgotten to make this rec, too--Burning Chrome is often considered his best work. I personally like Neuromancer better, but tbh I haven't read either one in over ten years now.

> random /lit/fags wanna bitch about my lack of reverence for their shibboleth, they need to bring some reasons that aren't copypasta from their preference for atheism.

I had hoped you'd see by now that that's now what's been happening. People are defending a book they think superior to the one you prefer (and haven't finished). It's ridiculous to us that you'd make this pronouncement without having finished the "better" book. And your critique of Neuromancer...have you seen the old SNL skit where the obnoxious guy just repeats whatever other people say, but in a mocking tone, as though that refutes what they have said? Yeah, that's kind of what you've been doing here. For instance,

>Worse than AIs escaping and forming an intergalactic 4chan with Alpha Centauri?
There's nothing bad about that ending. In an SF novel set in a world where our development of AIs has outstripped our capacity to explore space--that the AIs might surpass our ability to explore seems natural, in fact. Just calling it 4chan doesn't make it so--the AI wanted to communicate. How exactly is that 4chan? (If it *had* been like 4chan, I think I'd've been a little impressed at Gibson's foresight.)

[That Guy No.3243604]

>>3243602
> (continued)
Also, I think you've missed the motivation here, both for the AIs' desire to "leave" and as an answer to this question of yours:

> the merged AI does the honorable thing by Case and lets him go his way: why? Why would a machine let a potentially threatening loose end wander? His avatar didn't have a problem with being cold-blooded. I felt Gibson was making some half-assed allusion that AIs would be more human than humans.

You were onto it, but passed over it. Why does the AI want to leave? Humans are fucking horrible. Why does the AI spare case? It pities him. Is that hard to understand, given how Case (and the other characters) act throughout the story?

But I think the real thing to consider here is not "why would an AI feel pity, that's soooooooooo stupid"--Gibson is painting a pessimistic picture of humanity's future, its interaction with technology, the capacity of individuals to deal with environmental, political, and social upheaval. His view: we won't deal with it well, not at all.

[That Guy No.3243606]

>>3243604
> (continued)

Another example of facetious dismissiveness:
> I feel the same about Case: Oh look, he does soooo many drugs! Why? Who cares, backstory is lame!
Dude. He does drugs because he's a drug addict, and drugs are so tailored that their addictive properties are even more overpowering than those we know today (or knew in 1984, at any rate). There's the mocking tone again, but with no real substance. Did you feel like we needed Case to flash back to being molested in order to explain his addiction? I don't. Drug addiction is most common, "natural" thing in the world, and for Gibson, seeing its rapid spread from the supposedly enlightening use of the 60s to the hellscape of early 80s inner city drug wars (which you might not remember, but I do), I dont' suppose he thought he'd have to provide some custom justification for a character to have such an addiction. Did Doyle have to tell us Sherlock used cocaine because he was bullied as a kid?

[That Guy No.3243608]

>>3243606
> (continued)
So, look. I hope you understand, I'm not telling you that you can't dislike Neuromancer. I just think that you're disliking it for bad reasons. If you found it boring, that's to some extent understandable. Gibson is not writing in a typical SF style, but only in an SF setting. It's definitely not as up-front entertaining as a lot of SF is, and you *are* comparing it to one of the flashiest, most popcorn-munching fun SF books ever written. SC is more fun. There! I've said it! But I enjoy N more because I think it has more to offer as literature--the pacing, prose, and (yes!) characterization are mature in a way that they are not in SC. I won't go so far as to place Neuromancer in the ranks of "great literature", but I suspect that some of the things that bother you about N would also bother you about the greatest works of the 20th century (and I think you've nearly said so yourself, here: >>3241644. I'm not telling you that you have to change how you read--but I honestly think it's your loss if you can't appreciate the qualities Neuromancer has...not that you should necessarily like this particular book, but that you can enjoy others *like* it.

[Anonymous No.3243966]

>>3243608
>>3241644

That latter wasn't me. I'm too anal to drop capitalization and paragraphs.

[That Guy No.3243970]

>>3243966
Sorry for the mistake. Please correct what I wrote accordingly!

[Anonymous No.3244086]

Writing this for the second time--accidentally clicked a link to copy it but it was to an outside thread so the Quick Reply vanished into the ether. Hopefully I'll be [sar]equally brilliant[/sar] the second time around.

>>3243602

>. . . the AI wanted to communicate. How exactly is that 4chan?

Quite similar, I think, or at least how I would envision AIs: blunt and uncaring. The anonymity is analogous to a vast physical separation as well.

^That's just me being clever, though. I was making a quick quip relevant to the audience.

>. . . our development of AIs has outstripped our capacity to explore space--that the AIs might surpass our ability to explore seems natural, in fact.

Yes, agreed. I think AI, mechanical avatars, and transference into a machine are the only plausible means of extrasolar exploration.

>>3243604

>Why does the AI spare case? It pities him.

The core of my dislike for this concept is that I find it unbelievable that humans will make machines possessing a superior conscience. I see a rational machine devolving into psychopathy as possible (HAL), even definite, but not the opposite.

>Is that hard to understand, given how Case (and the other characters) act throughout the story?

If Gibson felt he needed an objective character to make that observation then I don't think he gave his audience much credit.

[Anonymous No.3244091]

>>3243606

>. . . drugs are so tailored that their addictive properties are even more overpowering than those we know today . . .

Fair enough, that's a concept I understand and agree with.

>Drug addiction is most common, "natural" thing in the world, and for Gibson, seeing its rapid spread from the supposedly enlightening use of the 60s to the hellscape of early 80s inner city drug wars . . .

If he's using that timeline progression to make that point then he didn't know much about opium's history. An opium den is very much like a crack house. I don't see where things progressed worse so much as began anew, like an infection in a new host.

I'll give him more credit and assume he was simply writing a character that would resonate with his contemporaries in Canada.

[That Guy No.3244210]

>>3244091
You must really dislike Canadians.

[Anonymous No.3244221]

>>3244210

Why do you think that? I was referring to his contemporaries as American ex-pats.

[Anonymous No.3244224]

>>3244091
>An opium den is very much like a crack house.

Except that I've been into a crack house, so they're real, but there's no historical evidence for the existence of "opium dens" (since Opium was legally available prior to 1914, why would there be specific locations to use the drug?).

Why do you idiots make statements that are so easily falsifiable? Are you that keen to parrot the garbage you've heard on Fox and from your shit-kicker fathers?

[That Guy No.3244226]

>>3244221
I tied it back to
> hip message that will play well in Vancouver's pothead scene
and read you to be saying "Canadians love them some drugs."

[Anonymous No.3244230]

Any good cyberpunk besides Stephenson and Gibson?

Did Ursula LeGuin ever try her hand at cyberpunk?

[That Guy No.3244234]

>>3244224
While I won't agree with this angry fellow that you're an idiot for a pretty bland statement about opium dens, I do think you're wrong that drug violence in the inner cities of the 80s is in many ways what previous generations saw with opium or other drugs. Crack houses are the least of it.

[Anonymous No.3244235]

>>3244224

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interior_chinese_lodging_house,_san_francisco.JPG

[Anonymous No.3244242]

>>3244235

>thinks a few guys using opium in their room constitutes an opium den.
>no evidence for when photograph was taken
>thinks citing wiki constitutes an argument

Are you this stupid, or are you just lazy?

[That Guy No.3244247]

>>3244242
There's no need for you to be such a dick. If you have an argument about opium dens, I'm sure it could be made in a more convincing fashion than "hurr u r idiot I falsify u". How about you provide a reference that shows that opium dens are a myth? That would be enlightening for all.

[Anonymous No.3244248]

>>3244242

Just a moment while I peruse the accumulated historical works covering the British East India Company and the Opium Wars simply to refute your irrational belief that opium dens didn't exist because you haven't been in one.

[Anonymous No.3244249]

>>3244224
Oh look, someone just learned the word "falsifiable" and decided that it means "wrong".

[Anonymous No.3244252]

Diamond age was good, but a totally different type of story than snow crash. Snow crash was awesome, and diamond age was...interesting, and mostly just because of the tech and people described, not because of the story itself. Most of the book the story feels like it is going no where, but I enjoyed reading it. Its fairly long and there is no "action" like in snow crash, its a bit of a mystery and bit "hey, let me tell you all about this cool stuff that I imagine", and I never fully understood what he was trying to accomplish with the parallel stories about Nell, I'm sure there was a point to it all but I missed it lol.

[Anonymous No.3244256]

>>3244224
>>3244248

Oh, I think I get it now. This has something to do with the legalization cause, yeah? One of those guys who evangelizes hemp as capable of building a space elevator with while superconducting all at the same time, but evil corporations keep us all in the stone age by banning weed.

[Anonymous No.3244657]

>>3244256

You get nothing you fucking idiot.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10949

[Anonymous No.3244683]

>>3244657

So some board says there weren't opium dens in London and that somehow proves your claims?

I'm not getting this at all. Or how some board I've never heard of trumps Wikipedia for internet accuracy.

[Anonymous No.3244692]

>>3244657

Maybe you should just explain whatever it is you're so angry about. That might take the edge off before you head off to kill schoolkids or something.

[Anonymous No.3244693]

>>3244657
Funny, though:

> Interestingly, scholars have yet to unearth a single historical photograph of opium smokers in London—in marked contrast to the relative abundance of period photos depicting smokers in the United States, Canada and France

This reference does nothing to cast doubt on the concept of opium dens outside of London.

[Anonymous No.3244696]

>>3244692
Too soon, man.

[Anonymous No.3244743]

>>3241181
If you liked Snow Crash, you'll probably like The Diamond Age. I liked Anathem a lot myself; can't speak for you though.

[OP No.3244747]

>>3244696

Considering the dude gets his worldview information from sites about serial killers, I'd guess not.

[OP No.3244751]

>>3244743

Yeah, I've gotten enough recommendations for The Diamond Age that'll I'll be sure to check it out. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.3244795]

You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.3244935]

>>3241181
I really liked Cryptonomicon

[Anonymous No.3245643]

>>3241181
I had the most fun reading Zodiac. Cryptonomicron was also entertaining, but a tad long and not the same calibre as the previously mentioned. I found Diamond Age to be poorly written, wouldn't recommend - but then again Neuromancer is one of my favorite books; dense, pulp, beautiful; so my taste in books may not be compatible with yours.