|>>|| No. 6705
> I'm not sure why everyone like to suck Gibson's dick for Neuromancer (1984), considering Blade Runner and Tron (1982).
> Gibson didn't innovate anything in particular, he just got lucky and was made into a symbol.
What Gibson really achieved with the sprawl trilogy, far beyond his unrealistic imaginings of cyberspace or his prediction of the Internet of Things was capturing the hearts and minds of an entire subculture of teenage hackers and phreaks. Gibson was able to capture both the thrill of hacking and drive and desire to hack incredibly well, while also fueling the fires of many a teenage fantasy that they could one day be a "cyberspace cowboy" or a "digital samurai" selling their hacking talents to the highest bidder (which, to be fair, most of us actually are).
Essentially the "cyberpunk dystopia" setting was entirely arbitrary and interchangable; other than the silly bit where the AIs merge and become the matrix, Case and Bobby's stories could have been transplanted into any setting with technology advanced enough for Gibson's mumbo jumbo to pass muster and the trilogy would still have had the same success.
> Snowcrash a couple of years ago I thought they were just simply bad. Terrible pacing, trite characterisation... just badly written in general.
Did Stephenson ever really write any sincere cyberpunk fiction? Snowcrash was an on-point lampoon of cyberpunk for the most part, with every character, idea and scenario stereotyped and turned up to 11 for (admittedly negligible) comedic effect (Hiro Protagonist? Come on).