William Gibson's Neuromancer is a landmark work of science fiction, one of the formative works of cyberpunk literature. Neuromancer foreshadows many of the current societal and economic issues surrounding capitalism and technology, and presents a compelling and disturbing vision of the future. As a big fan of science fiction, I wish I had read this book (and other Gibson works) far earlier.
The most easily noticeable thing about Gibson's work is his writing style. Gibson's writing is very clipped and short in places, long and almost rambling in others. The overall effect is to give his long descriptions added weight. Gibson also uses this to direct attention. Gibson's descriptions of the corporeal world are frequently short and lacking in detail, while his descriptions of cyberspace are stretched and distended. This gives the impression of Gibson lacking the vocabulary or language to properly describe cyberspace (no doubt intentional). I like the obvious care with which Gibson has cultivated his writing style.
Gibson is great at world-building, reminding me a lot of Dan Simmons. Both have a tendency to throw out new words or terminology to describe their worlds, without explaining or giving exposition for them unless totally necessary. Gibson's style is slightly more toned-down compared to Simmon's sensory overload of new terms, a veritable cornucopia of neologisms. It's a style I greatly enjoy, as it keeps the reader interested. It leaves lots of nooks and crannies unexplored, giving one a payoff once the item is properly expostulated at a later time, and presenting the reader with a small reward for remembering the tidbit until now.
Gibson does a great job of exploring the substance of cyberpunk literature without killing it with over-analysis. The old quip about explanation killing humor applies to cyberpunk literature as well. With enough detail, cyberpunk becomes entirely uninteresting. The best way to write it is how Gibson does, by glossing over large tracts of subject matter, leaving them open to reader interpretation and imagination. It's a very hard style to write well, as over-explanation is so much easier than selective under-exploration. Gibson is a master at this.
One criticism I have of Gibson was that he seemed to fall into a pretty well-worn rut with his female characters. His male characters are pretty engaging, but his female characters (at least in Neuromancer) were fairly shallowly explored. Molly, the main female character, is almost instantly attracted to Case, even though he's described as a burned out deadbeat who doesn't sound much more desirable than current-day Charlie Sheen. Molly also has an origin story involving, guess what, a stint in a brothel. Male characters can have a backstory involving a plethora of previous occupations, but for women, brothel girl seems to be almost a necessity. I disliked this not only because it seemed tropey, but also because it was just lazy. Molly could have had an interesting and unique backstory, rather than something as cyberpunk-standard as former sex worker. Linda Lee is a junkie love interest of Case with almost zero agency. And even Lady 3Jane, a massively important character, seems motivated by little more than a desire to rebel against her overly controlling family. Her character was at least a little complex, although under-explored.
Despite my criticisms of Gibson's female characters, I liked a lot of other things about his writing. I want to read more of his books before I make up my mind about what I like about his writing. It has that ephemeral quality that all great cyberpunk literature possesses, that thingness that's difficult to describe, but is so great in a well-done work. I'm on my way to the library to pick up some more of his books, hopefully they'll shed more light on what I like so much. I want to read the first of his Blue Ant trilogy (Pattern Recognition) next, then maybe continue the Sprawl trilogy.