Neuromante

rsf92@lectura.social reviewed Neuromancer by William Gibson (unspecified)

Fascinante

4 stars

[ESP] Es fácil darse cuenta de por qué es tan influyente, aunque ha quedado comprensiblemente anticuado en algunas cosas, como hace notar Gibson en el prólogo.

El libro es más o menos complicado de leer, pero tiene varios pasajes ciertamente fascinantes, en los que se describe el mundo altamente computerizado que se contruye

[ENG] It's easy to grasp why this book is so important, even though in certain aspects it's understandably outdated, as Gibson himself notes in the prologue.

The book is somewhat difficult to follow, but has some fascinating parts in how well he describes the electronics heavy world he built

📖 Leo (leoperbo) reviewed Neuromante by William Gibson

Debe leerse con gran disposición

3 stars

Uno de los libros que me ha resultado más difícil de comentar/calificar... Por un lado, me parece admirable la forma en que Gibson se adelanta a su tiempo de maneras que muy pocos se atrevieron y muchos menos consiguieron convertir casi en "profecías". Por otro lado, la narrativa es difícil de seguir... No por compleja, quizás es un asunto de gusto personal o del momento de mi vida en que lo leí, pero me costó conectar emocionalmente con los personajes. Me lo apunto como un libro al que le debo una segunda lectura, con una disposición diferente de mi parte.

Barcode reviewed Neuromancer by William Gibson

Desert Island Pulp Sci-fi

5 stars

Anyone wanting to argue than Neuromancer has aged like either milk or wine will readily find all the examples they could want to make their case; but the depiction of the consensual hallucination in Neuromancer still reads like a more futuristic network and virtual reality technology than anything we have today.

The words visionary and iconic get thrown around by hypebeasts and idiots to the point they're a debased and inflated currency, but describing Neuromancer without them is telling lies of omission. Parts of Neuromancer still describe a vision of what may yet come (and a far from idealised vision at that).

For anyone who hasn't read it, expect it to make less sense on your first reading than the second. Some things seem overly detailed but on rereading the same ink on the same pages somehow has written different words leaving me a completely different impression second time around. …

Anyone wanting to argue than Neuromancer has aged like either milk or wine will readily find all the examples they could want to make their case; but the depiction of the consensual hallucination in Neuromancer still reads like a more futuristic network and virtual reality technology than anything we have today.

The words visionary and iconic get thrown around by hypebeasts and idiots to the point they're a debased and inflated currency, but describing Neuromancer without them is telling lies of omission. Parts of Neuromancer still describe a vision of what may yet come (and a far from idealised vision at that).

For anyone who hasn't read it, expect it to make less sense on your first reading than the second. Some things seem overly detailed but on rereading the same ink on the same pages somehow has written different words leaving me a completely different impression second time around. I imagine well written murder mystery or noir genre works achieve, but I'm a philistine who hasn't read Agatha Christie or Raymond Chandler so this is naked speculation on my part.

I don't think this would turn anyone who doesn't enjoy sci-fi or cyberpunk into a fan, but any who've enjoyed either I think it's a worth the read and re-read.

Subjects