Neuromancer

So Neuromancer is one of those books that I've always promised myself that I will read, but never managed to get round to it.

For whatever reason I sat down with it over the past few days.

It's one of the first books to approach cyberpunk and is the defacto standard upon which all other dystopian future books and movies are judged.  I say this knowing that certain other works, like bladerunner, came before it, and were an obvious influence on the aesthetic, dialogue, even the names used throughout.

In short, this book is spectacular.  I don't necessarily mean that in the literal sense of being a spectacle to behold, moreso the hyperbolic sense of being something truly unique.  It may be that I am pre-disposed to liking anything in this setting, which may or may not be true, but the story works on a personal level that is exemplified by a single line of dialogue at the very end of the book.  A fundamental nature of existence is revealed to one of the protagonists that fundamentally alters the outlook of their universe - yet I could care less because it doesn't directly involve the characters that I have followed from start to finish.  I care more deeply about the people than the very nature of existence for something that is not human.

It is often said that the root of a good story is good characterisation, and this is why something like Robinson Crusoe divides opinion (is the island a character or not, and if so, is that appealing to the reader?) whereas something like the Titanic movie does not (it's a universal love story that happens to be set upon a famous boat and is either liked or loathed without having to delve into why).  Whether you enjoy these stories is irrelevant because the central theme of the knowably human is evident throughout Titanic, but more difficult to find in Crusoe.

Cyber Punk is often accused of being an excuse to set a scene.  To have worldbuilding overtake the character and assume life as Defoe managed (I think) to do two hundred years ago.  I think this is to criminally undersell the value of world versus character, but it is a complaint I have seen time and time again with everything from music to painting to dance.  How can I relate to the work.  How can I understand what is being said through it.

Neuromancer understands people.  It is a book written by someone who sees a world through the eyes of a character as opposed to showing you the character acting within a world.

I don't know if anyone reading this will have a mechanically altered pancreas that filters out drugs, or mechanical eyes, or the ability to telepathically alter the world around them, but these characters are as human as anything you will see in any other fiction.

That the science behind their augmentations allow them to interact in such a way is testament to the abilities of characters to work within the genre, and is something many authors have failed to replicate.  Why care about a world, when everyone is a crudely drawn archetype?

In this way I think Neuromancer is the perfect gateway drug.  It starts with a now infamous line, carries a story through locations that are as real as any documentary, and ends with a bomb that left me feeling hollow.  The kind of hollow that drops the gut and reminds us of the power of great literature.  Stories take on the experiences of the reader through a myriad of twists and turns that remind us of our past, our feelings and, fundamentally, of who we are.  Whether it has the same effect upon you as it did me can only be discovered through reading, so get to it.  It's available freely online with a quick google search or here, and isn't so long as to be overbearing.

Neuromancer is the high watermark for fiction of this genre and is a classic in any.