SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

This an open invitation to all Sci/fi readers to read and share thoughts about an important development in Science Fiction, the so-called cyberpunk movement, which began in the early to mid 1980's. The advent of the personal computer was the springboard for this literature, as writers became more and more concerned about the ramifications of the widespread use of "thinking" machines to safeguard information, as it seemed at the time (and still does) that computers were getting a little too smart for their own good.

The cyberpunk style is also a point of discussion. Writers like William Gibson tend to write in a hardboiled, sparse style, sort of a cross between James Ellroy and Isaac Asimov. The effect is very modern and riveting. I invite all Goodreaders to check out this stuff and feedback. More later.

I'm not a big fan of cyberpunk. My favorite type of science fiction is typically big space-opera stuff, exploring other worlds, finding alien artifacts or civilizations, etc. I don't really mind AI stories, so long as the context is right.

It's just kind of boring to me to read about people sitting around fiddling with computers, or playing around in virtual reality. And William Gibson's style, specifically, I find pretty tedious. And maybe that's where a lot of my resistance to the genre comes from. Though I've also given Charles Stross a shot, and his prose is kind of tedious as well. I think in order for me to find a foothold in that genre, I need to find a writer who writes a little more accessibly.

Mike wrote: "I'm not a big fan of cyberpunk. My favorite type of science fiction is typically big space-opera stuff, exploring other worlds, finding alien artifacts or civilizations, etc. I don't really mind AI..."

What can I say Mike? Reading your post, it doesn't sound like you would enjoy taking part in this discussion. Personally I find Gibson's style clever and exhilarating, his ideas challenging, and his stories and novels way beyong just people fooling around with computers.

As for accessibility, I will admit that a lot of this literature is rough going. You need to put a lot of energy into it, but the rewards are great. I believe that one of the jobs of good sci/fi is to push the envelope in discussing human endeavor, whether it's Wells talking about flying to the moon, or Gibson talking about computers talking to us.

Sorry I'm not a fan of opera, be it "Aida" or epic space opera.

Gibson's prose is more about the clipped, stylish tones of noir, pulp fiction than it is science-fiction. Take most of the technology out of his works, and you get the hard-boiled detective fiction of a Mickey Spillane. Bruce Sterling has a more accessible style. Other cyberpunk authors will tend toward serious jargoning - Stephenson in particular makes up a lot of words to deal with tech as it's viewed by the culture in his works. He also loves words, so he will explore linguistic histories and tricks with words that can infuriate some.

Not to toot my own horn, Mike, but I like to think my prose is a bit more accessible to the non-cyberpunk reader. A number of the people who've read my first novel, Under the Amoral Bridge A Cyberpunk Novel, had never even heard of the cyberpunk genre but still enjoyed the book. Still, if you're looking for an established cyberpunk author with an accessible style, Sterling is your guy.

Cyberpunk is really hit or miss for me. I really hated Neuromancer by William Gibson. Yet, I loved Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. I don't hate Gibson in general, I loved The Difference Engine and Pattern Recognition. I really, really hated Accelerando by Charles Stross, but liked Halting State. I'm currently enjoying his short story collection, Wireless.

For me, I don't think whether I like cyberpunk or not is an issue. I like a well-written story with a good concept that has characters that come to life, whether I like them or not. I don't like stories that are more about the concept than the characters. I think that's why Snow Crash succeeded for me, but Neuromancer failed.

Now that I think about it, one of the things that may hinder enjoyment of Neuromancer is when you read it. When it was released, and probably for the first 10-15 years after, it was absolutely fresh. But it's tropes have been so used, sometimes so badly, that they have become cliches, especially the character archetypes. It's like trying to watch Robotech in the 2000's for the first time. If you've watched ANY anime since then, you'll feel like you've seen all this before. But if you saw it in the late '80's as your first anime, it was the bomb, an absolute revelation.

You may be right. I didn't read Neuromancer until January 2008. It wasn't very fresh and it wasn't well-written enough to have withstood the test of time. I think if the characters had been stronger, it might have worked for me though.

Same as Sandi, I cannot say that I love/hate Cyberpunk. Important are the plot, characters and the settings.

What is your preffered Cyberpunk / Steampunk book?

Patrik wrote: "Same as Sandi, I cannot say that I love/hate Cyberpunk. Important are the plot, characters and the settings.

What is your preffered Cyberpunk / Steampunk book? "

I'd have to say that Snow Crash would be my favorite cyberpunk novel. I first read it in the mid-Nineties and, years later, things in the real world started reminding me of it. I re-read it last year and was blown away by how it really hadn't lost any of its ingenuity or freshness. If anything, it worked better in 2008 than it did in 1993. That's quite a feat for any sub-genre of science fiction.

Patrik wrote: "Same as Sandi, I cannot say that I love/hate Cyberpunk. Important are the plot, characters and the settings.

What is your preffered Cyberpunk / Steampunk book? "

Just about anything by William Gibson, "Schismatrix" and "Involution Ocean" by Bruce Sterling, "Dr. Adder", "Madlands" and "Death Arms" by K.W. Jeter, "Halo" by Tom Maddox. "Mirrorshades the Cyberpunk Anthology" is also excellent. As for short stories, I really like "Gnarl!" a collection by Rudy Rucker, just about anything by Paul DiFillipo, and the collection "Patterns" by Pat Cadigan. This is just off the top of my head; if you want to get further into it or discuss, please post a reply. Thanks.

Gary wrote: "Gibson's prose is more about the clipped, stylish tones of noir, pulp fiction than it is science-fiction. Take most of the technology out of his works, and you get the hard-boiled detective fiction..."

Speaking of Bruce Sterling, have you read "Schismatrix" or "Involution Ocean"? The style isn't as clipped as Gibson's, but the ideas are just as exciting to me. Rudy Rucker is another great writer, and his style is anything but clipped. His collection, "Gnarl!" is great. I also can't recommend K.W.Jeter enough. He's written a few of the "Star Wars" books, but those aren't as interesting as "Madlands", "Farewell Horizontal", or "Dr. Adder". Have you read any of these? Gene Wolfe is an author I really enjoy, especially "The Book of the New Sun", which doesn't qualify as cyberpunk but certainly is a wild ride.

By the way, why would you want to take the technology out of Gibson? Technology, specifically the way human beings are using it and interfacing with computers is the unifying theme of Gibson's work. There are other trails that lead to Gibson, such as the work of Jorge Luis Borges. Compare Gibsons brilliant short story "Johnny Mnemonic" with Borges' "Funes the Memorious".

I just picked up a copy of Charles Stross' "Halting State", and just finished William Gibson's "Spook Country". Anyone want to discuss either of these books?