SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

This was a book I had to read for a course at uni. I never finished it. This is the book that scared me off science fiction until recently (many thanks to this group!).

I just remember it as being incomprehensible and alienating. I had no idea what was going on. I couldn't visualise anything. I don't even know what it was about. I still have my copy, but I haven't felt any urge to try reading it again, even though I hate giving up. (I have read Pattern Recognition by Gibson so I know he can write like a normal human being.) Still, that was about 10 years ago...

Did anyone else have a less-than-pleasant experience with this book? Anyone care to try to explain to me what the hell was going on?

I read it when it first came out or close to it, as I recall. It was published along with some other books that were also of different styles (similar covers, promotion, same publisher & rack in the book store) one was a new take on zombies. Good, but I don't think I have it around any more.

William Gibson set a new genre with Neuromancer & originated the the term cyberspace. An awesome accomplishment, but the style is not like most other books & can be disquieting. I enjoyed it, but can see your objections. Maybe it's an acquired taste. I think you should try it again & see how it strikes you now.

A lot of people have copied this style (Cyberpunk) & taken it further out where some of the books aren't palatable to me. I didn't like the later books quite as well. Count Zero was OK, as I recall, but I don't think I liked Mona Lisa Overdrive as well. It's been a while since I read them (10 or 15 years?).

I, too, didn't enjoy this book so much. Though I am glad I read it for its significance, it was disappointing. I didn't hate it, though. My conclusion was that it is probably one of those books that was great in its day...much like Stranger in a Strange Land.

This was one of my first cyberpunk books and it turned me off to the sub-genre for a while. However, I got over this after reading Snow Crash.

Julie, wrong topic? This is about William Gibson's novel Neuromancer & there are only 3 books in the Sprawl series.

Sounds like you meant to post about King's Gunslinger series.

For the first 1/3 of the book, I was really sure that I was never going to figure out what was going on. It was almost like reading a foreign language - I was reading the words, but they weren't putting together any pictures for me.

By the end, things made more sense, but it had me really frustrated for a while. In the end, I can say that I liked it but didn't love it.

yeah ignore that. I must have had a brain fart this morning. sorry about that.

Fortunately I read this only recently, after reading his later books and alot of other "cyberpunk", so I was able to put it in perspective as it being the first of its kind and starting off the whole visual reality vs reality train of thought. Therefore I liked it alot. Kind of like you may not like a piece of modern art until you learn the conceptual advance in regards to the history of art.

I think it's the writer's job to communicate. (I think it's the artist's job to communicate, too, for that matter, which is why much modern art passes me by.) Always seems to me sheer arrogance to insist your audience have to figure it out for themselves - which is not to say you can't strive for something readers have to think about it.

What do others think? Is communication or originality the first rule of storytelling?

I really loved Neuromancer when I first read it (and I've read it a couple of times since), plus I plan on reading it again this month just for the group, but I do see where Brooke is coming from. I think that I might not have faced similar issues because I was already steeped in a great deal of cyperpunky film and comic books when I got to Neuromancer. I had the jargon down, and was able to immerse myself in what Gibson was doing.

I have also come at Neuromancer from a different direction, having taught it a couple of times for a Canadian Lit course, and I will say that there seems to be a section of men and women who interface with Neuromancer more readily than others. In fact, I would only say about a third of the class, in both instances, actually engaged fully with the novel. And those thirds were made up of mostly computer science and physical science majors, or the more pop-culture-pretentious English students (not to be confused with those who simply dig popular culture). All of this to say that you are not alone Brooke, and that Gibson's novel is not universally accessible.

Which leads me to S.A.'s question about the first rule of storytelling: communication or originality. Ultimately I think a mix of the two is most important, but on their own both can still create masterpieces. Gravity's Rainbow is totally inaccessible, but it is a genius work that makes the reader work. It is a classic. Sure not everyone will read it, nor even can read it, but it is a masterpiece and there are those who will venerate it as such. And the same goes for something like Twilight. It has no originality whatsoever, but it has clearly communicated to a huge portion of the reading public in a way that other books simply can't. Is it as "literary" or "original" as Gravity's Rainbow? No. But it is still a work that will probably stick around as Stephanie Meyer's masterpiece, and remain popular far longer than I might think it should. So I figure both originality and communication have their places and their examples of success, but a mix of the two is much better. (But if I had to pick one or the other I would personally choose originality over communication -- but that's a purely subjective choice based on what I prefer).

It's one of my all time favorite novels. I think it's brilliant, and not just because it spawned an entirely new genre. I just love the writing.

That said, I can see how some might find it tough going. Gibson stumbles a bit, particularly near the end, when his descriptions of cyberspace get pretty choppy and readers have to fill in the blanks. As has already been said, I think some people just "feel it" more than others, and I wouldn't dare say which reaction is the right one! I agree with SA that a writer's job is to communicate effectively--it's just that one person's native tongue is another's foreign language, I guess.

I like Nate's way of putting it - one person's native tongue is another's foreign language. Because you will always tend to think in your native tongue no matter how fluently you speak someone else's language...

Very good metaphor!

I'm loving this discussion! I've always felt almost embarrassed that I didn't get this book, so I have to admit I'm glad it's not just me. Also, I shouldn't confuse this novel - which you've pointed out is cyber punk - with science fiction in general. And I really liked Snow Crash, which surprised me - I found the language much more accessible, which leads to what Brad and Nate were saying.

Sometimes it depends on what kind of mood I'm in, too, as in, sometimes I enjoy the challenge of a more "difficult", literary book, and delving into an original style. Blindness was like that, and even One Hundred Years of solitude - I do remember reading Gravity's Rainbow for uni and finding that one a slog, but nothing near as painful as Ulysses! I love these books that strive to paint with words, showing us something mundane in a new way. But not everyone's going to like the painting or get anything out of it, and everyone gets something different from the same thing: the magic of art! I know that's an obvious statement but it's one of the reasons why I love books/stories so much!

Being a person of some antiquity, I now tend to demand good writing from the books I read. I just don't have time to fathom the meaning out of poor construction, and I've a million ideas of my own to explore. Besides, I want writers I can aspire to, I don't want my brain in editorial mode all the way through the story.

This is why I do tend to think a good idea doesn't make a good book. Good writing makes a good book. If SF aims to move out of geek ghetto into the mainstream, all SF and fantasy writers should be aspiring to become experts in the craft of writing.

Writers in this genre do frequently have fantastically original things to say about life, the universe and everything and they do themselves and their readership a disservice by not saying it to the best of their ability.

Sorry, rant over!! This has been a gripe of mine for 30 years, one of the reasons I went off reading SF and fantasy and went back to reading factual history and classics - and partly why I tried to write a fantasy story for people who don't like fantasy.

I have to admit I am confused by the topic. What exactly didn't people "get"?

The writing style? The subject matter? I guess I need some clarification before I can comment.

Good point, BunWat. I'm really only saying it's not something that should be attempted by inexperienced writers. I think you need to learn the craft before you start to break the rules.

A very fine line between innovation and arrogance; which relates to another thread discussion (under "Why I wrote...") about the role of ego in writing!

Anyone read Iain M. Banks' Feersum Endgin ? (I may have spelled the title wrong!) A man who can do innovative writing I believe. And who, of course, doesn't only write SF.

I think Brad might have hit it when he said that the people that tend to get it are often computer or physical science types. I'm a computer type & even back when it first came out, I had no trouble picking up what he was saying. It was a minor brain shift.

My wife, who won't touch a computer, hated it. She put it down very quickly.

That is an interesting point...you have to have some very basic comfort level in the IDEA of cyberspace and the possibility of living "in it" the way it's described.

I also think Shannon's point of being in a particular mood is important. I actually think that's FAR more important to everyone's perception than most realize...even editors may love a new manuscript that comes across their desk because of their mood at the time, where if they read it after lunch, when they were tired, or whatever, they might pass it up without a second thought. I'm not talking about junk vs. fabulous writing, but more about those books that are well written, but may or may not give a particular reader that spark. And as a writer, I'm way too familiar with that common editor's rejection..."Well written, but it just didn't quite do it for me."

I'm a "computer type" (a programmer actually), so I spend most of my day in front of a computer. I'm absolutely comfortable with the idea of cyberspace. Yet I did not like this book. I tried to read this summer for the first time and I couldn't bring myself to finish it. I understand that it's a classic that started the new genre, but I had already read several good cyberpunk books, so there was nothing new for me there. And I did not like the writing style of the author that much.
On the other have had I read it 20 years ago it probably would have blown me away. Every book has its time I guess.

Exactly, Dima! I read it maybe fifteen years ago now, maybe more...totally different experience, I think. The freshness, the discovery, is gone. We've seen more impressive things now on the big screen, but back then, this was totally new.

Molly, I can't speak for anyone else but frankly I had no idea what was going on. I mean in terms of plot, situations - I couldn't picture anything in my head and felt alienated by the obscurity of the language. I haven't picked it up since (I'm talking 8, 9 years ago now) so I don't know if it'd be the same now. But I have no idea what this book is even about. What is the plot?

I felt the same way, Shannon. Even though I'm pretty familiar with the idea of cyberspace, and have seen movies like the Matrix, the situations that were occurring didn't have a lot of explanation.

As far as the plot, Case is basically hired onto a team that is supposed to infiltrate a corporation's headquarters and free an AI. But that takes a really long time to become clear.

I read this book earlier this year simply because it is a classic and it started a genre. I had already read "The Difference Engine" and "Pattern Recognition" and loved them both. I read Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash" back in the mid-nineties and I read quite a few books that might be considered cyberpunk. I also read a lot of difficult and complex novels.

I hated "Neuromancer". I just couldn't understand what the big deal was. Maybe it was because so many writers have handled it's concepts better in the last 25 years. Maybe it's because it was so dark and so incomprehensible. Maybe it was because the technology seemed a bit dated. Most likely, it was the whole computer/drug thing that got me. I just didn't like it at all.

I do agree the plot takes awhile to gel, and at the beginning you have NO idea what the hell is going on, plus you are dropped without a clue or explanation into what is a whole different world.

And it is so so true that timing is everything. Had I started this book in even the slightest different mood, I would have tossed it. Perfect fit for a perfect time, so I was intrigued and curious enough by Gibson's vision to put comprehension on hold and give it the time to come clear. Also, since I had read other cyberpunk books, it was almost like going back in history to the beginning of when it all started for mankind. But then too, I hadn't read a ton of other cyberpunk books yet, so it was like cyperpunk 101, and helped me enjoy the later ones even more as I had "studied" the basic scientific premise.

And then once the plot got going, I was hooked.

SPOILER AT VERY BOTTOM OF POST!!!


Shannon, I think what first needs to be said about Neuromancer is that it is at heart a noir mystery with a bit of military thriller thrown in. Nothing more than that.

You have a protagonist who is a dark, self-destructive depressed type, brooding over a lost love. Instead of being a PI in real life, he is kind of a PI on the internet.

Add in the military thriller part in the form of Corto, Molly, and the assault on the database in Villa Straylight.

It's pretty straightforward, once you get over the writing, which tends to be minimalist. Gibson doesn't want you to figure it out for yourself, IMO, at all. Gibson wants to make you feel rather than think.

it's hard for me to imagine why cyberspace would be a difficult concept to grasp, even for non-computer people, but that may have a lot to do with the fact I have been reading science fiction literally since 1st grade. I got used to imagining wild things, but then, while this may insult some of you and I apologize, if you can't imagine three impossible things before breakfast perhaps science fiction is not the correct genre for you. Maybe it's elitist but sci-fi is for thinkers.

Following is a spoiler:
























Also, Shannon, the basic story is that all of the characters in the book are being manipulated by the Artificial Intelligence Wintermute in order for it to escape computer programming which held it captive. So it's a noir military thriller about an AI that wants to run away from home.

I loved 'Neuromancer' when I first read it. I loved the way it reworks noir motifs. An alienated anti-hero is hired by a dangerous femme fatale to undertake a job, the full nature of which escapes him. He wades into the shadows of a secret world, into a city within a city where his every move is watched and his actions have inhuman consequences.

Gibson and other 'cyberpunks' were writing in reaction to older, conservative modes of Science Fiction. 'Neuromancer' reads like a head-through-a-jet-engine visual overload. The future it presents is jagged, untidy and bewildering and it is meant to give you a headache. Its style is in direct opposition to the clean, utilitarian writing of previous SF. 'Neuromancer's world is a world that feels lived in. Clothing, furniture and food all become important. Gibson's prose is riddled with throwaway references to products, fabrics and brand names that don't exist but it serves to add to the rythm and noise of a believable future. Next to the one-piece jump-suits and gleaming plastics of older SF that's a huge leap forward. 'Neuromancer' also introduced the gimmick of presenting cyberspace as a glittering 'city of code', which makes the hacking sections of the book a lot more interesting than reading about a glassy-eyed man hammering at his keyboard as Dorito crumbs gather on his belly.

A lot of different people invented the steam-engine before the steam-engine was invented. The same is true of cyberpunk. You can find stories and novels dealing with similar ideas that predate 'Neuromancer.' In the 70's there was an episode of Doctor Who that dealt with the Doctor plugging into a computer system called 'The Matrix' and fighting for his life in a virtual world (imagine Keanu Reeves with curly hair, a hat and a very long scarf and you're half-way there.) 'Neuromancer' is the book that everyone sat up and took notice. Nowadays it may be a little clumsy and dated but it pushed SF into new stylistic and conceptual ground. Just last week I paid a visit to that ground and there are benches and playgrounds and ice-cream vans and it's really quite nice. You should go there.

Dima, I think you're right about the time. I did read it 20 years ago or so. It did blow me away then. Not so much now. I often have trouble looking at books with a 'new' eye when they've held a place in my mind for so long.

Although I'm not quite done reading it, I decided to write my review already. I copy it here for discussion because it fits this thread:

---------

Context. Sometimes the key to understanding something is context. And never is that more the case than with the book Neuromancer. Neuromancer is a very famous, genre creating/changing book, winner of many awards. I’m reading Neuromancer for the first time; while not quite done, I find the story to be decent and the writing to be ok. As just a book that I am reading, I would call it fair. But that is an evaluation without context.

Under what context does my evaluation change? Well, one of the first things I noticed when I picked it up is that it was originally published nearly 25 years ago, in 1984. And it is at that point that the context suddenly clicks and becomes crucial. Neuromancer is a book about, in large part, individuals exploring and exploiting cyberspace and, to a lesser extent, about artificial intelligence. When this book was written, the vast majority of people did not own a computer; it was just around the time when the idea of a family buying one started to become prevalent, and the computer they could buy did not have a hard drive and probably had no more than 64kb of RAM (the Apple IIe my family got in 1985 was “expandable” to 128kb of RAM…more than almost any program we would want to run could possibly need). Pretty much no one had heard of the internet and email was virtually unknown. The World Wide Web and webpages as we think of them today were still about 8 years away (I was reasonably plugged in at the time and I first heard about WWW and html around ‘92/93…prior to that the internet for most people was email, independent bulletin boards [anyone remember CompuServe?:], anonymous FTP, and Gopher). When one considers what the world was like, what fiction about computers was like, at the time it was written, Neuromancer must have been absolutely stunning. The innovation and direction were ground-breaking in a way that little other fiction has likely been during our lifetime.

An analogy would be the movie Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is considered by many to be the greatest movie ever made. Sit down and watch it with someone who enjoys movies but has never seen it. Citizen Kane is a decent film with a decent story, but is hardly a stunning, blow the mind away movie, in any sense. I’m not sure it has aged particularly well, and I suspect a lot of people today find it a rather boring film. But again, that is if we view it without context. Contextually, Citizen Kane is one of the most influential movies ever made. Many have said, rightfully so, that it not only taught Hollywood how to make movies, it taught the audience how to watch movies. Citizen Kane uses nonlinear plot and flashbacks. It uses unique camera angles and closeups and shadow, all in ways that were completely innovative and unheard of for the time. Today, we watch Citizen Kane and it seems sort of ho-hum, because generations of movie makers (and watchers) have been influenced by it. At the time Citizen Kane was revolutionary, and it is in that context that its importance and influence are judged.

While everything is created in some context, the context is not always critical. Some works are timeless and stand fairly well on their own: I think a book like The Count of Monte Cristo or The Hobbit can largely be enjoyed (or disliked) by someone without appreciation of when and under what circumstances it was written (others will disagree). Other works are best appreciated with respect to context. The Jazz Singer is a rather poor film, but as the first “talkie” it killed the silent picture and changed Hollywood. Citizen Kane was arguably even more revolutionary, although in somewhat subtler ways. And it is with a consideration of context, that the importance and value of Neuromancer can be judged.

I'm not trying to claim that Neuromancer is as important or ground breaking as Citizen Kane. Neuormancer was likely not the first novel to explore the themes and concepts that it did, but it popularized a way of thinking about the role and future of computers and computer networks like no other novel has since. The word “cyberspace” was popularized by this novel (although original coined by Gibson in an earlier short story) and Neuromancer has had both direct and indirect influence on all social cybernetworks and games (e.g., World of Warcraft or Second Life).

If you newly read Neuromancer, you may or may not enjoy it (as I already stated, I’m finding it to be rather middle-of-the-road overall), but you certainly will not understand its importance or influence (for better or worse), without some consideration of context.

I just posted to the "Other works" thread but I think this could work in response to this:

Shannon wrote: "This was a book I had to read for a course at uni. I never finished it. This is the book that scared me off science fiction....

So, I didn't get it either but then I borrowed IDORU on CD and the storyteller did such an excellent job reading it that I understood what was going on AND I loved it! I doubt I would have if I had read the thing myself. So I'm waiting for the library to ILL my copy of Neuromancer and I will give reading it another shot, now that I have the cadence/flow of Gibson in my head. Maybe try the book on CD?

That's an interesting idea Zen, I wouldn't have thought it would be better but perhaps with tone and inflection etc., it comes to life more? I haven't seen the audio book version around anywhere though. Maybe the public library...

Ah, Michael, I recall logging onto the Ladysmith BBS around 1993. Its interface was entirely text-based and its server could handle 1-3 users at a time. I didn't read Neuromancer until years later, but even then the book felt futuristic. I suppose that kids of today would find "cyberspace" lame at best, but it still chimes in my ears.

Thomas wrote: "Ah, Michael, I recall logging onto the Ladysmith BBS around 1993. Its interface was entirely text-based and its server could handle 1-3 users at a time. I didn't read Neuromancer until years later,..."

Ah, the memories this brings back. I helped run a BBS in the early 90s. I also used e-mail and read newsgroups via the DEC mainframe at college in the mid to late 80s. Remember Compuserve? Yep, I did that to. I even did some stuff with amateur radio called packet where you could transmit files and psuedo e-mail via public radio frequencies. I still play a text based game online that reminds me of the old BBS days.

We've come such a long ways and take "cyberspace" for granted. :)

We have come so far & it is so worth it. About the time Neuromancer came out, the only computer I played with was my BIL's Timex Sinclair that took 15 minutes to load 'Lunar Lander' off a reel tape & had the big, 16k memory expansion pack.

Remember CompuServe & GEnie? I was an admin on the latter in the late 80's until around 92 or 93 - I think they shut down then. GE made it a lot cheaper to use after 6pm & before 8am because it was generating a little money during their off hours. It died about when the WWW was available, but gave us Internet access a few years before that.

I think the worst thing was the limited, single tasking. Unless you had a special program, you downloaded a file OR did something else - never both. At 300 baud, you could read text faster than the connection could scroll it. 'Gopher' & 'Archie' were searches to use to find sites. Everything was text based. Mosaic was the first GUI browser for Windows 3.1 - you could actually task switch (occasionally, if all went well) & come back to the 'browser'. Very innovative. I am so glad those days are gone.

The difference between computing 20 years ago & now is huge. Will it be even more different in another 20 years? Plugging directly into the net would be so cool. Dangerous & scary on many levels.

There's already a huge divide between those who use computers & those who don't. Will they be able to even live together in 20 years?

Sherri wrote: "Jim, you're walking me down memory lane..."

Yeah, there have been a ton of changes. My grandmother was born in 1913 without running water or electric. When she died in 1998, she was playing video tapes on her 29" TV.

My mother was 13 when her family got their first TV in 1953. I was 13 when we got our first color TV in 1972. My oldest boy was 11 when the WWW came out.

When I was in 6th grade, I guess about 1970, I had to write a speculative story. I wrote one about a kid who forgot his electronic pen at home & struggled through the school day without it. Lots of problems from not having info to poor handwriting. It wasn't very well done, I'm sure, but the teacher gave me a D- because it was completely unrealistic. Such a thing would NEVER happen! (Are you reading this, Mr. Ellis? You were an idiot! OK, so I hold grudges...)

Future Shock was written in 1970. Alvin Toffler wrote a couple of updates to it, the last in the 90's I believe. If you get a chance, read just the first couple of chapters (you can probably find it as a pdf online). It's absolutely incredible how much the world has changed & is speeding up.

Jumping into the discussion perhaps a bit late, but I just found the group, so forgive me.

I didn't find this book at all hard to read even though I'm not a computer person. I am, however, very visual, and I read this in preparation for a roleplaying game that was going to be set in a cyberpunk-ish world. Up to that point, I'd only read one cyberpunk book (unknowingly), so I read Neuromancer and Snow Crash on recommendation. Or rather, I think it might be more accurate to say that I absorbed them for ambiance. I've since gone back and reread them both multiple times, but I think on that first run through, I didn't really remember the plots much at all afterward, just the images.

I've also found these books susceptible to change based on what I've been thinking about a lot just before I read them. The first time, it was the need to figure out cyberpunk "culture." The second time, I was in linguistic grad school, and while I'm not sure that changed Neuromancer that much, it certainly changed Snow Crash.

(As a side note, I'm looking forward to Joss Whedon's TV series, The Dollhouse, coming out hopefully soon, because the descriptions I've heard sound a lot like concepts I first encountered in Neuromancer, ie meat puppets. It'll be interesting to compare my mental images with what Whedon presents.)

At lunch today I came across a term I couldn't quite place via the context. What does "precis" mean to you? From the context, I think it was like a dossier but I'm not entirely sure.

Sherri wrote: "I'm in the "not finished it yet" group. I've known about it since it first came out, and I appreciate the ideas it puts forth. I've had trouble pushing through to the end because I find I don't c..."

That was my problem. I didn't care about any of the characters. There wasn't anyone likeable in the book.

It's so hard to get through a book when you don't give a crap about the characters isn't it? I had that trouble with A Game of Thrones, among others.

I don't even need to like them, but I need to be interested in them, empathise or sympathise to a degree, and care about what's going to happen to them.

I remember that when I tried to read this years ago, I couldn't even picture the characters in my head, let along care for them!

I got it, but I was pretty bored.

I had the strangest sense of deja vu throughout. Possibly because Gibson tends to recycle ideas, but I also suspect I may have read it twenty years ago. The whole Ninja shooting blind thing was just too familiar. But perhaps he'd used that in a short story previously?

While I agree that this was a foundational book for the cyberpunk subgenre, that doesn't really help it as a book. Time has just passed by his take earlier take on cyberpunk (the contrast with the immersive experience in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash is telling), but how the cyberworld actually evolved has made mincemeat of the book's central conceit. It feels almost as dated as Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men.

So the characters aren't well developed, many elements are so dated they're disconcerting... as far as I can tell, the only thing this book really had going for it is it's laurels. I couldn't recommend it (much like Heinlein's SiaSL, although unlike Ben I'm not sure I'd consider either "great" back in their day, just famous).

PS. As I noted in the "other works" thread, one of the high points of of Neuromancer was his tie-in to Johnny Mnemonic. Anyone else get a kick out of that? (Had the theft of the bust/terminal been in yet another short story, or was that my deja vu kicking in?)

I agree that technophiles would gravitate toward this book and considering the 80's was the decade that saw the introduction of personal computers and the ability of the common man to access the internet, that was probably his target audience, as many of us working in the new technologies were fairly young. I read the book back in the late 80's and loved it. I took it to the telephone switchroom where I worked and passed it around to the others I worked with, they liked it as well. Having worked on computers since the mid 70's, we all thought it was a very visually discriptive story based terms that we could understand.

don't worry you're not alone, I didn't get it either (but then again I couldn't even get past the first page...)

It wasn't anything to do with the subject matter for me, it was just the writing style. Just really vague and awful. I've read quite a lot of sci-fi and loved a lot of it, but Neuromancer is just garbage in literary terms. Just incomprehensible.

I think maybe what a lot of people reading this book for the first time now can't get is how cutting edge Gibson was when this story first came out. Also, Gibson writes for a very narrow sub-genre of "sci-fi". So for non-technofiles or hardcore computer "geeks", his writing is oftentimes confusing and disorienting.

He actually coined a few computer terms that people use today. "Cyberspace" was first mentioned in Burning Chrome, but it was his repeated use in Neuromancer that made it popular.

This is also the first book in the Sprawl Triology, which is why you may feel that he rehashes the same story (Mona Lisa Overdrive and Count Zero are the other two).

I fail to understand why in Neuromancer,(view spoiler)[Neuromancer, the twin AI of Wintermute, resists Case and tries to kill him? Is it only Wintermute's wish to unite with Neuromancer? And how does Molly get lost in the matrix? Also, why does Wintermute need both Case and Molly to hate the different people they hate, in order to complete the fusion - what purpose does that hatred serve? And what is so terrible with Wintermute and euromancer fusing that the whole Turing police is so keen to stop it? (hide spoiler)]