This novel is unlike any that I have read before. I was confused, am still confused and will be confused, but I think that might be the point. I just wanted to add that the first image on page 3 hooked me and kept me reading all the way through. I love that idea and I think it fits so well with our discussion of what is cyberpunk.

I've just read the first few pages of Neuromancer. I'm reading it in between getting dinner ready. So far, I like that there's a lot of conversation (that always keeps me interested). I'm confused, but I'm only on the first few pages.

i've just started the second section and i'm still undecided as to how i feel. i mentioned this in my blog already, but for some reason i'm having a tough time getting a visual in my head as i read--like i can't quite picture the characters and haven't found a way to identify with any of them or really care about them. Thus far my impression is that the world is in a state in which technology has developed and advanced past the point of improvement, and has corrupted society. All of the characters seem to just be trying to survive, preserve their bodies and even add features to make themselves less human. Likewise, they don't seem to make emotional connections to one another. These are just first impressions. Obviously i have a lot left to read.

Meg: I am also having trouble with the visuals and with all of the unfamilar terminology as well. Maybe this was somewhat intentional on Gibson's part, especially if this book is an indictment of life in the future and the obsession with technology. Interestingly, this was written in 1984, and yet it seems so relevant to today's culture.

Meg I totally agree about the lack of connection ( if you read my blog on the Ning I also expressed that it was hard to relate to the characters) I also agree with AMckenney (sorry, I don't know your first name yet) about it being intentional. I think it is an interesting thought that we always talk about the internet creating connectivity, but Gibson creates a world in which the connection proves to be artificial.
To use a highly academic source..... I just watched Wall E (the new Disney movie... for those without children). That movie has a similar idea in the lack of true connection that occurs with technology. The humans are on a ship in space sitting in hover chairs talking to one another on screens not face to face. The don't touch... robots do everything for them. Anyway, it is just another view on technology removing us from true connections with others even though we can constantly be "connected"
This class might actually be a small example of that. We will all be connected in a way... but never have true contact.

Check out this wikipedia site about Neuromancer. Given the discussion about our collective confusion, I think the glossary section is particularly helpful!
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer )

Rebecca - I love what you say about the whole connectivity through the internet, and Gibson's version of it... Think about our "connection" through the ning and this wiki for the class - how "real" could any connection via internet truly be? I like faces to go with names - ya know?

On the topic of movies - Neuromancer, the movie, is slated to come out in 2009. I don't think I will pay $9 to see it, but it would be so interesting to see someone else's physical interpretation. Because, like most of you said, I, too, had so much trouble getting any image in my mind of what was happening. I wanted there to be a map somewhere.

Mandy - great suggestion about the wikipedia site - thanks!

Laura,

It's interesting that a movie is being made. I also really like Rebecca's comparison of our class format to the book. I get a similar feeling from both, of confusion or of not quite understanding what's going on around me and not being able to slow it down. I think the book is written in such a way as to reinforce these feelings. Its like their environment is a place of noise, flashing lights, traffic, and general chaos - sort of like constantly being inside one of the arcades described. The lack of emotional attachment and the use of the people as cogs in the corporate machine reinforces the arcade image, as if they are players in a video game. Sort of like they view dying as 'Game Over'.

While reading this novel I can't help but think about how extraordinary it is that this book was written before the didgital age we are in now. In so many parts I find myself picturing the World Wide Web of today, even though it did not exist when the book was written. I wonder if Neuromancer contributed to any of the technology we have today. Gibson must have had a great imagination and concept about where technology was headed at the time he wrote this book.

Rebecca, i completely agree with you--the lack of connection was bothersome to me for the first portion of the book, but i noted in my blog as i got further along that the intentional aspect became clearer to me. i appreciate that--it just made it difficult for me to love the book. There are tons of things i liked about it, but that disconnect affected my relationship with the text.

So funny you also mentioned Wall E. i read all about it and couldn't wait to see it. i just got back from the theater. it was my son's second movie theater movie in his life and, likewise, the 2nd pixar film he's ever seen and he was completely traumatized. i loved what i saw and, for 30 seconds was the worst mama in the world as i tried to convince my 3 year old to stay when he asked to leave. i did realize that preserving my son's psychological well-being is worth waiting for it to come out on DVD. i loved the messages about consumerism, recycling, technology, etc.,

Lauren,

I totally agree with you! It blows my mind that Gibson was so revolutionary. Wait, I don't think I can say that because I don't know if anyone else wrote books about this type of technology before him. Needless to say, it took me a few days of speaking to my tekkie friends (none of which had ever read the book and that was interesting to me) and asking a million questions about all the aspects of the book that I didn't understand to finally begin to materialize in my brain what was going on in the book. I got the basic story, but part three threw me for the loop. The artificial intelligence and matrix aspects of the book confused me but it's because I don't really know anything about highly technological things like that. A friend of mine came in for my wedding reception today and explained the whole movie The Matrix to me and I feel like I have a much better handle on the book now. THANKFULLY!! I didn't hate the book even though I didn't get it, but I was thoroughly confused. I think technological movies and books are interesting, but I feel like they take so much work from me as a reader because I have little background knowledge on the topics.

Hi Everybody,

Sorry about being such a lousy member of the class so far. I'm still trying to work out how to get to various computers to participate and I think I have things worked out. I agree with what everybody has said so far about this being a difficult read. I really had to slow down a lot and continually reference back or completely re-read passages once I started to "get it". I finsinshed the book last night and was perplexed by the ending but recognized that this is a modern masterpiece, albeit flawed, but then again what book isn't? There are so many ideas and themes in this book that I don't really know what's most important to discuss. I think I was most moved by the character Dix who just wants to die. This reminds me of the myth of Tithonus or the Sybil at Cumae who both wish for immortality without wishing as well for immortal youth-- or the ancient Chinese proverb, "may all your wishes be granted."
(to be continued)

Tessier and Ashpool attempt to immortalize their "clan" through cryrogenics and AI but in then end, they want to be released, just like Wintermute. I think that the desire for immortality, or power, often becomes confused with the real desire for love, happiness, and transcendence. In the last paragraph of the book, when Case sees Neuromance, Linda, and himself, "arm across her shoulder", on the beach, we see a little bit of the human soul behind the matrix. Although I didn't quite grasp all the implications of this scene, I felt as if this book really ends up being more about human relationships than about computer systems. Case puts his own ass on the line to save Molly (wow, the movie the Matrix really rips this book off) and the AI's make good on their promises to both Case and Dix. Strange, but for such an inhuman type of world as this book describes, the main characters come off as being quite human, in the best sense of the word. As Dix's laugh that wasn't laughter echoes close to Case, and Molly is gone for good, Neuromancer, the high tech Cyberpunk novel, is brought down to earth with the same age old themes that we find in all good literature--life, death, love, and loss.

I've been thinking about Neuromancer a lot today, and I have some questions which maybe other people could weigh in on.

-Why does Wintermute want Case to hate something so badly? Do you think Wintermute wants to vicariously "feel" something because "it" isn't human? Or is Wintermute just spurring Case toward his goal--using him so to speak.

-Why exactly did Ashpool kill Marie-France? We know that Marie-France wanted Tessier-Ashpool to be immortalized in a symbiotic relationship with the AIs, but what was Ashpool's alternative vision? Cyrogenics? Natural death? Was Marie-France's vision enlightened or distorted considering Dixie's take on being a conciousness without a body?

-Neuromancer seems to be Marie-Frances' brain child--custodian of the unfinished land of the dead. Is this a little like the afterlife? What are the religious implications here?

-Wintermute seems like a sympathetic character for the most part--except that it murders and uses people to accomplish it's own ends. At the end of the book, it seems like some kind of enlightened conciousness that's made conncections with other conciousnesses across the galaxy. Does anyone find its amorality disturbing? "Things are things".

-What is this book saying about addiciton? Are there any characters in the book who are healthy and sane?

-Sex and Sexuality play a large role in this book. All the sexual scenes are either violent or simply void of love.
And then there's Wintermute and Neuromancer, united in a cybersexual way at the end of the book. Is Wintermute male and Neuromancer female? Why is Neuromancer characterized as a boy?

-Why is Neuromancer trying to stop Wintermute? What is he afraid of?

-Are the Rastas fairly characterized? They seem to be the voice of skeptecism toward technology, but does Gibson stereotype them?

-Is Gibson critiquing capitalism when describing the corporate machine of T.A. Is all the madness in this world a result of corporate greed gone amock?

-How about the ninja's? What a great throwback to the 80's! Is Neuromancer more of a social commentary on the early 80's than on an imagined future?

-Is "Neuromancer" the secret word?

Jonathan,

I noticed that as well, all of the sexual scenes are viod of love. I think the void of love in these situations completely goes along with the test of the book and the ideas that Gibson has. Humans in this book seem to lack love and actually any emotion at all. I think that just supports the technologically enhanced world that this book describes...robots/machines have no emotions.

Hi Jonathan,

I, too, feel that I have not been the greatest student in this class so far. And it gives me a guilty sense of satisfaction that someone can join me in feeling that way, so thanks. I have been thinking about the questions that you posed, and I’d like to offer some opinions on some of them. Just opinions - maybe completely off base. I’d be interested to hear your reactions as well.

-“Why does Wintermute want Case to hate something so badly?”
It is an interesting idea, Wintermute feeling vicariously, and you may have something there. My take is that it (Wintermute) thought only analytically, and had determined that the only way to spur a human to act was to provoke his feelings of hate and rage. He seemed to be correct until Case decided to go back for Molly. I think his decision to do so proved that it was his connection to another human being that led him to complete the mission, not hate.

-“Why exactly did Ashpool kill Marie-France?”
I was really confused about this. I roughly understand that Ashpool and Marie-France had conflicting ideas about the future of the clan, that Ashpool seemed to be a proponent of the cryogenics method. But originally I thought the cryogenics trick was Marie-France’s idea, when on page 209 3Jane says, “She dreamed of a state involving very little in the way of individual consciousness.” But when I thought more about this, I realized that cryogenics would result in nothing but individual consciousness, or more accurately, no consciousness at all. I think Marie-France’s approach was for the family to become part of the AIs. I think she envisioned their collective knowledge and history becoming data in these and losing their physical bodies altogether. In my mind, and maybe Marie-France’s, this would make them like gods themselves. Ironically, Wintermute only wants to become a part of something bigger, rather than absorbing the clan’s wasp nest-like existence.

-“Does anyone find its amorality disturbing? "Things are things".”
Very disturbing. Not to start a big religious debate, but this is what has always troubled me about the Christian idea of God. On the one hand he is loving and supportive of every person on earth, yet he lays waste to huge numbers of people throughout the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Religious figures will often say that we are not supposed to understand the motivation of God. I think the character of Wintermute echoes this idea. Yes, Case wants to save Molly, but he doesn’t have to go ahead and finish the mission. But he does, not really knowing what was going to happen as a result of his actions. In a sense, God told him to do it, so he did.

-“What is this book saying about addiciton? Are there any characters in the book who are healthy and sane?”
The use of drugs and addiction throughout the book really intrigued me. People in their society are constantly undergoing horrific surgical procedures, yet they don’t discuss pain or fear, I think because they have become so dependent on drugs that they no longer really experience pain or fear. I made an analogy in a discussion on ning comparing the people in this society to characters in a video game. They live superficially, focusing on material things rather than personal connections, and they don’t really value human life. So how does this tie in with the constant drug use? The whole point of drugs is to make one feel something, or feel nothing at all. These people, in my opinion, are like zombies, and that’s exactly what they want – to feel something or to feel nothing, similar to Dix’s desire to die. He doesn’t want to exist in this semi-alive state. Molly tries to achieve feeling something through violent combat – again like a video game. The book really illuminates the mind’s desire to continue addictive behavior, even when the physical desire is alleviated. Linda still looks for drugs even after she is dead, or a construct like Dix. And Case – wow, this part really pissed me off – goes right back to drug use and in fact spends a large portion of his payment on replacing the bypassing organs with ones that can actually feel drugs, so he can go right back to using the drugs, and spending more of his money on them! I see this as evidence of how embedded into society the drugs have become. Case is returning himself to normal, improved even, by making himself again able to enjoy the drugs. Crazy.

I welcome feedback on these ideas from any of you guys and gals out there.

So, I was standing on my deck reading your posting on my Blackberry just now and looking at the wasp nest on the eave of my house and I got to thinking about the wasp nest discussed in the novel. I thought I'd hop online quick and respond to your answers to Jonathan's posed questions. I really think you've made a great connection between the wasp nest and the Aspool clan. They did seem like they were working together and keeping their secrets to themselves. They seemed like a pretty tight-knit unit, much like the wasp nest I was just looking at. I also thought that the idea of cryogenics was interesting and kind of coincided with your thoughts about them wanting to become part of the AI's. From what I understand of the movie, The Matrix, people are being moved about in the unconscious. If the Ashpools became part of the AI's, they could be doing so even during their frozen state, right? I may have this all wrong, but I'm trying to make connections to further my understanding of this cyberpunk idea.

I also agree with your assertions about Wintermute's botched plan to get Case. I do agree that some sort of love pushed Case and not just rage. However, I do believe that rage is one way to get things done.

Wintermute echnoing the idea of Christianity/religious figures was very interesting. It definitely does not want humans (or anyone for that matter) to have a clear understanding of his motives/role because I'm sure it wants to maintain a level of control to ensure its continual existence. If questions are asked, then things can be tried to overrun his power.

Rachel,

Your discussion of addiction and drugs was also very interesting. Your thoughts really made me think much more deeply about the book. I like that you pointed out that drugs help some people feel "something" and other to feel "nothing at all". That's interesting. Some people want a euphoric feeling or a high and others just want to numb the pain. Which do you think Case was looking for? Was he trying to numb his feelings about Linda's death? Was he just trying to feel happy in a life that doesn't bring him any satisfaction? Or, is he satisfied by his job and just addicted to drugs?

Yeah, good question. I think Case was looking for both euphoria and numbness, or whatever he could get. And I don't think he even thought of it in those terms, but just pursued what was considered a human right in their society - the right to do drugs.

When you think about it, what did Case's efforts really get him? Early in the book he described residents of the Strand as if they were a bunch of mindless cattle, but in the end he joined them. So he ends up able to abuse the original drugs he was abusing, in a slightly better home/neighborhood/career, and with a girl very much like the first girl, that he seems to care about just as much (not much at all). He is safe from being killed by pimps and drug dealers, but he is also lacking in the little bit of human interaction those relationships afforded him. So after completing this dangerous mission for this godlike intelligence, how is he any better off? And to me the real question is, in this society they have created, is there really any better off at all?

Rachel,

You ask a really important question here--whether Case is better off at the end of the book. I don't think this question can really be answered for sure, but I think he is, if only slightly. The fact that he decides to go back to the Sprawl, of his own volition this time, leads me to believe that he's made a choice in his life, and he's doing the best he can, which is all any of us can do. He finds work, he finds companionship, and we would assume, continues doing what he knows how to do. I don't know how much better Case can do. When he says, "I don't need you" (270), in reference to Molly I'm assuming, but I think to his addictions in general, he's clearly in denial, but I think he knows it. He's on the verge of change, but doesn't quite make it. We can hope that he will change for the better, and that society will change for the better, but the reality is that change does not come easily. I think the final message of the book is that even in this most distorted of futures, the human desire to connect, to love, and to find meaning cannot be destroyed. Case might be incapable of real love, but I think that he wants it anyway. The scene on the beach on the last page of the book, the eerie laugh of Dixie, and the line "He never saw Molly again", reflects his longing for love and human companionship which, ironically, he never seems satisfied with once he has it. I guess this is the human condition.

I think this may be my first post on the wiki, as for some reason I thought I was here and I actually wasn't. Yeah, I'm a technological genius.
All of the quotes above portray how most descriptions in the novel. Gibson describes still life as though it is alive, technology as if it is human, humans as though they are computers. The similes, metaphors, and descriptions in this novel are unique and beautiful. The second and third quote above both describe a type of Darwinism. The first is a social Darwinism, in which humans must hustle to survive. The third quote deals with technological Darwinism, where the strongest technologies survive and make it to the outside world.
I'd also like to respond to Jonathan's question -"What is this book saying about addiciton? Are there any characters in the book who are healthy and sane?". I enjoyed how drug use was portrayed in this book. Although I would never like to see it reach quite that state in reality, I feel as though Gibson just shows us a future in which drugs are used as they are now but with much greater frequency. Drugs are a TOOL the characters use to achieve their goals. They are an easy fix. Everybody has their drug. One little description that really struck me in Neuromancer was a man who couldn't get off unless he was betraying the women who loved him, and he may have loved. That was his fix.
The awful consequences of drug use weren't explored because that was not the focus of this book. Just the technical problems, like kidney or liver failure, are discussed. And no, I don't believe there are any character's in the book who are both healthy and sane. It seems like one could not live in this world and be sane, at least by our standards. Many people have been damaged or numbed by their experiences. There is not enough value for life.

Jonathan,
I liked your question about the relationship between Wintermute and Neuromancer before they "merged." I got the impression that they were two AIs built by the same family for the same general functions, and yet Neuromancer was actively trying to stop the progress of Case and Co. towards giving both AIs more power. I found his interference interesting, although I can't quite dig out the meaning that I would like to from it. If it would give him more power, why would he not, like Wintermute, jump at the chance for it?
And aside from the obvious plot point there, what subliminal messgae is Gibson sending readers about the nature of power and merger through the Neuromancer? I can't help but feel that there is more here than meets the eye - after all, the book is called Neuromancer, and not Wintermute. But I can't quite work it out for myself. Anybody wanna help?

Rachel,

I think the passage on the top of 269 (at least in my paper back copy) is particularly illuminating, although like you said, I can't quite dig out the meaning I would like from it.

"Wintermute was hive mind, decision maker, effecting change in the world outside. Neuromancer was personality. Neuromancer was immortality. Marie-France must have built something into Wintermute, the compulsion that had driven the thing to free itself, to unite with Neuromancer" (269).

I think this might be reflective of a certain dualism, although it certainly is confusing. Is this duality mind/body, male/female, Appollonian/ Dyonesian, yin/yang? We must assume that Gibson had this all worked out in his head but he doesn't make it clear to the reader. Maybe this is because we are kind of in Case's shoes, figuring this all out as we go along. I think there is a certain static and dynamic principle at work that is reflective of the way society evolves: those who maintain tradition and the status quo (providing stability) and those who push things forward (providing progress). Wintermute was built in with a "compulsion" to free itself-- the social and political message of this is quite apparent, but there is also a biological principle at work here. There is also the idea that things in general are defined by their opposites, and that sometimes an opposite is a pre-condition for the emergence of its corollary--like in Buhddism, where suffering is a necessary requirement for enlightenment and release from suffering.

As far as why the book is called Neuromancer, I think it's because "Neuromancer" ends up being the solution to the mystery that the entire book rests upon. "Neuromancer" I believe is the secret word that Wintermute cannot know, even though it isn't dramatized for obvious dramatic effect, making us try to figure things out just like the characters in the book. Neuromancer, as he describes it, means "Neuro from the nerves, the silver paths. Romancer. Necromancer. I call up the dead" (244). He represents the human desire for immortality, and consequently, one of the main philosophical quesitons of the book: If living forever one day becomes possible for human beings, is it desireable? I think Gibson leaves this question open ended, which is a great testament to the structure of the novel.