Pattern Recognition (William Gibson)

devilchicken · Tweet this Post! #1 08-18-2006, 08:44 AM

No sir, I didn't like it.
All Gibsons early novels (specifically, the first three) had a pretty deep exploration of the way in which globalisation and information technology impact the human experience. He seems to have abandoned that lately - his newer books don't have the same multi-layeredness.

Pattern Recognition is essentially a paint by numbers suspense thriller. Vague references to 9/11 and the main character's unexplained 'allergy' to corporate branding. There's a story - just not many ideas going on to think about.

Doc · Tweet this Post! #2 08-18-2006, 05:13 PM

I gave up on Gibson early on. His early work was brilliant and unlike anything else I had ever read. Now he seems to be doing novels that would have cover blurbs reading "Imagine William Gibson writing noir..." of something of the sort.

devilchicken · Tweet this Post! #3 08-19-2006, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc

I gave up on Gibson early on. His early work was brilliant and unlike anything else I had ever read. Now he seems to be doing novels that would have cover blurbs reading "Imagine William Gibson writing noir..." of something of the sort.

Judging by his output he's an extremely slow writer (I can relate) - but that makes it all the more disappointing that his later novels are relatively flat in comparison to the older ones.

Don't get me wrong though - Idoru and Virtual Light had some pretty good ideas about internet subcultures and modes of expression.

These days he just seems to be telling a basic paint-by-numbers story, which is ok if that's what you want to read. I guess I hold him to higher expectations based on his previous work. I always thought writers were supposed to get better, the more they write - I guess that just isn't true.

Doc · Tweet this Post! #4 08-19-2006, 06:59 AM

I agree with you. Gibson is still better than many writers; his later work just suffers by comparison to his early stuff. Having said that, he has certainly earned the credibility to try whatever he wants to try as a writer, despite the results or lukewarm reception. People will still be talking about Burning Chrome and Nueromancer in 50 years. After all, those are two hard acts to follow!

I'm trying to think of a parallel...
Rick Moody comes to mind as someone who started out with his best work and seems to have gotten progressively less interesting, even though his worst work is better than most authors' best.

In stock (and schock) fantasy, Robert Jordan may be a good parallel, although I would argue that Nueromancer is far, far more impressive than any part of the Wheel of Time series, and Gibson works with far more interesting and far less derivative ideas.

devilchicken · Tweet this Post! #5 08-19-2006, 07:35 AM

Absolutely - which reminds me of a quote of Mikes once - where he said that he has always strived to better himself as a writer, tackling different ideas and increasingly complex forms.

How much of this has Gibson really done, I wonder. Which makes you think, how much fun can it be to write something derivative, when you have already created a complex, interesting work?

I'm inclined to think that for Gibson, it has become simply about the money.

johneffay · Tweet this Post! #6 08-19-2006, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc

I'm trying to think of a parallel...

Tolkien produced a really good, nicely paced, children's book; followed it up with a three volume epic full of turgid prose and dreadful poetry which could happily have been edited down to 200 pages; then disappeared up his own bottom with The Silmarillion

devilchicken · Tweet this Post! #7 08-19-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johneffay

Tolkien produced a really good, nicely paced, children's book; followed it up with a three volume epic full of turgid prose and dreadful poetry which could happily have been edited down to 200 pages; then disappeared up his own bottom with The Silmarillion

As a kid I enjoyed both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, but I find a lot wrong with LOTR specifically these days. I like the way the language gets imperceptably darker towards the end, but in terms of pacing - Treebeard was incredibly tedious (70+ pages where the story stops - to talk about a fcuking talking tree) and one the first occasion I tried to read the book, that chapter stopped me entirely.

I still respect the book, and the work that went into it - but writers such as Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, Mike M and M. John Harrison are far superior IMO.

Doc · Tweet this Post! #8 08-19-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johneffay

Tolkien produced a really good, nicely paced, children's book; followed it up with a three volume epic full of turgid prose and dreadful poetry which could happily have been edited down to 200 pages; then disappeared up his own bottom with The Silmarillion

By the way, DC, I, too, think it is about the money. Shocking

devilchicken · Tweet this Post! #9 08-19-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc

By the way, DC, I, too, think it is about the money. Shocking

Did you ever find Gibsons stuff difficult to recall after you'd read it?

I can read a whole chapter of Neuromancer and later remember little of anything about what I'd read. It's almost as though your eye slides off the text.

Might just be me.

I really hope Gibsons next book is more original.